[Senate Hearing 117-550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-550
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 2, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
50-356PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 2, 2022
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 4
WITNESS
Buttigieg, Hon. Pete, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Preventive Maintenance Eligibility - Preservation - Federal
Highway Administration, October 8, 2004........................ 17
Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
Approach, Federal Highway Administration....................... 19
Memorandum on Guidance on Highway Preservation and Maintenance,
Federal Highway Administration, February 25, 2016.............. 29
Section 150, Title 23, U.S. Code, National goals and performance
management measures............................................ 32
Letter to Stephanie Pollack, Deputy Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration, from the:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, January 19, 2022................................ 59
Associated General Contractors, January 6, 2021.............. 63
American Highway Users Alliance, February 10, 2022........... 65
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, February 8, 2020.. 71
Portland Cement Association, February 14, 2022............... 74
South Carolina Department of Transportation, January 12, 2022 78
Texas Department of Transportation, February 11, 2022........ 84
Comments of the Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to the Federal Highway
Administration, February 9, 2022............................... 90
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, March 16, 2022........................ 95
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the Outdoor Recreation
Roundtable, March 3, 2022...................................... 110
Statement of the National League of Cities, March 2, 2022........ 112
Letter to Secretary Buttigieg from:
Senator Capito et. al, February 18, 2022..................... 122
Senator Cramer et. al, February 18, 2022..................... 126
Senator Joe Manchin III et. al, February 18, 2022............ 129
Letters to Senator Joe Manchin III et al. from Secretary
Buttigieg, February 28, 2022................................... 132
Republican statements............................................ 141
Climate Change 2022, Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for
Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change........ 143
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT BY THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Merkley, Markey, Duckworth, Stabenow, Kelly, Padilla, Cramer,
Lummis, Wicker, Sullivan, and Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. I am happy to join
Senator Capito and our colleagues and welcome everyone to our
hearing this morning.
I especially want to let the Secretary know how grateful we
are that you worked us into your schedule. I know you have a
lot of demands on your time. We are really pleased that you
could be with us this morning for us to hear from you, and for
you to hear from us, as well. We are grateful. Trying to do
your job on the heels of an infrastructure package that is
monumental and trying to raise a young family, you are a busy
man. Welcome.
Now to the topic of today's hearing, that is the
implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This law
represents the single largest investment in our Nation's
history with respect to our roads and bridges, I think, since
the construction of the Interstate Highway System almost three-
quarters of a century ago. This is a historic win for the
American people in red States and blue States and throughout
the United States.
As we discuss this bipartisan success story, I think it is
important to acknowledge the significant role that our
Committee played in drafting this legislation. Last May, after
months of hard work, our Committee unanimously reported out a
surface transportation reauthorization bill by a vote of 20 to
zero.
Before that happened, some of you know that a new President
just went into office and asked me to pull together a small
group of Democrats and Republicans off this Committee to
discuss the need for infrastructure legislation, roads,
highways, bridges, as well as water, wastewater, flood control.
It turned out that a week or so after that, Senator Capito,
Senator Cardin, Senator Inhofe, and I joined the President, and
you joined us remotely, Mr. Secretary. Kamala Harris, our Vice
President, was there in person. And the President called for
us, as a Committee that is known to work together on
legislation, to actually try to enact bipartisan legislation
that focused on infrastructure. That is what we set to work to
do.
Senator Inhofe is not here with us today. He is back home
with his wife, Kay. We are thinking of them today. He is the
longest serving current member of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. I think he joined this Committee back in 1995,
right in the middle of my first term as Governor. He served as
our Chairman from 2003 to 2006, and was the Ranking Member from
2007 to 2013. He is someone that we look to for leadership on
these issues. We are sending our best to him and his wife, Kay,
today.
Now to the topic of today's hearing, Implementation of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. As we discuss this
success story, I think it is important to acknowledge the
significant role that our Committee played in drafting that
legislation. We passed unanimously out of this Committee
legislation on surface transportation. We did that, beating the
deadline that the President set for us by a month or so. We
reported it out unanimously 20 to zero, after we reported out
unanimously, 20 to zero, water infrastructure legislation.
Our bills went on to serve as the foundation for what would
become a broader bipartisan infrastructure package. Senator
Capito then became, before we had a gang of 20, or a gang of
19, we had a gang of one. She and the President spent days
together, weeks together, trying hard to hammer out a
bipartisan compromise, which really laid the groundwork for
what would actually become the legislation that we passed in
the Senate, passed in the House, and the President signed into
law.
Senator Capito and I had the privilege of managing that
historic package on the Senate floor. We stood together on the
White House lawn that cold day in November when President Biden
signed it into law. I thought it was so cool, we will just say,
the President is here, he walks out of the White House, and he
is standing at the podium to address about a thousand or so of
us on the White House lawn.
Three of us, Senator Capito, Senator Manchin, and I, three
West Virginia kids, who ended up helping to craft the
legislation and managed it on the floor were there with the
President when he signed it into law. It was a very special
day.
As we drafted and negotiated the bill, I had several top
priorities in mind. They included enhancing the sustainability
and resilience of our transportation systems; improving safety,
especially for pedestrians and bicyclists; as well as
addressing the backlog of repairs for roads and bridges in poor
condition throughout our Nation.
That is why I am pleased to see this Administration
encouraging States to use Federal highway funds to prioritize
these same goals. Notice I said encourage; underline that.
Encourage, not require. And as a recovering Governor, I never
like for the Federal Government to require us to do a lot of
stuff. But encouragement, we are always ready to listen to
that. And that is an important distinction that we need to make
today.
To me, advancing these goals is common sense. And as it
turns out, many States agree. The American Association of State
Highways and Transportation Officials, whom Senator Capito and
I addressed earlier today, declared that States very much share
the Administration's priorities of addressing climate change,
safety, and roadway maintenance.
This should not come as a surprise. We know that the
transportation sector accounts for the largest source of
greenhouse emissions in our economy; something like 30 percent
of carbon dioxide emissions are from cars, trucks, vans; about
28 percent comes from our power plants. Another 25 percent or
so comes from our manufacturing operations, cement plants,
steel mills and that sort of thing.
But meeting our shared climate goals also requires us to
prioritize projects that reduce emissions and boost resilience.
That is why we included the first ever climate title as part of
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In addition to our $18
billion climate title, we also secured $5 billion to build a
national electric vehicle charging network, as well as funding
to purchase electric transit in school buses, too. When we look
at the need to address safety on our roads, that is pretty
clear. And it provides a clear, yet alarming picture.
The first 9 months of 2021, U.S. traffic deaths rose to the
highest number since 2006, with fatalities of pedestrians and
bicyclists at a 30 year high. Let me say that again, a 30 year
high. To reverse this troubling trend, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law makes significant investments in roadway
safety, especially for our more vulnerable road users. Bike
lanes and sidewalks not only benefit the safety of people who
use them, but also are good for our health, our economy, and
our planet. Encouraging agencies to build them is a win-win.
And I applaud the Administration for emphasizing safety for all
road users as part of its national roadway safety strategy.
As a runner, I know our witness here today does a little
running, as an old Navy guy, he stays in shape as a runner. As
someone with a son who is going to be riding a bike from San
Francisco to L.A. later this year to raise some money for a
good cause, this is personally important, too, to our family.
The third point I want to make is when we look at fixing
what is broken, we get to what makes infrastructure personal
for many families. Americans feel the impact of our crumbling
roads and bridges every day when they commute to work or go to
school. Most agree that we should encourage States to fix and
maintain our roads and bridges that are in poor condition.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law largely maintains the
existing, this is an important point, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law that we passed largely maintains the
existing structure of State and local decisionmaking and the
process for distributing highway funding by formula to States.
However, the law also contains an unprecedented increase in
funding for our Nation's surface transportation programs. The
sheer size of this funding leaves no question in my mind that
State and local agencies can both redouble their efforts to
repair our roads, highways, and bridges, and begin to address
safety, sustainability, resilience, and other local priorities.
We have an opportunity, as I like to say, to walk and chew
gum at the same time. Let's do both.
In closing, before I turn to Senator Capito, let me just
say I hope we can all take this opportunity today to celebrate
our transformational bipartisan accomplishment. Too often,
Americans see their elected leaders in Washington picking
partisan battles that don't achieve potential results. But by
enacting this once in a generation investment in our Nation's
infrastructure, our roads, our highways, our bridges, our
water, drinking water, wastewater, flood control, we have
demonstrated that bipartisanship is not only possible, it is
essential.
This new law is already beginning to grow our economy,
creating a ton of additional good paying jobs, and make a
positive impact on a whole lot of lives. It is a major win for
which all of us can be proud, and should be proud. I am, and I
know that other members of this Committee are as well.
That being said, implementation is critical.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, the work ahead of us for you
and your team is immense. We know that you are focused on
ensuring that the American people experience the benefits of
the new law as quickly as possible. We look forward to hearing
your testimony today on the Department's critical work in
putting this money to work for communities across our country.
Before we do that, let me recognize our Ranking Member,
Senator Capito, for her opening remarks. And again, I thank her
and her team for being vital partners in getting this law
enacted. Also, I thank her for showing the way and being,
before there was a gang of 19, a gang of one.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I
think this is going to be a great hearing.
I thank the Chairman for his ongoing commitment to
bipartisan oversight of the implementation of the IIJA.
I am proud to say, as he has said, that the foundation of
the IIJA consists of two of our Committee's bipartisan
products, which were unanimous coming out of this Committee,
the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2021, and the
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021. This
historic legislation proved once again that we can come
together to develop bills that tackle our Nation's pressing
challenges in a manner that reflects input from both of our
parties in a diverse stakeholder community.
I will say in the week that I was home, last week, we were
already starting to see the benefits and the excitement from
counties and cities and regional areas who are going to be able
to really make a difference in a lot of people's lives.
I also want to thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for joining
us today, as well as the staff at the Department of
Transportation for their tireless work to implement the IIJA,
and also for their work in formulating many of these projects,
the visions that are contained within.
As we look at the status of the implementation, it is
important to acknowledge that the Department is constrained in
its efforts by operating under the current Continuing
Resolution. Senators on this Committee, including myself, have
urged our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee--I guess I
am urging myself, because I am on that committee as well--to
take action to ensure that the IIJA be fully implemented as
quickly as possible. Hopefully next week we will have some
resolution, whether through enactment of a final fiscal year
2022 legislative appropriations, or providing anomalies so that
the States can take advantage of the new levels of formula
funding.
Implementation is further compounded, I think, by the still
vacant position of the administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration, the FHWA. I have repeatedly said in this
Committee that a Senate confirmed administrator is critical to
ensuring timely and effective implementation, and would
certainly help the Secretary as well. Chairman Carper and I
sent a letter to the White House on this matter earlier this
year. And I look to considering a qualified nomination for this
position.
As the Committee was developing the Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Act, the Chairman outlined many of those
provisions, I came to the table with several major policy and
funding priorities. And I am proud to see that many of them are
reflected in the final project. I would like to take a minute
to highlight a few of my priorities.
The IIJA provides significant funding levels, $303.5
billion, out of the Highway Trust Fund over 5 years for Federal
highway programs. Ninety percent of that funding is being
distributed by formula, giving States the much needed certainty
to plan and carry out projects to address their unique surface
transportation needs. My home State of West Virginia will
receive over $3 billion.
This legislation also created a $2 billion Rural Surface
Transportation Grant Program that includes dedicated resources
for the Appalachian Development Highway System, the ADHS, and
other critical projects across West Virginia. This dedicated
funding is critical to completing the ADHS, in particular
Corridor H in West Virginia, where I just visited last week,
which will connect the eastern and central parts of our State
with the Metro DC area and open up more opportunities for
economic growth and tourism.
The IIJA also includes numerous project delivery
provisions, including environmental review and permitting
reforms for highway and bridge projects. Notably, it codifies
One Federal Decision which requires agencies to coordinate on a
predictable, joint schedule, and sets a 2 year goal for
completing the environmental review and permitting process for
major projects, which we heard could take previously between 7
to 10 years.
