[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]











  DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                                 _______

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND 
                URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                       TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas               BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida          NORMA J. TORRES, California  
  TONY GONZALES, Texas                 PETE AGUILAR, California 
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California         ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York        
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona                   

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. Granger, as chairwoman of the full 
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

              Doug Disrud, Diem-Linh Jones, Nicole Christus,
                     Avery Pierson, and Jared Sutton
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                _________

                                  PART 1

                                                                   Page
  Inspectors General of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development and the 
Department of Transportation............                              1
                                        
  Members' Day..........................                             83
                                        
  Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Fiscal Year 2024 Budget 
Request.................................                            107
                                        
  Department of Transportation Fiscal                       
Year 2024 Budget Request................                            169
                                        
  Federal Aviation Administration.......                            239
                                        
  Tribal Perspectives on Housing and 
Transportation..........................                            293
                                        
                                _________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
53-388                   WASHINGTON : 2023  






















                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                     KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman


  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
  JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona

  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
  STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

              Anne Marie Chotvacs, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
   DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024

                              ----------                              

                                           Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

 INSPECTORS GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
                  AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                               WITNESSES

HON. RAE OLIVER DAVIS, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
HON. ERIC J. SOSKIN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Mr. Cole. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we 
welcome inspectors general from the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.
    Good morning to our witnesses. The DOT IG, Mr. Soskin, is 
here, and the HUD IG, Ms. Oliver Davis, is here. Thank you for 
appearing before us today and for your years of service to the 
taxpaying public.
    I would also like to welcome my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle to our first hearing of the budget season, 
although we have had one roundtable. I thank those of you that 
were able to make that. It is tough on a fly-out day.
    One of our fundamental roles as members of the 
Appropriations Committee is to make sure that the funding we 
allocate is spent as intended. That is why our first 
subcommittee hearing of this Congress is focused on oversight. 
We look to the Offices of Inspector General across the Federal 
Government to conduct much needed oversight to ensure our tax 
dollars are being well spent. We rely on you, Inspectors 
General Soskin and Oliver Davis, to help us root out waste, 
fraud, and abuse at the agencies under your jurisdiction.
    I have some concerns regarding the management and 
effectiveness of both the DOT and HUD given the unprecedented 
Federal funding both Departments have received in recent years. 
This raises the risks of lax oversight and rushed decision 
making. Your audits and investigations provide a critical 
window for policymakers and members of the public to peer 
through.
    I am most interested to learn about the outcomes of your 
various reports, which recommendations have been implemented 
and which have not, and where additional congressional 
attention may be warranted.
    The testimony today will help members on both sides of the 
aisle assess the strengths and weaknesses of both Departments 
ahead of our budget hearings with both Secretaries next month.
    I look forward to your testimony as we make tough decisions 
that will be required to put together the THUD fiscal year 2024 
appropriations bill.
    With that, I recognize my good friend, the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Quigley, alongside whom 
I very much look forward to working with in this Congress.
    So, Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chairman. I also look forward to 
working with you and this entire committee in this next 
Congress. There is a lot of work to do, but couldn't ask for 
better partners.
    I want to join you in welcoming our witnesses today, and I 
will keep my opening statement brief. I reminded the staff here 
today that a gentleman named Edward Everett spoke for 3 hours 
at Gettysburg, and no one remembers it. Lincoln spoke for under 
3 minutes; a lesson for all of us.
    But examining the management challenges facing the 
Department of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 
help the subcommittee make informed decisions about how we 
invest resources. Whether it is aging IT infrastructure or 
shrinking workforce or private sector development outpacing 
Federal regulation, DOT and HUD require effective oversight and 
fine-tuning.
    With the enactment of the historic Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act and emergency relief provided for the 
response to COVID and natural disasters, DOD and HUD are 
leading the modernization of our Nation's infrastructure, and 
that is no easy task. Understanding the complexities of 
transforming these resources into jobs and shovels in the 
ground will be important to today's discussion.
    I believe the Transportation and Housing Secretaries have 
what it takes to effectively run these Departments, and I am 
here today to learn how I can strengthen our work with them to 
make sound improvements.
    I look forward to learning more about how HUD and DOT are 
meeting their management challenges and where we can make 
progress.
    Thank you both for being here today and for your service.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    This morning we will begin with the Department of 
Transportation inspector general, Mr. Soskin.
    Mr. Soskin, your full testimony will be included in the 
record. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soskin. Thank you.
    Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the Office 
of Inspector General's oversight of Department of 
Transportation programs and activities.
    DOT's stated mission is to deliver the world's leading 
transportation system, and our office supports that mission by 
providing independent objective oversight through 
investigations and audits conducted on behalf of the American 
public. As you know, DOT has received substantial 
appropriations to improve the infrastructure underpinning 
America's transportation systems, including $660 billion 
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA. 
This is no small task. And, at the same time, DOT must deal 
with a shifting economic landscape and the lingering impacts of 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Against this backdrop, my testimony today describes the top 
challenges we have identified in three areas: safety 
improvements, stewardship of infrastructure spending, and new 
transportation and workforce concerns.
    First, DOT is engaged in a continuous effort to make the 
U.S. transportation system the safest in the world. In the 
aviation sector, FAA has historically maintained an excellent 
safety record, helping to assure Americans that aircraft are 
safe to fly. However, the two overseas crashes involving Boeing 
737 MAX 8 aircraft have highlighted significant challenges 
related to FAA's certification process and delegation of 
authority to U.S. manufacturers.
    In addition, our audits have identified opportunities for 
FAA to better oversee air carriers' efforts to assess and 
mitigate their safety risks.
    In