The IIJA also includes a number of policy and funding wins
for my colleagues across both the aisle and up and down the
dais. All of these priorities were addressed in a bipartisan
manner through thoughtful negotiation. Nobody got everything
they wanted. Some priorities were considered and intentionally
excluded over the course of the negotiations.
On December 16th, the FHWA issued a memorandum to staff
entitled Policy on Using Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Resources to Build a Better America, which I found troubling.
The memorandum provides an overarching policy framework to
guide the use of funding in the IIJA in a manner that reflects
the policy priorities of the Biden administration. A number of
these policies run contrary to the compromises that this
Committee made when negotiating the Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Act and seeing it through its enactment.
Specifically, the memorandum seeks to restrict the
flexibility of States and impose a one size fits all solution
to address the surface transportation needs of all communities.
It discourages States from moving forward with projects that
add highway capacity, and instead prioritizes projects that
improve existing surface transportation assets.
The memorandum also, in my view, creates winners and losers
among different types of projects based on their level of
environmental review required by NEPA. It attempts to direct
funding to assets not owned and operated by States' DOTs, and
it focuses on projects that advance the Administration's
priorities regardless of whether these projects meaningfully
address the needs of a particular State or community.
In response to this memorandum, I promptly met with Deputy
Administrator Pollack to express my concerns, and I expressed
them to you yesterday over the phone. Since then, numerous
Senators on both sides of the aisle and the stakeholders have
raised a similar alarm about this memorandum.
Approximately 2 weeks ago, my colleagues and I, including
every Republican on this Committee, sent the Secretary a letter
requesting that this memorandum be rescinded or substantially
revised to demonstrate that the FHWA intends to implement the
IIJA as enacted. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary
on these and other important matters.
I yield back my time.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
I want to mention a couple of things about our Secretary
today. I didn't realize that he is a Rhodes Scholar. I said to
my staff, do you spell that R-O-A-D-S or R-H-O-D-E-S, or----
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. They said, it could be either one.
I asked if he ever spent any time in uniform, and they
said, in fact, he was in the Navy.
As one Navy guy to another, thank you for that service.
I spent some time in Southeast Asia during a big war. Our
witness today spent some time in uniform in Afghanistan during
the conflict there where we had a major presence.
He has served as the mayor of South Bend, which is--how
many people live in South Bend these days? A couple hundred
thousand?
Mr. Buttigieg. About 100,000, yes.
Senator Carper. Jim Inhofe is not with us today, as I said
earlier, he is a former mayor of Tulsa. We have people here who
have been former Governors and mayors. So you ought to feel
very much at home. We are delighted that you are our Secretary
and very much appreciate the opportunity.
The other thing about our witness today is he has
surrounded himself with excellent people in his previous roles,
but also here in his role as Secretary, because he stole about
half my staff, Andrew, and I think a couple of them are here.
We are going to keep them until we get everything we want from
you and your department.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I am just kidding. You got some really good
people, and you know that.
So with that, your testimony this morning will be made part
of the record, and I thank you again for joining us. Mr.
Secretary, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE BUTTIGIEG,
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper,
Ranking Member Capito, members of the Committee. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of
Transportation's ongoing work to implement President Biden's
historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
I would like to begin by thanking you for everything you
did to craft and to pass this urgently needed piece of
legislation. It is a landmark that we believe will stand to the
credit of this Congress and this Administration alike.
As members of the Committee know well, America's
infrastructure fell into a state of disrepair for decades. And
the American people rightly demanded action. We had yet another
blunt reminder of the urgency and need just last month in
Pittsburgh, with the collapse of the Fern Hollow Bridge.
As I have traveled across the country, I have seen supply
chains straining, bridges out of service, and critical
infrastructure destroyed by increasingly frequent climate
disasters. The need for major investment has long been clear,
and now, this President and this Congress have delivered the
means to address that need.
Through this law, we are now in the early stages of a
generational modernization of our infrastructure that will
serve to bolster our economic security and prosperity for
decades to come. The investments now underway will strengthen
our goods movement and supply chains, reduce costs for American
consumers, make it easier and safer for people to get to where
they need to be, help tackle the climate crisis, and create
good paying jobs building bridges, paving roads, electrifying
buses, installing EV chargers, laying track, and so much more.
At DOT, we are working to implement these investments
according to the new law, with a focus on making our Nation's
roads safer; making our transportation systems cleaner, more
accessible, and more resilient to climate impacts; and enabling
all Americans to share in the benefits equitably.
We began our work as soon as the President signed the new
law. In the past 90 days, we have already put forward a total
of $60 billion in authorized funding to States and communities,
and we have opened applications for another $2 billion in
discretionary grant programs.
Our Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, announced the
largest annual apportionment of highway funds in decades, more
than $52 billion for States to repair and rebuild our roads,
bridges, and highways, making them safer and more resilient.
With regard to Federal aid highway funding, I want to pause
and emphasize the importance of the relationship between our
department and our State partners, because I know that has been
of particular interest to members of this Committee. I want to
make clear that we recognize and value the role of the States
in deciding how to prioritize the use of formula dollars, as
laid out in the law.
Different States and communities have different needs when
it comes to transportation assets that have to be reconfigured
and modernized, expanded and added, or retired and replaced, as
appropriate. And we look forward to our continued support of
State transportation departments as they undertake this work.
And I am proud to affirm the virtues of what so many
States, from Alabama, to Virginia, to my home State of Indiana,
and many more, have been doing to focus on repairing the vital
infrastructure we already have. That philosophy is something we
at DOT share with State leaders across the country, Republicans
and Democrats alike, who are working to repair, maintain, and
modernize the roads, bridges, and other transportation
infrastructure that their residents count on every day.
Maintaining and improving our existing infrastructure is
critical to building a better, cleaner, more modern
transportation system, and now we can bring new resources and
energy to this work. FHWA recently launched our new Bridge
Formula Program, the single largest dedicated bridge investment
since the creation of the Interstate Highway System, with more
than $26 billion to repair and replace our bridges, so we can
avoid devastating collapses and closures like the one we saw
recently.
We have established a Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation with the Department of Energy, followed by our
announcement of $5 billion in support for States as they draw
up plans to build out what will become a national network of EV
chargers, half a million strong by 2030.
We have opened applications for some of our most
significant grant programs with more funding than ever, thanks
to the infrastructure law, including our RAISE, Port
Infrastructure Development Program, and Airport Terminal
Program, with more soon to come.
We are working closely with State Departments of
Transportation and other project sponsors to ensure they have
the flexibility and support they need to deploy all these funds
in ways that make sense for their communities, while ensuring
that the expenditure of these funds meets our shared public
policy goals and the high standards for the use of Federal
taxpayer dollars.
All of us worked to enact the infrastructure law for the
same reason: Because we know it will do so much to make life
better for the American people. It will improve everyday life
for the traveling public and anyone who counts on our supply
chains. It will ease daily commutes and long haul travel alike,
and it will create jobs.
We at the DOT look forward to continuing our work with all
of you to bring the ambitious vision of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law to life across our country.
I want to thank you again for inviting me to be here today.
And I am looking forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buttigieg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.002
Senator Carper. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for that
opening statement.
I am going to start off with a couple of questions, then I
will yield to Senator Capito.
There has been some confusion, I think you addressed it in
your opening statement, and I am delighted you have, but some
confusion about a guidance document that the Federal Highway
Administration issued a couple of months ago, maybe back in
December. Just for clarification, does the memo tie the hands
of States or prevent States from selecting projects to fund
using their Federal highway formula dollars including adding
highway capacity if they choose to do so?
Mr. Buttigieg. No, it doesn't.
Senator Carper. All right. And second, can you tell us any
more about why the Department has encouraged States to consider
prioritizing projects to address safety and to address road and
bridge construction and emissions?
Mr. Buttigieg. We view these as common sense and long
standing policy goals, and goals that we share with so many of
the State transportation leaders we speak to. So under the law,
and as we seek to implement it, of course States decide what
projects to build with their Federal formula funds. We believe
that thoughtful road investments are vital to achieving those
safety, equity, and climate goals.
Notably, the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials, AASHTO, which represents the State
transportation departments, and which I know you have been in
touch with even this week as they gather, wrote about how
States very much share FHWA's policy priorities outlined in
this guidance.
States are making these investments not because of any
ideological tilt one way or the other, but because they are
often more affordable in the short term, more cost effective in
the medium term, and yield better outcomes for travelers and
for movement of goods and for communities in the long term.
So what we are really seeking to do is work with States on
the investments that are going to create the most bang for that
Federal taxpayer buck while recognizing, of course, that
context matters, and that what is appropriate in one community
or State will be different than what is appropriate in another.
Senator Carper. As Senator Capito knows, and some of our
colleagues know as well, I ended up moving to Delaware when I
got out of the Navy at the end of the Vietnam war, and had the
opportunity to ultimately serve the people there in a lot of
different ways.
The foundation of my service to Delaware and really to the
country came from a conversation that we had around our dinner
table when my sister and I were just little kids. My mom and
dad had gone to Shady Springs High School, which Senator Capito
knows is just outside of Beckley, West Virginia. One night
after supper, my dad said to my sister and me, we were very
young, he said, your mom and I want you to go to college. And
we said, well, we want to go to college, Dad. And he said, we
want you to figure out how to pay for it.
My father, who never went beyond high school, he was a
World War II veteran, GI Bill, learned how to fix wrecked cars
at Burleson Oldsmobile in Beckley, West Virginia. There were a
couple of things he used to say to us a lot. You can probably
remember things your parents said to you, and I am sure
everyone on this Committee, guidelines for our lives.
One of the other things my dad would say a lot to us is
that my if sister and I would do some boneheaded stunt, my
father would always say, just use some common sense. Just use
some common sense. He didn't say it so nicely, but he said it a
lot. We must not have had much. But that is some of the best
advice I have ever gotten.
I listened to your statement, and the response that you had
to my first question. It reminds me of my father, and the use
of common sense. And I am glad to see that you are following
his advice, and I hope I still am as well.
Next, I want to run to the roll out of climate formula
programs. We know that the Continuing Resolution has had an
impact on U.S. DOT's ability to move forward with some of the
new programs created in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. My
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, some of them are
here today, are hard at work, and I hope Congress will soon
pass an omnibus appropriation bill to fund the Government for
the rest of this fiscal year through the end of September.
Once the appropriations bill is enacted, how quickly will
the Department of Transportation be able to apportion the new
carbon reduction and PROTECT formula programs and provide the
guidance necessary for the States to start utilizing those
funds?
Mr. Buttigieg. Both of these programs are so important for
not only the development toward our climate goals, but the
protection of our infrastructure assets with regard to
resilience imperatives. So we will get to work as soon as we
are able to, thanks to that appropriation that we seek.
We are doing everything that we can, of course, within the
constraints that currently exist. But I appreciate you and the
Ranking Member both mentioning the sense of urgency that we
have about seeing that appropriation come through that will
allow us to go full speed ahead.
Senator Carper. OK. Time is wasting.
Senator Capito, please.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
And Mr. Secretary, I appreciate many of the sentiments you
have expressed today. But I want to go back to the memo. And I
know that you and I have talked about it, and I heard your
response to the Chairman.
But we debated these policies in this Committee, we debated
them with the House and the Senate, as each chamber developed
its respective proposals to reauthorize these Federal surface
transportation programs. These policies were ultimately
rejected and not included in the final legislation sent to the
President's desk.
Let me give you a specific example, and I believe you have
it there, because there is no way you could read it from there.
House Chairman Peter DeFazio's Invest in America Act included
language that restricted the ability of a State to carry out a
project that added new capacity for single occupancy passenger
vehicles. His language is shown on this one, over here, you can
see it has some highlighted areas.
The FHWA memo directs FHWA staff to encourage State
departments of transportation and other entities to consider
certain factors before advancing projects that result in new
capacity for single occupancy vehicles. The language from this
memo is shown in this other poster here. As you can see, this
language from the memo is lifted from the bill that DeFazio had
that was sent over here to the Senate as the shell bill that we
rejected here in the U.S. Senate.
The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which
passed this Committee, had no such language in there. I have
said many times, this is a bipartisan bill, it is a product of
careful negotiations that reflected the will of the Committee
unanimously.
You sent me a letter earlier in response to my bringing
this to your attention. Your memorandum said that it is
consistent with the Bipartisan Infrastructure language. I just
don't think it is consistent, and I am really troubled that a
memo coming from your department has language in it that was
rejected from the House bill basically verbatim.
What is your reaction to that?
Mr. Buttigieg. I would say my understanding is what was
rejected was the mandate with regard to these goals, not the
idea of these goals. So as I look down the text, for example,
the first one I see is, progress in achieving a state of good
repair consistent with the State's asset management plan. Now,
I cannot imagine that anyone here rejects that proposition that
it is a good thing to have progress in achieving a state of
good repair consistent with the State's asset management plan.
What I do recognize is that there was a move in the House
to say that unless you have shown that progress, you couldn't
even go forward on some of that new construction. If that were
to have prevailed, then of course, my department would be
responsible for implementing that law.
But that is not what the law says that you passed, of
course. The law does not say that you have to prove that you
have made that progress on a state of good repair in order to
do anything else. But I would be perplexed by any suggestion
that we should no longer believe that a state of good repair is
a good thing.
If I were to go to the next bullet, and I am just seeing
this here, but I think it is the same that is on the board, and
I appreciate your providing for me, because it is a bit of an
eye chart from where I sit. It is a reference to how the
project will support the achievement of the State's performance
targets.
Again, as I understand the progress of the bill, the Senate
did not go forward with the requirement saying the State has to
meet its performance targets in order to be allowed to do new
construction. And so as we go forward implementing the law, we
would not impose any such mandate. But of course, we still
believe it is a good thing for a State to achieve its
performance targets.
If I go to the third one, it says whether the project is
more cost effective than both operational improvements to the
facility or corridor and transit projects eligible under
Chapter 53, Title 49. So my understanding is, had the House
bill passed, we would have been required under the law to
certify that in some way in order to allow that funding to go
forward.
But of course, that is not what passed, as you point out.
And so there is no such requirement. But of course, cost
effectiveness continues to be something that we would consider
to be important and would support States in achieving.
To me, the difference is, of course, that mandate. My
understanding, and our understanding as we go forward,
implementing the law as written is it has no such mandate. That
is why the memo says that there is no such requirement.
Senator Capito. So from your explanation, what I assume,
the fact that they are verbatim from the DeFazio bill into the
memo that came from your department word for word is just
because?
Mr. Buttigieg. It is because they are good ideas. It is
just that the law doesn't mandate them, so neither will we.
Senator Capito. Are you in the habit of lifting language
from unpassed bills and putting it into regulations that you
are putting forward that obviously have been negotiated out of
bills?
Mr. Buttigieg. Again, our understanding was that what was
negotiated out was not the idea of cost effectiveness, but the
mandate. So as we seek to implement the bill as written, you
will continue to see phrases like state of good repair that I
trust have been on the lips of Secretaries, Republican and
Democrat alike, and members of both parties in both chambers.
But the law as written does not provide for us to require it,
and so we won't.
Senator Capito. Ok. So you referenced the letter from
AASHTO, the State highway administrators, who also wrote you a
letter expressing concerns, along with Governors, and many
States. And in that you pick out a sentence that says that they
very much share the policy priorities outlined in the guidance.
But the four page letter is basically saying yes, these things
are important, these things are things that we as States, the
formula is different for Maryland than it is for me or Delaware
or North Dakota. So let us keep the flexibility of moving
forward on safety and repair. This is what State DOTs do. They
keep their roads as much as they can in good state of repair.
That is what they are doing now and have done.
But now we have an opportunity with the Bipartisan
Infrastructure package to really build more where areas that
need that, and in your memo, you say, more capacity, but, there
is a big but in there, you have to consider all these other
things, you should consider all these other things.
If you look further into the AASHTO letter, since you
brought it up, some of the quotes are, while the legislative
process that led to the IIJA was certainly unconventional, and
the congressional intent regarding the Federal highway program
over the next 5 years provides State DOTs with flexibility in
how investment decisions are made with formula to meet each
State's unique mobility and accessibility needs, proposals to
require fix it first solutions or prescribe the use of certain
sources of funding for system preservation do not reflect the
use of strategic planning, but rather a one size fits all
approach to asset management.
This is part of the letter that you are quoting from as
well, as they deviate from what they see is a directive from
the Department to do it one way, this way, if you want to have
favorable, or at least move higher up into the priorities.
What kind of reaction would you have to that?
Mr. Buttigieg. I think the States are rightly saying that
they share these same goals that we are talking about, the
kinds of goals that are reflected in these bullets, for
example. But they want the flexibility to be able to do it
based on their strategy, based on their approach, and based on
their needs.
We support that flexibility. In implementing the law as
written, we are to provide the flexibility that is written into
the law, and of course, the accountability that is written into
the law for the standards that apply to the use of Federal
taxpayer dollars. That is what we will seek to do.
Senator Capito. Yes, and I will say there is confusion
here. There is confusion from the stakeholders, there is
confusion from the State DOTs, because they said, they are
expressing concern in the letter they sent back to you.
I am going to move on to one more thing before I give up my
questioning, I think I am over my time. Maybe I should wait and
let the other members question.
I wanted to ask about the One Federal Decision quickly. I
want to know, how are you implementing this, what steps have
been taken, what kinds of conversations are you having between
all the different agencies?
Mr. Buttigieg. I will give you the most compact answer that
I can, which is that we are working hard to implement that, in
particular noting the expectation of steps consistent with the
2 year agency average in clearing those projects that are
major, that have that environmental impact statement attached
to them. We would be happy to follow up with more detail on the
progress.
Senator Capito. Do you have a timeline for implementing
this?
Mr. Buttigieg. It is already, now, we work toward that goal
right now. In terms of when we will be able to have the
dashboard up and see how we are tracking toward that goal, I
hope to be making progress right away.
Senator Capito. OK, thank you.
Senator Carper. Before we turn to Senator Cardin for the
next round of questioning, I want to make a unanimous consent
request relating to concerns that were expressed by our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to whether the
U.S. Department of Transportation is creating a new goal of
maintaining highway assets that is not consistent with past
practice or the statute. I ask unanimous consent to submit for
the record a guidance document from 2004 released by the
Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush which makes very
similar points with respect to 2021 guidance. The Bush
administration encouraged their staff to promote highway repair
and to work with State DOTs to preserve existing highway
assets.
I would further like to submit for the record the text of
Section 150, Title 23, U.S. Code, this highway law passed by
Congress in 2012, which established a state of good repair as a
national goal. I believe these documents show that the recent
guidance builds on longstanding law and policy to encourage,
again, to encourage States to maintain existing assets.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.017
Senator Carper. With that having been said, let me turn to
Senator Cardin.
I want to say to Senator Cardin, who chairs the
Subcommittee on Infrastructure on this Committee, thank you for
your continued leadership both on this Committee in the Senate
and the work that preceded it for many years in the House of
Representatives, and before that as Speaker of the House in the
State of Maryland. What a life, what a career. It is an honor
to be your wingman here, and to sit next to you last night
during that speech.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, you have a way of introducing
people. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. We appreciate
your view of history, your own personal examples in your life,
how it has formed your priorities.
But most important, I think I speak for every member of
this Committee, we appreciate your respect for every single
member of this Committee and bringing us together, to have the
type of civility to deal with difficult issues where we have
different views, but to be able to move forward in a very
positive way. That was very clear with the legislation that
Senator Capito referred to, the two pieces passing this
Committee, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure package, which
basically incorporates the work of this Committee. We thank you
very much.
Senator Capito, I always enjoy working with you. I have a
different view as to your point in regard to the letter issued
by the Department of Transportation. I do think we always want
to find the right balance, the balance between giving
flexibility to the States which are determinative of the
priorities that are important for their community, but also to
advance priorities, national priorities. As Chairman Carper
pointed out, we put that in law.
The balance between maintaining our infrastructure and
increasing capacity is one in which we have an interest at the
national level to make sure it is attended to, and that we have
oversight as to how the transportation programs of this country
are balancing those two very important issues. That is our
responsibility.
And as we negotiated this bill, many of us had very strong
priorities in regard to transportation safety, in regard to
equity, in regard to maintenance, in regard to resiliency, in
regard to climate change. And we were able to work out the
implementing legislation so that we could get unanimity in our
Committee to advance those priorities.
So yes, Mr. Secretary, we want to maintain flexibility. But
we also want to advance national priorities. I think the way
that you have explained your letter I agree with completely.
So 90 percent of the funds go by formula programs, we have
talked about that, some of the formula programs deal directly
with safety; some of them deal directly with air quality. So we
have programs that we advance the funding in because that is
our priority also. So it is absolutely consistent for you to
look at the overall plans of the States to see whether it is
carrying out what Congress, in a strong vote, asked you in
implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure package.
I could go through a lot of the specifics. We were directly
engaged in equity; we haven't talked about that. I mention that
because in my community, we have a highway to nowhere that was
built in downtown Baltimore that very much negatively impacted
on the residential communities. And they were not politically
active enough to stop that at the time.
Now, we have an opportunity by Reconnecting Communities
that we can use the Bipartisan Infrastructure package to deal
with the need of the community because of a transportation
project that never should have been built in the first place,
and certainly did not attend to the community when it was
built. That is an example of how we came together, and we
specifically spoke to that. I encourage you as to how you
implement that.
Then we talked a little bit before the hearing started
about bicycle lanes, et cetera. We have a Transportation
Alternative Program. That was initiated by us, bipartisan.
Senator Cochran and I initiated the Transportation Alternative
Program. Now, Senator Wicker is my partner on that. We provided
substantially more funds for the Transportation Alternative
Program, increasing it from $850 million to $1.4 billion.
So my point is that the issues that are in the letter that
was referred to by Senator Capito are priorities that we have
come together as a Committee to pay attention to, and it is
only reasonable that you would look at the overall plans of the
States as to how they are dealing with the priorities that
Congress has been advancing now for many of our surface
transportation bills.
I want to ask you, we have these new programs to deal with
Reconnecting Communities, if you want to give us quickly a
status. But I would also like to get to one other question
during my time. That is, there was an announcement made to
increase the contracting goals for small, disadvantaged
businesses. I serve as chair of the Small Business Committee,
and we have been laser focused on trying to help small
businesses. I see the Infrastructure Bill as a major tool to
help America's small businesses.
But it is also an opportunity to help those small,
disadvantaged businesses not just in subcontracts. I hope you
will also take a look at prime contracts. If you could share
with us how you intend to implement that, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you very much. We strongly agree that
there is an enormous opportunity with the public dollars that
are going to be spent to improve infrastructure around the
country to create jobs and to create generational wealth. We
have work that can be done by underserved and I would say
underestimated businesses and those who have been overlooked in
the past.
So we are being very intentional about that, like many
agencies in procurement. But as you know, the vast majority of
the dollars that go through our department aren't things that
we directly procure. They go out through our grants and our
discretionary programs.
So it is with a view to that that we are going to work not
only to ensure that there are ambitious goals set, but to take
some responsibility for building the capacity in the first
place. Because we know that navigating those processes can be
daunting for small businesses that haven't sought Federal work
before.
Like you, I strongly believe that we need to see more
disadvantaged businesses get to that prime role while also
working with the largest primes that are there right now to ask
them what they are doing to ensure that some of their
subcontracting goes to DBs that are overlooked. But we want to
make sure that we are doing both, and that will continue to be
a very important focus for us.
Senator Cardin. Could I ask that you keep us informed as
well as the Small Business Committee informed as to how you are
implementing that goal? It is a major increase in percentage,
which is great. It increases over time, which is also the smart
way to do it. If you can keep us informed, our committees, I
would very much appreciate that.
Then last, in regard to implementing the Reconnecting
Communities, I would appreciate as that gets rolled out that we
get as much of the information so that we can get it to our
communities in order to try to take advantage of these
opportunities. I would appreciate it.
Mr. Buttigieg. We certainly will. On Reconnecting
Communities, I must note it is one of those new starts that is
waiting for us to move out of that Continuing Resolution
environment. But we will lay as much groundwork for it now as
the law permits, while looking forward to being able to move
fully forward.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thank you for those
questions, and for your kind words.
Senator Cramer, you are next. Welcome.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You guys might know each other, I'm not
sure.
Senator Cramer. Well, one of the reasons I was pleased to
support the Secretary is because he came from, well, in North
Dakota, a large town, but another famously smaller community in
rural America, and would understand the importance of
federalism and the importance of a partnership where the
Federal Government yields to the local and State governments as
opposed to the other way around.
That said, I want to add my appreciation to you, Mr.
Chairman, of course, and Ranking Member Capito.
I have a saying, Mr. Secretary, that if you want to get big
things done, you call on the firm of Carper, Capito, Cardin,
and Cramer. We will get it put together.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
But I do want to dig in on the federalism point a little
bit, and the memorandum. Because it did create not just some
confusion, but concern by people out there who were going, wait
a minute. We were told that these smart people simplified the
process, and yet we are getting this sort of complicating
language.
I think with regard to the exact language that we excluded,
specifically excluded from the bill, to see it turn up in even
a memorandum or guidance as opposed to specific regulation, it
almost appears designed to create some of that confusion. I
hope that is not the case, but that is how it was taken.
When I listened to you describe to Senator Capito, explain
why it appears, it sounded to me a little bit like you were
arguing against the spirit of the law by using the letter of
the law. Again, that adds confusion, because we were very
specific. And I want to get specifically to the issue of the
single agency, or the one agency rule, which we codified. You
said in one of your answers, ``We are working to implement
it.''
What causes me to chuckle there; don't get me wrong, you
have a big job, and it is not as simple as I would like it to
be, but it is not as complicated as the bureaucracy likes it to
be, either. The whole point of one agency is to simplify, to
make it easy to implement, right?
So let me ask a specific question about funding. Does this
guidance imply whether intentionally or unintentionally, imply
a set of priorities that will be used as guidance in the
decision of the agency when it comes to awarding grants or some
other funding? You can answer the broader question in the
context of that specific one if you would like.
Mr. Buttigieg. Sure. What I would say is it certainly
reflects our priorities when it comes to discretionary grants,
for example, as provided for within the law. Some of the things
we have talked about, safety, state of good repair, the
economic strength, resilience, these are national priorities,
Administration priorities, and things that will certainly guide
me within the parameters of the law in our decisions and our
approach to the competitive grants.
With regard to the formulas, again, ultimately the States
are making these calls. We recognize that and support that.
We also of course want to help them get to places where
they might not even have known some of the flexibilities that
exist. I will give you an example that ties back to what
Senator Cardin was raising, with Transportation Alternatives.
There are a number of authorities and flexibilities within the
Surface Transportation Block Grant that I think many States
would like to take advantage of. But it might be helpful for us
to remind them that they have access to that, because that has
evolved over time.
But ultimately, the left and right boundaries here are the
letter of the law. That is all that I can work with in deciding
what to do in implementing these formula programs.
With regard to the One Federal Decision, having been a
local leader and waded through these processes, let me just
restate my commitment to making sure that administrative
inefficiency is never accepted as a reason for any of those
processes to take longer than they could. If we can beat those
targets, that is even better.
Senator Cramer. Thank you for that. I think in this era of
pretty hyperinflation, where the supply side of the economic
formula has been shorted, we have best get after it real
quickly. I appreciate your commitment to that. And we need to
do our part as well and pass in Appropriations, I know we are
all committed to that; please tell me we are going to get that
done.
I will end with this. Federalism really does work. The
absence of prohibition is not a license to do whatever the
bureaucracy wants. I think that is how it appears to some
people. I hope that your clarification is comfort, because my
advice to my Governor and to my State, and frankly, the five
State coalition of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho, that work together on these policies, it is
a really big footprint out there, my advice to them is to
ignore it, frankly, the memo. Because the five of them know
exactly what to do in rural America.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions, and especially
for giving us--what was the law firm?
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. I didn't say law firm, I was specific to
not say that.
Senator Carper. But we do make laws.
Senator Cramer. The consulting firm of Carper, Capito,
Cardin, and Cramer, I think we could do big things together. So
far, we have been pretty good.
Senator Carper. That is great. I oftentimes, and I know
probably all of us do, I love when I visit senior centers and
places like that in Delaware, and I meet couples that have been
married for 40, 50, 60, 70 years. I almost always ask them what
is the key to a long marriage. The best answer is actually
repeated by a number of people: The two Cs, communicate and
compromise.
Senator Cramer. There you go.
Senator Carper. We are pretty good at that on this
Committee. It gets us to a third C, which is consensus, and
that is what we are trying to do.
Senator Cramer. That is how you get unanimous votes.
Senator Carper. There you go. Thanks.
All right, Senator Merkley. Not a C, but very much a
consensus builder on his own.
Senator Merkley. No, Mr. Chairman, I feel very much
excluded from that.
Senator Carper. An honorary member.
Senator Merkley. I think we are going to have the Markey
and Merkley team to something to respond.
[Laughter.]
Senator Merkley. Mr. Secretary, two quick comments, then an
advocacy. In the Infrastructure Bill is the Monarch and
Pollinator Highway Act, an idea that came from Lamar Alexander
in Tennessee to use highways to create insecticide free
pollinator plots to help maintain the strength of our
pollinators. So I just want you to be aware of that.
We have seen one of our pollinators, the Western Monarch,
drop to less than 1 percent of the population that existed 20
years ago. Obviously, that is a very scary indication for
pollinators. But it also touches the heart because the Monarch
butterfly touches the heart. And to have the next generation of
children grow up and never see one is just something we can
prevent by utilizing some of our byways along our highways. And
we would like your help on that. It is now fully authorized.
The second, I called and talked to you about vehicle
charging stations, and doing them in a manner that makes it as
easy to fill up on electrons as it is to fill up on gasoline.
Our current system is absolutely chaotic. You have no idea what
system you are going to be charged for, is it a club card, is
it by the minute, is it by the hookup, is it by the kilowatt
hour. You have no way to compare them; you don't know if you
are being price gouged, and sometimes you are, after the fact.
If we do these stations, and they result in the expansion
of the same chaotic, confusing system we have now, we have all
missed a massive opportunity to do it right. This is in your
hands. Please make sure we do this right.
Then let me turn to the third piece, and that is the MEGA
projects grant program. We have in Oregon a deepwater port that
is unutilized in Coos Bay. And it was considered for many
projects over time that have failed, including a potential LNG
export facility that didn't work out for a host of reasons.
But it is a perfect place for a container port. There is a
whole operation underway to make this happen. You have an
existing Federal channel. You have quick access to the open
ocean. You don't have to go 100 miles up the Columbia River, as
you do for the Port of Portland. It would expand the West Coast
container facility effort by 10 percent. You have a railroad
line that takes you through the coastal mountains to the
Willamette Valley to a class one transportation network. You
have the land in place for the development of the port itself.
But it is a big project. But it meets every one of the five
stipulations for the MEGA projects grant program. So I am
asking for you and your team to take a very close look at this.
Because when I think about the vision of doing things that have
regional and national significance on our transportation
system, on our economy, this is it. This is the perfect poster
child.
So I would simply ask that you and your team take a very,
very close look at this possibility. I don't know if you are
already familiar with it, but I would be glad to escort you
through the Coos Bay Container Port Project.
Years ago, the short line that existed to the Willamette
Valley, the company that owned it was going to tear up the
railroad tracks and sell the steel. And we got the funding in
the State of Oregon to buy that line, save that railroad line.
It is being used now; it is being improved now. It will have to
be improved further.
We are ready to invest a lot of money to be able to double
stack containers through a series of tunnels, strengthen the
bridges for the weight. We have the land ready. But we are
going to need significant Federal support. And I hope it will
be at the top of your list for the MEGA projects.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you. I look forward to a chance to see
the region for myself. I am certainly interested to discuss
anything that enhances supply chain capacity in this country.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Senator Merkley, thank you for joining us.
I think Senator Markey has joined us. We have a couple of
people in line.
Thanks for coming today.
Senator Lummis is next, and I believe she is going to join
us by Webex.
Cynthia, are you out there? Senator Lummis.
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Buttigieg, thank you for your time today. On
February 11th, a Federal court issued a preliminary injunction
that prohibits 11 agencies, including the Department of
Transportation, from using a metric known as the social cost of
greenhouse gases. That injunction also prohibits the DOT staff
from participating in the interagency working group established
by President Biden. His Administration is using figures to help
justify its sweeping environmental agenda.
Has DOT fully stopped using this figure as required by the
court?
Mr. Buttigieg. We are making sure to comply with all court
decisions and relevant laws. We are still reviewing this
injunction. It certainly has the potential to impact a number
of rulemakings, grant programs, and other projects.
So we are trying to work through that in a way that
minimizes the disruption to our ability to get rules done and
to get dollars out the door, but meets our ability to, of
course, respond in every legally appropriate way to the meaning
of the injunction.
Senator Lummis. I will be interested in receiving
documentation demonstrating DOT's compliance with portions of
the injunction. Can I rely on you to help me get that
information?
Mr. Buttigieg. I would be happy to follow up with you on
anything you need relative to our compliance.
Senator Lummis. Great. Thank you so much.
I want to switch to the issue of truck parking. Mr.
Secretary, one of the issues that I focused on during my time
serving on this Committee has been the lack of available truck
parking. It came up even as recently as last week. I was in
Wyoming, got right from Cheyenne to Laramie on Interstate 80,
they closed the interstate right in front of me due to weather
issues. And here was a ribbon of highway with trucks lining
both sides, and very difficult for anybody not driving a truck
to get off. So you have trucks idling for miles during the
hours that it took to reopen Interstate 80.
States have the ability to create truck parking capacity
within the current formula programs, but there is still a lack
of capacity. How concerned is DOT over this issue?
Mr. Buttigieg. Very concerned. And I appreciate your
raising this. This is a very important issue, and if you talk
with any truck driver, it is not only an issue of convenience,
it is an issue of safety.
Senator Lummis. Yes.
Mr. Buttigieg. And I might add, as you pointed out, with
the idling that goes on, it is even an issue of emissions.
Senator Lummis. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Buttigieg. I share your enthusiasm for addressing this.
I was just with a number of folks from the trucking industry
the other day.
Let me mention a few programs we think could be useful
here. The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, National
Highway Freight Program, the Highway Safety Improvement
Program, as we talked about this being a safety issue, the
National Highway Performance Program, and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
But let me also mention that I don't think it is
unreasonable to look into whether the Carbon Reduction Program,
and in some ways, perhaps, in certain locations a discretionary
program that is for reducing truck idling at port facilities
might be relevant here as well. We are hearing this everywhere
we go with truck drivers.
I would welcome an opportunity to work with you to make
sure that the funding and the authorities available in the law
are actually being used to alleviate that problem.
Senator Lummis. Fabulous. Thank you. I would be delighted
to work with you on that. It is a big issue in my State,
especially on Interstate 80, which crosses the entirety of
southern Wyoming.
Now, it is my understanding that the most recent Jason's
Law report has been completed but not released to the public.
Can you explain what the delay is there? Jason's Law dealt with
truck parking a couple of highway bills ago. And the report is
apparently delayed.
Mr. Buttigieg. Let me run that down and try to get more up
to date information for you on that.
Senator Lummis. That will be great. Thank you so much, and
I will reach out to you subsequently so I can make sure that
Wyoming's DOT is accessing every possible program available to
alleviate our truck parking issues on Interstate 80. I really
appreciate your time today, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Senator Carper. Senator Lummis, thanks so much for joining
us. You wouldn't know this, but when we were live, the first
five or six members were asking questions, and then we went to
you on Webex. You have heard the term, voice of God. Your voice
was so loud we could probably have heard you all the way in
Wyoming. A voice from around the world.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lummis. Sorry about that. I don't have Chaplain
Black's baritone, so that was probably a little annoying, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Carper. No, it was not annoying at all. He doesn't
have your volume, either.
All right. It looks like Senator Padilla is next on Webex;
Senator Wicker has been here, is that correct, ahead of Senator
Markey? All right.
My staff says Senator Whitehouse is next.
Sheldon, if you would make your way.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
I understand there has been some suggestion that the
Department should not make any efforts to mitigate
transportation greenhouse gas emissions or to ensure
infrastructure resilience in the implementation of the
Infrastructure Bill. I wanted to ask, it is true, is it not,
that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes a climate
title?
Mr. Buttigieg. Correct.
Senator Whitehouse. And it is true that it also includes
funding that is required to be used on emissions reductions and
resilience?
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. And it is also true that it requires
all States to develop a strategy to reduce emissions from the
transportation sector, correct?
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. You had some questions about the
application of the social cost of carbon decision out of the
District Court in Louisiana. Does that decision relieve you of
any responsibilities to make decisions in fact based way, in a
fact based environment?
Mr. Buttigieg. Not at all.
Senator Whitehouse. With respect to the Administrative
Procedures Act, if facts are developed through the notice and
comment procedures, you will continue to abide by the
strictures of the Administrative Procedures Act and make
decisions that are consistent with the facts that have been
developed in the hearing process?
Mr. Buttigieg. We would.
Senator Whitehouse. And in grants, is it appropriate for
the Department to recognize harms and benefits of applicants'
projects and consider the harms or benefits of the applicants'
projects in evaluating which grants should be awarded and which
grants should be deferred or denied?
Mr. Buttigieg. As provided in authorizing statute,
absolutely.
Senator Whitehouse. And in a fact based environment, is it
not a fact that there are substantial costs associated with
carbon pollution?
Mr. Buttigieg. Unquestionably.
Senator Whitehouse. In Rhode Island, the particular facts
that are of most concern to us have to do with flooding. We are
looking at potentially feet of sea level rise toward the end of
this century. That means redrawing the map of Rhode Island. We
have some of the best mapping in the country. We realized early
on that FEMA maps were defective, inaccurate, and failed. So we
drew our own. And that program has been very, very successful,
and is looked to from around the country.
So I am hoping that you will support better mapping to make
sure that the projects you are looking at are being evaluated
against best science and best predictions of what is actually
going to be there as sea levels rise or as river flooding
renders properties more and more vulnerable to being
underwater.
Is that your understanding of your responsibilities?
Mr. Buttigieg. Certainly. I come from a river city, and I
have had the experience of looking at the rising floodwaters
and realizing that what was characterized as a 500 year flood
is increasingly becoming almost a semi-annual event. I know
that has been the experience in a lot of different places.
Sometimes we take those mapping or other criteria as given
under the statute. But we always want to make sure that we are
working with the most accurate and up to date information that
we can.
Senator Whitehouse. The disinclination I often see in this
building to take climate warnings seriously is very
regrettable. And it is particularly regrettable for coastal
States like mine which are looking at very significant
repercussions from our refusal to acknowledge fact based
problems that we can solidly predict are going to come at us.
If other States were having to look at having to redraw
their boundaries because of a problem, they would expect some
sympathy and consideration from colleagues. And I would hope
that as people look at what is being predicted pretty much
uniformly for coastal States, we take into consideration the
reality of those concerns and the danger to our coastal
environments.
It is not just me, and it is not just environmental groups,
and it is not just coastal communities that are saying this.
Freddie Mac, Freddie Mac, the big Federal mortgage insurer, has
warned that we are headed for a coastal property values crash.
Now, for colleagues who don't have coastal property, they may
think that is funny or not of concern to them.
But the crash predicted by Freddie Mac is of such severity,
like 2008 mortgage meltdown level severity, that it is
predicted to cascade through the economy in the same way that
that did, well beyond the affected mortgages, and create
economic dislocation across the country.
So please continue to pay attention to this, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Buttigieg. You have my commitment.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Markey, I believe you are next.
Then we will go to Senator Ernst; I think Senator Duckworth is
going to join us by Webex; Senator Kelly, Senator Padilla.
Senator Markey, thank you for your patience.
Senator Markey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Everything
that Senator Whitehouse said goes for Massachusetts as well by
extension. We are subject to all of the same threats that Rhode
Island is subject to. And again, the most important
environmental case thus far in our history, Massachusetts v.
EPA, is based on the erosion of the Massachusetts coastline,
and by extension, Rhode Island. And they voted five to four to
mandate that the EPA had to make an endangerment finding.
So that has already been done. We know this is happening,
and we know that we have an absolute responsibility to ensure
that we put in place the protective measures.
Last year, Chairman Carper and I reintroduced the Green
Streets Act, which would set goals to cut emissions from the
National Highway System and help States protect the systems
from unavoidable climate impacts. And we have money for that
already in Build Back Better. We still have to work hard in
order to get that passed. But there are already steps you can
and should take under the climate title in the bipartisan bill
that Senator Whitehouse was just referring to.
Could you talk about those funds and the actions which you
can take in order to ensure that we are dealing with the
climate related impacts?
Mr. Buttigieg. Gladly, Senator. This is a major priority
for us. It starts with the awareness that the transportation
sector is the single biggest contributor of greenhouse gases in
the U.S. economy. And I view that as a challenge for us to
aspire to be the biggest part of the solution. The law that you
have sent to us to implement is a major part of how we can do
that.
I will point quickly to just a few elements in it that will
help us meet that goal. One, of course, is the electric vehicle
funding. We have already put out the guidance for $5 billion in
formula funding to the States for charging infrastructure along
highways. That will be followed by $2.5 billion in competitive
funding for community charging grants, all as part of getting
that network of half a million EV chargers up.
Then of course there is $7.3 billion in formula funding to
States, and another $1.4 billion in competitive grants over 5
years under the PROTECT program, recognizing the climate
impacts that are upon us, no matter how effective we are at
mitigating them. There is the carbon reduction program, $6.4
billion to specifically reduce transportation related
emissions.
I will note, and unfortunately this is something I have had
to repeat a few times in different regards in this testimony,
we cannot fully implement this program either while under a
Continuing Resolution because of the prohibition on new starts.
Last, I will mention the $500 million Healthy Streets
program, which allows for competitive grants to deploy cool and
porous pavements and to expand tree cover. These unglamorous
measures I think can make a big difference on things like heat
islands, air quality, flood risks, and other impacts from our
infrastructure development.
Senator Markey. I agree. A lot of these companies, they
have landscaping on the side of their truck as they pull up,
but it is really land scraping. They are just coming to tear
down the trees, tear down the green, and all of a sudden, we
have a beautiful new modern street in front of us, and there is
just something that has been lost in our country in terms of
valuing trees and all the roles that that can play.
I would like to come back to the community vehicle charging
infrastructure aspect of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and
what we are also going to be trying to do in the Build Back
Better bill. That is just to make sure that there is equity.
There is a lot of talk about making sure you can travel across
the whole country, recharging stations.
But I think simultaneously, it is imperative for us to
focus upon communities, upon equity questions, upon making sure
multi-housing units and communities that probably aren't always
thought of to be the first place where electric vehicles are
going to be operating, are also a part of this planning.
Could you talk about that a little bit, and how you are
envisioning ensuring that while you can travel across the
country and you can make your trip, yet simultaneously people
in the community that need these charges will also be given
access?
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, thank you. The equitable access to
electric vehicle charging infrastructure is a major priority. I
think it is one of the things we will be able to support with
that $2.5 billion for community charging. It is worth noting
that lower income Americans would stand to benefit the most
from the fuel and maintenance savings of EV ownership,
provided, of course, that they could afford to purchase an EV.
There is pending legislation that might help on that front.
Just a few days ago I was in Colorado at an EV charging
station at a public housing facility, where there is an
electric car share program. So I think it is a great example of
how we can move out of the old view where EVs were regarded as
a luxury item and recognize them as something that, with
support from our policies, should be accessible to everybody.
Senator Markey. Thank you. My father was a truck driver.
You kind of get a job where your father works, so I got a job
driving a truck for 4 years. That is how I worked my way
through college. But it was an ice cream truck, so I had to
pull it into the driveway every night, jump out, and plug it
into the side of the house. It took under 15 seconds every
night.
Now, my father hadn't thought it through, because now his
car can't be in the driveway; my ice cream truck is there.
Nonetheless, if we think it through, and Malden is still a
community at the bottom quartile of income in Massachusetts,
with a plan for those kinds of communities as well, I think
people can adapt very easily.
So I thank you for your leadership, Mr. Secretary. Once
again, I give you the invitation to come up and see the Bourne
and the Sagamore Bridge in Massachusetts.
Mr. Buttigieg. I have not forgotten, and I would have been
shocked if it didn't come up, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Markey. And you will come?
Mr. Buttigieg. You can count on it.
Senator Markey. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are pretty persistent. You get an A for
persistence. That is good.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Senator Ernst is next.
It is good to see you today. You are recognized.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today as well.
Senator Markey's line of questioning actually will lead
into my line of questioning as well. I know that the American
people really have the Russian invasion of Ukraine first and
foremost on their minds as well as higher energy costs. So I am
of the thought that energy security is national security.
While it is absolutely clear that you support America's
clean energy economy, my concern is that electric vehicles are
being prioritized over our biofuels. And this will only make us
more dependent on those foreign adversaries who control the
majority of worldwide production for a number of the key
components that do go into electric vehicles--the cobalt, the
lithium, the graphite.
So we do need to be aware of that. Here is an interesting
statistic that goes along with this. The Energy Information
Administration has projected that 79 percent of car sales in
2050, so about another 30 years away, will use liquid fuels.
The USDA states that ethanol has a 46 percent lower greenhouse
gas profile than gasoline.
I know you are from the Midwest, and I know there are a lot
of biofuels as well in Indiana. Would you agree that the
Renewable Fuels Standard and biofuels are an equally, if not
more effective, solution to the American energy independence
that we need, while also securing a cleaner energy future?
Mr. Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. As you note, I come
from the part of the country where this is very important as
well. As a matter of fact, when I was mayor and ran the water
utility for our city, my biggest customer was the ethanol plant
in our community.
When you look at our EV policy, of course, the focus is on
zero emissions vehicles. But I also have a great deal of regard
for the role of biofuels and homegrown fuels in America's
energy mix. While our work on the zero emission vehicles
doesn't really allow us to pick winners and losers outside the
boundaries of the categories put forward in the law.
I certainly am interested in opportunities that exist.
Notably one area where I think there is increasing interest,
while there of course is a continued very important role in
fueling the cars on the road today, is around sustainable
aviation fuels. I would love to have a dialogue with you on
that as well.
Senator Ernst. Absolutely. I do appreciate that. If there
are additional ways that we can use our biofuels, we certainly
want to find those avenues.
You did just mention zero emissions for those electric
vehicles. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, within
that, electric vehicles are considered zero emissions and
biofuels are considered low emissions.
But when we have looked into this, electric vehicles
actually do have a significant greenhouse gas footprint from
the beginning of their manufacture, whether that is battery
creation, actually building the vehicle, and not to mention
that probably a lot of the electricity that is being used to
power those vehicles is coming from non-renewable sources.
So could you agree that perhaps those electric vehicles are
not truly zero emissions?
Mr. Buttigieg. Any economic activity, manufacturing, could
have a carbon profile. But we also have done the analysis to
demonstrate that even if the electricity is generated from
fossil fuels, the carbon emissions associated with driving a
vehicle will typically be lower if it is an electric vehicle
compared to if those fuels are being combusted in the vehicle
itself.
But certainly I would agree that this is not a black or
white issue, that there are many different energy profiles and
many different ways of getting around. Again, I think back to
my experience as mayor, and our enthusiasm for using CNG in the
vehicles that we had at the time. Even taking waste gas from
our wastewater facility and putting it into our trash trucks.
Senator Ernst. Yes, and I think that we should be exploring
all different opportunities that are out there. But I do want
to make sure that at least our American public understands that
with the creation of these vehicles and their battery
components, many of those components coming from overseas and
adversarial countries, just understanding the impacts that we
have in creating those vehicles as well.
Thank you. I appreciate your time so much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Carper. Senator Ernst, thanks so much for those
questions, and for joining us today. The point that you make is
a good one, one of the points you make is a good one. I
understand, I had my staff double check, but I think our
friends at General Motors have indicated they are not going to
be selling vehicles that are powered by fossil fuels at some
point in time, the number 2035 sticks in my mind. The folks at
Chrysler, what used to be Chrysler, have a similar kind of
expectation. Those are being pushed by market forces more than
anything else.
But as a guy who spent a lot of years in Navy airplanes,
the importance of biofuels with respect to air travel, that is
key. That is a big, important one. I am glad to see the
Secretary is on top of that. Thank you, Joni.
I believe the next person on our list is Senator Duckworth.
I believe she is joining us by Webex.
Senator Duckworth, are you there?
Senator Duckworth. I sure am, Mr. Chairman. And I agree
with you on the importance of biofuels for aviation. United
Airlines is really making some of those investments, my
hometown airline out of Chicago.
I also want to associate myself with the comments of my
friend, Senator Ernst, from Iowa, that the RFS is critically
important for that clean energy future and that biofuels are a
critical part of that. I want to stress that the cost of
gasoline at the pump is not dictated by the price of RINs.
There are other factors that drive up the price of gasoline at
the pump.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I want to
commend you for taking the initiative last year to restore the
Local Labor Hiring Pilot Program. We share a real commitment to
empowering communities to design infrastructure contracts that
prioritize creating new jobs through local and economic hiring
programs.
As a former mayor, can you explain the job creation
benefits of providing local leaders with the freedom and
flexibility to decide for themselves whether they wish to
prioritize local job creation when awarding construction
contracts?
Mr. Buttigieg. Absolutely, and thank you for the question,
Senator. Too often, we hear stories from people who live in a
community, they see an infrastructure project happening around
them, they see the folks in the hard hats with good paying jobs
working literally in their neighborhood, and think to
themselves, it doesn't appear that anybody here working on this
project looks like they came from anywhere near here.
It is partly in response to that, and on the positive side,
in response to the enormous opportunity to build generational
wealth, to support pathways into the middle class, that we want
to support local communities that are choosing to move in this
direction.
So we have reactivated the pilot program as available to
the Federal Highway under the law. And we look forward to
working with all the authorities and flexibilities that exist
within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to continue to open
that door for local and economic hiring. We know how much it
means to communities, to neighborhoods, and to families.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I couldn't agree more. That
was one of my top priorities during the development of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, was making sure we eliminated
the outdated, one size fits all ban on including local hiring
incentives in construction project contracts.
Mr. Secretary, as we work to create new, good paying jobs
and put residents back to work rebuilding their local
communities, how will new and existing U.S. DOT grant programs
evaluate applications that include local and economic hiring
preferences?
Mr. Buttigieg. Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
it is very specific that a recipient may use a local or other
geographic or economic hiring preference for labor on
construction projects that are funded. As a result, we are
going to be moving forward in a way that is consistent with
that legal framework. And it does update things for some of our
State and local partners.
So the ability to transition from that pilot program that
we were proud to launch in May 2021 to allowing those
preferences now authorized under the law I think is a big step,
and a very positive one that is going to position us to really
unlock so much of the economic potential of this bill.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
One of the other things that the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law does is that it recognizes a basic principle. As we work to
repair and enhance our infrastructure, we must also make sure
that these upgrades benefit all Americans. That is why I fought
so hard to include the All Stations Accessibility Program, or
ASAP Act, in the law. I was pleased that the Biden
administration recognized the importance of ASAP by including
it in its top 10 programs in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
that you may not have heard about fact sheet.
Secretary Buttigieg, can you explain how our new $1.75
billion ASAP grant programs improves mobility for commuters
with disabilities by prioritizing accessibility efforts, such
as the Chicago Transit Authority's ASAP plan, and how does it
accelerate project deployment which otherwise would take
decades for transit and commuter rail systems to complete?
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you. As you know, and as you showed to
me when I was able to visit CTA with you last year, though 75
percent of America's rail transit stations are ADA accessible,
the remaining 25 percent will remain inaccessible, even as we
look back to the time that has passed since the 1990 ADA,
because they have that legacy date associated with them prior
to the Act.
So thanks to the ASAP program, thanks to that $1.75
billion, there is an opportunity to update those legacy rail
transit stations that were set up pre-ADA, and make them
accessible with projects to repair or modify or retrofit them
so that they have that accessibility. We are working hard on
making that program available. We anticipate it being available
later this year. As you know, it is $350 million each year
across 5 years.
We think it is so important for not just of course the
basic equity and fairness at stake, but unlocking the economic
potential of communities with so many workers with disabilities
who could be better able to contribute to the economy and life
of their communities, provided they could get to where they
need to be.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thanks a lot for joining us, Senator
Duckworth.
Many of you know that Senator Duckworth served our country
with great valor and courage. We are proud of her service.
Senator Sullivan is a Marine colonel, not everybody knows
that.
Thank you for that service. It is wonderful to serve with
you.
We have the Marines here; we have the Navy here. It is a
pretty good lineup.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Navy
captain, I think we have a couple of Navy captains on this
Committee, yourself included, and Senator Kelly. We even have a
Navy vet testifying. So I won't be too hard on him, as a
Marine. I will just give him a little bit of a break.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, it is good to
see you.
I want to follow on our conversation. Last July, we talked
about the needs at the Port of Alaska, that is in Anchorage,
and how important that is strategically, not just for Alaska
but for the country. I am going to remind you about some of
that discussion.
But first, I want to get your commitment to come on up to
Alaska and actually see and walk the ground with me, this port
and other aspects of our infrastructure sometime soon.
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, I am continuing to look forward to it,
that much more so now that we have been able to fund some very
worthy projects with the last couple of rounds.
Senator Sullivan. Very worthy, and I appreciate the RAISE
grants that you got out quickly. That was really important for
my State.
So back to the Port of Alaska. It moves 90 percent of all
goods that come into Alaska, 90 percent. So very important that
way. That includes 90 percent of the liquid fuel, including
most of the jet fuel used at JBER.
So by the end of this year, Alaska is going to have over
100 fifth generation fighters based in our State. Those are
F35s, F22s, no place on the planet Earth has that kind of fifth
generation fire power. And it is also most of the fuel used at
Ted Stevens International Airport, which during the pandemic
surged to the fourth busiest air cargo terminal in the world.
Again, very strategic for the country.
As you know, the Department of Defense designated 17
commercial strategic seaports that support the DOD mission; the
Port of Alaska is just one of 17. I just actually met with the
TransCom commander yesterday. We had a long discussion about
this. In the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, I included a requirement
for an assessment by DOD and TransCom on our 17 strategic
ports.
The two DOD strategic ports that came in last in terms of
their readiness, infrastructure capability, was the Port of
Tacoma and the Port of Alaska. And so Senator Cantwell and I
have been working on getting a focus both on these two ports,
which are actually interconnected in terms of commerce between
our two States.
So we are working on a meeting, actually with you and the
MARAD commander. Can I get your commitment to work with me and
Senator Cantwell's office to get that done soon?
Mr. Buttigieg. I would look forward to it. You have my
commitment.
Senator Sullivan. So here is the big issue for me, and I
really need your commitment on this. You might be aware of it,
you might not. Two months ago, you know there has been a lot of
litigation getting back almost 20 years between MARAD and the
city of Anchorage, breach of contracts and everything that
started back in the early 2000s. And the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims just in December decided in favor of the municipality of
Anchorage in this way too long litigation, in my view. And they
announced a ruling on the damages just last week.
Here is the commitment I need from you, Mr. Secretary.
Notwithstanding this court decision, I would like your
assurance that this award is not treated by the DOT as an award
in lieu of any of the future grants for which the municipality
is interested in applying that relate to this port.
We think that would be unfair. This legal award, and who
knows, they are probably going to appeal it, and it is going to
take 10 more years. But it fills a hole that was created with
these breach of contracts, bad construction work, part of the
problem there that had been done.
What we don't want to have happen is all of a sudden DOT
say, well, the Port of Alaska doesn't need any assistance,
because it just got this award. I think that would be unfair.
And I just want to make sure I get your rock solid commitment
that you will not do that as you are looking at grants, which
we, Port of Tacoma, others, particularly as part of the
strategic DOD port network, really need, and we think are
worthy of.
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes. I don't know of anything in that
lawsuit or related to it that would have any effect on current
eligibility for a grant there.
Senator Sullivan. Good. So nobody is going to go, well, you
know, the Port of Alaska just got this big award, so we are not
going to give them a grant, because they just got something.
You are not going to do that?
Mr. Buttigieg. That is not how we will evaluate grants.
Senator Sullivan. Good. That is very important to me. I
appreciate your straight up answer, and I just hope your staff
is watching and all the people who do the evaluations, because
their boss just said they are not going to do that.
My constituents, as you can imagine, were happy about the
litigation finally looking like we have prevailed. But now they
are worried that someone is going to take it out and use it
against us. I appreciate your definitively saying that is not
going to happen. Thank you.
Mr. Buttigieg. My understanding is all the relevant issues
are, as you pointed out, from many years ago.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, almost 20 years ago.
Mr. Buttigieg. So we don't view that as relevant to current
eligibilities for current grant programs.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
I have some more questions for the record, Mr. Chairman,
but thank you.
Senator Carper. I am sure you do. But I think you got your
money's worth on the first round. You are welcome to stick
around for another round if you would like. Thank you.
I think on commitments per minute, that probably got the
most commitments of anybody who has questioned him today. That
is not bad.
Thanks for joining us today, Colonel.
Senator Stabenow is joining us, Senator Stabenow who also
chairs the Ag Committee, from the Great Lakes State of
Michigan, home of the Detroit Tigers.
Senator Stabenow. That is right. Good morning.
Senator Carper. Hopefully we will have an announcement
before too long that the baseball strike is over, and we can
say, play ball. I can't wait.
Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman is the second greatest
champion of the Detroit Tigers. I am first; he is second. We
look forward to hosting you, and I have to say, actually
welcome to a fellow Michigander. I am so pleased that you and
Chasten and your two beautiful children have set up shop in
Michigan permanently. Of course, Chasten was always there with
his family. But we are glad you are Michiganders, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Buttigieg. I am happy to have married into Michigan.
Senator Stabenow. Absolutely. I am also so pleased you are
in the position that you are in. We have talked a lot about
infrastructure for a long time. We have actually been able to
deliver it working together. So this is an important moment.
You won't be surprised to learn I would like to talk about
electric vehicles. I am going to brag for a moment, because I
think it is important when we look at the incredible
investments the way our American companies are leaning in now
and counting on us to be their partner if they are going to be
successful.
But GM, Ford, Stellantis have laid out aggressive plans to
electrify their vehicle fleets. In fact, Stellantis just
yesterday announced an electric Jeep they are doing for 2023. I
have driven that, it is really something, and electric Ram
pickup in 2024, and plans to reduce carbon emissions by 50
percent by 2030.
GM of course is doing 30 new battery electric vehicles
worldwide by 2025, plans to only do electric vehicles by 2035.
And Ford, of course, the great F-150 truck, I have also had the
opportunity to drive, and the Mach-E Mustang, and their plans
to increase EV production next year to 600,000 units globally.
If they are going to succeed with this kind of aggressive
electrification plans, the charging stations in the legislation
we passed is absolutely critical. What type of technical
expertise is the Department of Transportation, Department of
Energy providing to States? Because we do know that States are
at various levels of planning at this point.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you, and that is right. The technical
support is going to be very important. This is not the same
thing as gas stations. In some ways, electric vehicle charging
is easier than filling up with gas, because you can do it at
home. In other ways it is more difficult because of the time
involved depending on which type of charger you have. So we
need a paradigm that really works for an EV network for the
future.
This is exactly the kind of work that the new Joint Office
of Energy and Transportation that we have set up with Secretary
Granholm is taking on. And now that we have put out the call
for States to submit their plans, we are looking forward to
seeing what they come back with by the August deadline, and
working very closely with them on how to make sure that no
State and no community is left behind with the opportunity.
Senator Stabenow. Absolutely. I do have to say, when I am
asked about high gas prices, which right now are extremely
high, that I am looking forward to a very short time in the
future when you can drive right by the gas station with your
electric vehicle and not worry about what it says at the pump.
I think that is an important part of our future.
Let me ask another question about another really important
piece of the bill that I spent a lot of time on over a number
of years, and that is Buy American, and being able to really
provide more integrity and transparency. Waivers in the past
have been used over and over again to waive the requirements,
rather than looking for the businesses that can actually
provide the American made goods and services.
So there are several provisions of my Make It in America
bill in this law. But I want to ask you specifically about two
provisions that we have asked the Department of Transportation
to focus on. One is to ensure that domestic industries are
ready to provide products for all modes of transportation.
Second, I think this is very important, before the
Department issues a waiver to use Federal funds to purchase
iron or steel or manufactured products to meet Buy America
standards that you are required to reach out to a manufacturing
extension partnership and provide small and medium size
manufacturers with the first opportunity to produce these hard
to find items for our Nation's infrastructure projects.
In other words, I know in Michigan, and we saw this during
the pandemic, when the call went out with what we needed, our
companies were able to quickly retool to provide that. If they
know that there is a marketplace, I really believe that small
and medium size manufacturers are going to be able to step up,
which means more jobs, obviously more investment in America.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you, yes. We are committed to these
provisions of the law, not only because it is called for in the
law, but also as you know, this Administration and this
President are enthusiastic about Buy America and having more
manufacturing here in America. Among other things, part of the
solution, the long term solution to our supply chain issues is
to be less reliant on things coming in from overseas.
So we will work to make sure that those U.S. based
companies have a heads up as part of that waiver process, so
that they might be able to respond. We will work to meet all of
the parameters that are laid out and hopefully exceed them.
Senator Stabenow. Terrific. I am really looking forward to
working with you on this.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Stabenow. Thanks for your
great leadership on the Ag Committee. There is a lot of
interface, as you know, with the work we do on this Committee.
Senator Stabenow has been kind to walk me through the
Detroit Auto Show for more years than I can remember. About 10
years ago, I remember looking at one of the, they called them,
I forget which auto company, but they had on display a vehicle
that was in a garage, this was like a mock up using two by
fours, the vehicle was in a garage, and the garage was
alongside of a house, all a mock up.
I asked the people from that company, I said, what does
this represent? They said, this is hydrogen. This is hydrogen.
And they said, the vehicle here is going to be powered someday
by hydrogen, hopefully, what we call clean hydrogen. They have
no emissions, and they use fuel cells. And the same technology
will heat this garage, this house, using your imagination, in
the winter, and cool it in the summer. You know what? That day
has come.
When we look at reducing emissions from large trucks, vans,
and so forth, some of them use electric, will use electric,
already use electric. But a bunch of them are going to use
hydrogen, as you know. That is a good thing.
Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add, I am a
strong supporter of hydrogen fuel cells as well. Part of what
we are doing in Michigan is working with the Army, who is right
on the front lines right now driving these vehicles. You are
absolutely right. Particularly in the Department of Defense,
there is tremendous enthusiasm as well as larger fleets. This
is a really important part of the equation.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Speaking of Department of Defense, Captain Mark Kelly.
Senator.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a fan of fuel
cells as well, having used them on other vehicles in other
places. I do look forward to my invitation to the Detroit Auto
Show at some point.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again, twice in 2
days. Thank you for being here today.
I was really proud to have had the opportunity to work to
craft the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, both as a member of
this Committee but also in the group of members that negotiated
the final deal. And one of the aspects that I am most proud of
is how this law was crafted to meet the needs of different
States, different States having different needs.
In Arizona, one top priority is funding to strengthen our
State's interstate highways. Arizona is different from many
other States. When the Interstate Highway System was designed
in the 1950s and 1960s, Arizona was a small population State
and their infrastructure needs looked a lot different. Compared
to other regions, our interstate highways are not designed to
meet the needs of our growing State and the growing Southwest.
Right now, Interstate 10, which connects Phoenix and
Tucson, the two largest metropolitan areas in the State, still
to this day just has two lanes in sections, long sections. And
a single accident can cause traffic jams for hours. I have
spent 6 and a half hours on that highway, stuck in a traffic
jam when the normal drive is about 90 minutes. These traffic
jams happen every single day on average.
Despite being two of the fastest growing cities in the
country, another issue we have is Phoenix and Las Vegas.
Phoenix and Las Vegas still are not connected via an interstate
highway. That is why I worked in this Committee and on the
floor to support the creation of the new National
Infrastructure Project Assistance Program, which we are calling
the MEGA Projects Program, to fund major transportation
projects with national or regional economic mobility and safety
benefits. In other words, projects like the I-10 expansion
between Phoenix and Tucson, or the construction of
I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas, would be these MEGA
projects.
Mr. Secretary, would you agree that Arizona and other fast
growing States have different roadway infrastructure needs than
other States? And how do you believe the Infrastructure Law can
help States like Arizona fund the long overdue interstate
expansion projects?
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you for the question. The example you
raise is a great one of how the infrastructure needs of our
States differ. I come from a community that lost about 30
percent of its population in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, up to the
time that I was mayor. So we had built for more roads than we
had taxpayers or drivers to support them, and found that in
some contexts some of our roads needed to go on a diet.
Although I am pleased to say my hometown is growing again.
But some of the fastest growing communities are in places
like Arizona. The needs are an example of why, for example, in
Federal Highways' internal guidance, there was an effort to
point out that none of that would stand in the way of a
capacity expansion where it is appropriate.
You have raised both the need for, or the vision for an
entirely new stretch of highway with I-11, or a capacity
expansion in I-10. There are many sources of funding in the
formula funds, potentially MEGA projects and others, that could
go toward this use in the Infrastructure Law.
I would also add, one thing I have admired in Arizona is
the funding and support that has gone into transit, including
across community lines, party lines, county lines. And that can
serve to take pressure off of congestion, even while capacity
expansion is being considered at the same time.
Senator Kelly. Is there anything you could share about the
timing for the MEGA Projects Program?
Mr. Buttigieg. I can tell you that we are working right now
on getting the guidance ready, and that part of what we are
working on there is to make sure that it is a flagship example
of a notice of funding opportunity that is user friendly for
applicants. So we want to get it right. But we also want to get
it out the door quickly.
Senator Kelly. What do you think applicants might need to
do to be successful in applying for these funds?
Mr. Buttigieg. Of course, first, the guidance will lay out
the kind of basic expectations for the use of Federal taxpayer
dollars. Next will be the aspirations of these funds that are
going to projects, as you know having helped to craft them,
that can't necessarily be met by any other source, too big, too
complex, too multijurisdictional or for some other reason.
Might not happen but for a grant out of the MEGA Program.
So the ability to demonstrate that and to speak to the
other policy priorities that are encoded in the law I think
will make for the strongest applications.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. We look forward in Arizona to see
the rolling out of this MEGA Projects Program, and the details
for how to apply and be successful.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thank you so much. Thanks
for your deep involvement in these issues on behalf of Arizona
and our country. Thank you.
I believe Senator Padilla has been waiting patiently on
Webex and is ready to participate. After that, if we have no
one else who joins us who hasn't already spoken, I am going to
yield back to our Ranking Member, then I will close it out.
Senator Padilla, are you with us on Webex?
Senator Padilla. I am here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much. Last but certainly not least.
I think we all recognize that after decades of neglect and
under-investment, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is
delivering billions in much needed new funding to strengthen
our Nation's transportation supply chain while improving our
Nation's competitiveness, lowering costs for American families,
reducing emissions, and all the multiple policy objectives we
had when we voted for the historic piece of legislation.
This includes accelerating investment in our ports,
waterways, and freight networks. So Mr. Secretary, I want to
thank you for your work to increase Federal flexibilities for
port grants. And we have talked about it over the phone, given
some of the choke points that we have experienced in
California. You have worked to fast track some port
infrastructure grant awards and announce new construction
projects for coastal navigation, inland waterways, and land
ports of entry. So I wanted to start off by giving credit where
credit is due, and lead with a thank you.
As you know, working with the Governor and part of his
team, California plays a central role in the movement of goods,
not just locally or regionally, but throughout the United
States. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone account
for approximately 40 percent of the container traffic that
enters the country. That is huge.
Last October, the State of California, working with your
office in the U.S. Department of Transportation, entered into
an emerging projects agreement to help ease access to Federal
financing programs for nationally significant ports and supply
chain resilience, infrastructure projects. This January, just a
month and a half ago, Governor Newsom's State budget proposal
for the next fiscal year includes $1.2 billion for ports and
freight infrastructure projects, including, and this is
intentional, to leverage Federal grants provided by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as Federal credit
programs to the Emerging Projects Agreement.
So I know it is a long setup here, but the question is,
given the State of California's proposed significant State
funding contribution for the specific purpose of attracting
Federal investment through grants and financing, what can the
Department of Transportation do to reward States, make that an
incentive for States that are taking proactive steps and
putting their own skin in the game?
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you for the question and for the
conversations we have had about just how important it is to do
everything that we can to support goods movement and supply
chains in this country. As you know, ports like those in
California have such economic significance in terms of the
volume that comes through them that you feel the impact of
their success or their problems as far as away as my Indiana
hometown.
I think for that reason it has been especially rewarding to
see creative approaches taken like that Emerging Projects
Agreement. We hope that there will be more where that came from
as other States look at that example, effectively helping to
fast track many of these credit programs that we think would
make a difference when it comes to alleviating those supply
chain issues.
You also mentioned that California is a State that has
acted already to put up a great deal of funding through an
ambitious budget supporting transportation. I have seen similar
things in Colorado, Illinois, and others. And I want to
emphasize that, especially if anybody gets the wrong idea and
thinks, why would we put up this State money when there is
Federal money coming, that States that choose to step up are
putting themselves in an excellent position to take advantage
of the Federal funding that has been made possible by Congress
and the Administration.
I don't mean that in the sense of putting a thumb on the
scale, but rather just as a clear fact that when you already
have more investment ready to go into a local match, or to make
sure that a project can be done with whatever slice of it is
being proposed for support from a discretionary program, that
much more is going to be achieved in the State. And so I do
think States that have taken those steps, that have taken the
initiative to put up funding for infrastructure, will be
especially well positioned to take advantage of this national
vision for infrastructure development that the President is
leading.
Senator Padilla. Great. I look forward to following up with
you on not just funding opportunities, but also the financing
programs, including RIF, TIFIA, and others to reflect the same,
incentivizing, rewarding States that are stepping up and
willing to put skin in the game.
I will be brief with my next and final question, that is
just acknowledging the size of the agricultural industry in
California, including a lot of perishable crops and the supply
chain issues that we have experienced for many, many months. I
know you and Secretary Vilsack have teamed up to be responsive
to those concerns, reaching out to carriers, doing everything
possible to keep goods moving, not just on the import side but
especially the export side, which is critical to growers in
California.
Can you make any brief comments on how it is going, any new
ideas how we continue to work together with stakeholders?
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, thank you for the question. Because
while most of the coverage on supply chains has looked at
things like electronics or clothing coming in from Asia, the
export side is extremely important when it comes to our
agricultural goods being able to get out. This is another area
where collaborations have played an important role.
I would note a partnership with the Port of Oakland, for
example, to establish what we are calling a pop up site, or
container yard, effectively a temporary site that helps ease
congestion and keep those goods flowing, especially since, as
you mentioned, they are often perishable or part of a cold
chain. And so it is especially important that they flow
promptly. We welcome more opportunities to think about how to
add ways to make better use of the capacity we have.
I would also say that suitability for agricultural exports
is one way to be competitive with grants that are looking for
economic impact on the discretionary side, and the guidance
will make more clear how to appropriately speak to that. But I
think it is certainly something worth considering for anyone
proposing a supply chain related project.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. A lot to follow
up on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, we are glad that you could
join us remotely. I look forward to seeing you later today on
the floor.
Senator Capito is now going to ask a couple of closing
questions, and offer whatever closing statements and thoughts
she would like to present.
Go ahead, please.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I also want to thank you
personally for the personal outreach that you have extended to
me and to my staff numerous times, and shared your cell phone
and all that. Your accessibility is really remarkable, and I
really appreciate that. As we move through the implementation
that will be very important.
I do want to add to the record a unanimous consent. These
are documents that show the questions, letters from different
States and other stakeholders and from lawmakers questioning
the guidance document.
Senator Carper. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.074
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I am going to go back to that one more time. I want to ask
you a question. Have you had any conversations with Mr.
Landrieu, who is charged by the President to implement the
Bipartisan Infrastructure bill on this topic that we have
talked about, the guidance issue?
Mr. Buttigieg. I remember him mentioning that he got some
calls about it around the time that it came up. But we haven't
talked through the substance of the memo in detail.
Senator Capito. I would suggest that you have another
conversation. I was in a meeting last week with him, with
numerous lawmakers, to where this issue was discussed briskly,
I will say. And so I would suggest that he is hearing from a
lot of people that I am sure you are hearing from, but he might
be hearing it from a little bit different angle.
So on that last topic, I would say in response to the
question that Senator Kelly asked, and this was around the MEGA
projects, but I would imagine that this is all guidance, your
quote was, ``Guidance lays out basic expectations.'' I think
that is where the issue is with this December 16th guidance
letter.
The other thing I would like to say is in terms of what
Senator Whitehouse said, and some of the comments that you have
said, this is a bipartisan bill that we passed. There is a
climate title in there. There is an emphasis on finding
resiliency, greenhouse gas mitigation, carbon emissions,
healthy streets. This is an area that we are deeply committed
to. These are grant programs. These are not the formula dollars
that go out.
So I want to make the distinction, and would you agree,
these are two separate programs that are pots of money, so to
speak. The discussion that I am having with you on this
guidance doesn't really apply to the climate title parts of the
bill. Would you say that is correct?
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, I think most of what we have been
discussing in that context was outside Federal aid highway
programs. Yes.
Senator Capito. Right. Yes, thank you.
Question on, you put out a combined notice of funding for
three different programs, the MEGA, the INFRA, and the Rural
Surface Transportation grant program, which obviously is one
that I am most interested in, or not most interested in, but
very interested in. My understanding is that this is sort of an
unusual approach.
I am not sure how to really calculate, I guess I would like
to know why you are doing this, and the education outreach that
you have done to the States. Because this is a different way of
looking at this.
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, thanks for asking that. What we are
trying to do is make our grant process more simplified and user
friendly, less duplicative. Especially knowing that the easier
we can make our processes to navigate, the more we are going to
see rural communities, communities with fewer resources, able
to take advantage of it. Our staff likens it to a common
application for college, so you don't have to put in your zip
code nine different times.
Of course, there is information that sometimes is very
customized to these specialized programs. But if we can gather
it up all at once and only ask you to fill out one form instead
of three, we think it is one example of reducing the
administrative burden associated with what can already be a
daunting set of requirements to try to apply for these
programs.
Senator Capito. Good. Because that is sort of the way I saw
it. I thought, well, it is trying to be a simplification, I
guess the devil is in the details, to see how that actually
rolls out. I don't think bureaucracy in any place is known for
simplification or anything.
So I hope that that is the end result. Because if you are
looking at opening up these applications to different, not just
State DOTs but municipalities and where they don't have--our
State DOT basically helps all our municipalities write all of
their grant applications that they can have right now anyway in
this area. So thank you for that.
On the EV, just a quick question. I might be off base, or
not understanding it. So the money goes, you have already put
the guidance out, and I think you said $6 billion.
Mr. Buttigieg. Five.
Senator Capito. Five. And the State is going to build, or
maybe get contractors to build the EV stations in public areas,
I guess. The question that came to me was, once that is
completed, the ownership and maintenance and liabilities of
those facilities then goes to?
Mr. Buttigieg. So, we don't generally view these as
government owned and operated, certainly not Federal Government
owned and operated charging stations. But part of what I hope
will come of the flexibility for the States to come in with
their plans is different approaches. Notably, the law provides
for maintenance to be one spend, one eligible use of the
funding, and capital to be another.
We may, we certainly won't have all of the answers here in
Washington on which is the more efficient way to set up a
public-private partnership. In other words, which piece of it
being subsidized will prove to be the most efficient.
So I think it is a great example of a laboratory of ideas
where different States working with different private partners
will come up with different models to effectively buy down the
difference of the cost in getting those EV chargers up and
running so that they can make for that national network.
Senator Capito. So then you would anticipate that that
issue of maintenance and liability and other issues would be
worked out on the front end rather than, now we have this, who
is going to take care of it.
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, I think that is right. Those are the
kinds of things we are working through with the development
office right now, and we would be happy to keep you apprised.
Senator Capito. Yes, that is a question that came to me.
And then this is kind of a question out of left field, but
I am going to ask it anyway. The President gave his State of
the Union Address last night. He started with Ukraine,
obviously. Thank you for your service. You know what is in the
hearts and minds of our military as they are sort of on tenuous
ground right now in terms of families being deployed to the
NATO nations.
Have you had any conversations or have any conversations
occurred with you and your department as to what role you might
play in terms of ratcheting down any involvement we have with
Russian made goods, Russian commerce, Russian contractors? Is
this something that is into your realm or not?
Mr. Buttigieg. To some extent, yes. This is the theme of a
conversation I had late yesterday afternoon with my
counterpart, the Ukrainian Minister of Infrastructure, as well
as their Ambassador in Washington. One of the things we
discussed was something that they requested that the President
then announced last night, which is the closure of the U.S.
airspace to Russian aircraft.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Buttigieg. There may be other steps that would be
appropriate that are within our authorities. Obviously, this
situation is fast unfolding. So we are moving quickly to assess
them.
But I do think there are a number of things with regard to
infrastructure and certainly with regard to travel that we need
to look at as a way to make good on our commitment to support
the Ukrainian people. I am also in frequent contact with many
of my counterparts among our allies and partners to look at
what they are doing, what we might be doing, and how best to
coordinate.
Senator Capito. I would like to follow up on that as time
goes on. I think we certainly don't want to get into a
situation where we find out, as we I think have been
enlightened to, that we have been importing 600,000 barrels of
oil from Russia, that our transportation system is wholly
reliant, obviously not wholly reliant, partly reliant or
certain parts or certain minerals or whatever is relying on the
Russian economy. Because what we see going on, I think we all
agree here, is egregious in terms of Russia's aggression. And
we want to shut that down as quickly as we can.
So thank you so much for that.
Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks for those closing
thoughts and for helping us put this together. I think it has
been a terrific hearing. Very informative. Thank you to your
staff, our staffs on the majority side as well.
Mr. Secretary, one of the things I like to do when we have
an important issue like today, if we have a panel where we have
different points of view, I will ask Senator Capito sometimes
to kick it back to the panel and just ask them, if three or
four or five people are on a panel, I will ask them, where is
the consensus, where is the agreement. I could kick this back
to you pretty easily, because you are the panel.
You have tried in conversation for the last couple of hours
to help us with consensus and communication. Would you like to
take just a couple of minutes to sum up and come back, maybe
reiterate something, touch on something you haven't, maybe
answer a question that hasn't been asked?
Mr. Buttigieg. I will say, I think I missed an opportunity
with regard to Senator Capito's question about One Federal
Decision to note that there has already been a one time hack in
the law, which was the 60 day requirement to share information
on the categorical exclusions. And we have met that. So I did
not mean to be abstract in talking about our desire to meet
some of those other goals. But we have met our requirements so
far, and are committed to continuing to do that. I appreciate
the chance to revise and extend there.
I will be very concise, noting I am a panel of one, and
just express again kind of as I began my appreciation and
gratitude for the work of this Committee. I really believe that
the improvements we are going to make, the things we are going
to fix, and the things we are going to build across the
different areas in the transportation infrastructure, they are
going to help goods get to where they need to go, affordably
and swiftly. They are going to help people get to where they
need to be, they are going to create so many jobs in this
country. I think we are all going to be proud of them.
At a time when all of us worked through this last year,
when there were many commentators scoffing at the idea you
could have a bipartisan anything law, the fact that legislation
of this scope and scale and ambition was passed by this
Congress, largely built in this Committee, and signed by this
President, is an extraordinary thing.
Our department takes very seriously our responsibility and
our opportunity to make the most of this and to get it right. I
doubt we will get an opportunity this compelling again. So
thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
I think I speak not just for Senator Capito but for all our
colleagues on this Committee, it has really been a privilege
for us at this point in time in our Nation's history to have a
chance coming out of the worst pandemic in 100 years, one of
the worst recessions since the Great Depression, to have the
opportunity to work on this set of issues that really will help
get this economy moving, make us more productive, and enable us
to help a whole lot of families who need some hope and need
some help.
I love to go to schools; I know you have been to a ton of
schools. We all have, and they have assemblies and so forth.
They ask us what we do. It is not uncommon for one of them,
especially in elementary schools with an assembly of kids, they
will say, what do you do? I will say, I am a United States
Senator. They say, well, what do you do? I say, we help make
the rules for the country. What else do you do? And one of the
things is, we really try to help people.
As a native West Virginian, someone who has lived most of
his life in Delaware, one of the best ways you can help
somebody is to make sure they have job. The 8 years I was
privileged to be Governor of Delaware, we used to have
presidents of Delaware, but I was privileged to be the Governor
of Delaware, more jobs were created in those 8 years than any 8
year period in the history of the State of Delaware. I didn't
create one of them. I helped create a nurturing environment for
job creation and job preservation.
There are a lot of ways to do that. We talked about some of
them. But a really important one here today is transportation,
the ability for people to get where they need to go, goods to
get where they need to go in a timely way, and enable us to
foster even more job creation.
Let me just take a look at my notes here. I have just a
couple of questions and a couple of points I need to make sure
this is on the record. I would just say, we have a lot of
witnesses who come before us, including a lot of folks from
this Administration and earlier Administrations. I have always
described, people will say, what is he like? I will say, he is
smart. He is smart.
And I will say the other thing, he is practical, and plain
spoken, but he has a great grasp on the issues and is able to
really walk and chew gum at the same time, and do it better
than most anybody I have had before our Committee from any
Administration.
So we thank you for all of that. I just want to say thank
you for your willingness to be responsive and to really say to
your team, those on your team, your expectations. You set a
good example in that regard.
We need a couple of nominations, as you know, from the
Administration. One of them is the head of Highway
Administration. It is hugely important, as you know. There are
a couple of others as well. And we need that.
Senator Capito. And Air.
Senator Carper. Yes, and Air, the Office of Air.
Mr. Buttigieg. Yes.
Senator Carper. We need to pass an omnibus and fund this
Government until the end of the fiscal year, until the end of
September. Senator Capito is the senior member of the
Appropriations Committee. She is working hard on that, along
with her other colleagues.
It would be a shame if we spent all these years only to
have to wait year after year having Infrastructure Week and
then another Infrastructure Week next year, and another. As I
said earlier, this is Infrastructure Decade. We want to make
sure that we get a lot of stuff done. Part of that is on us;
part of that is on you and communicating, collaborating will I
think set a good example for this country in fulfilling the
needs that have been expressed, and the hopes that have been
expressed.
With that said, a little bit of housekeeping before we
adjourn. Senators will be allowed to submit written questions
for the record through the close of business on Wednesday,
March 16th. We will compile those questions, Mr. Secretary, and
we will send them to you and your team. We ask that you reply
to them by Wednesday, April 6th.
A lot of us spent a couple of hours together last night as
the President of our country did what Presidents have done for
many years, that is deliver the State of the Union message. He
spent the first almost hour talking about what is going on in
the country of Ukraine. He laid out what we are trying to do in
the coalition that he has helped to assemble.
We have a couple of Ukrainian churches in my State. I had
the opportunity to worship there on Sunday at both of them, in
a show of solidarity. I think I speak for every member of this
panel, everybody in the Senate, we cannot allow to stand what
Putin is doing in Russia.
I don't say this lightly, but if he is allowed to get away
with this with respect to Ukraine, I spent some time flying
missions in and out of the South China Sea, including Taiwan.
If he gets away with this with respect to Ukraine, somebody
else is going to come along and look to do something similar to
this in Taiwan. This is doubly important.
I would just close with that. I would say to the people of
Ukraine, we admire you, respect you, value the leadership of
your president, and are very much with you today and every day.
More than just prayers, a lot of hope and help.
With that, we are adjourned. Thanks so much.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]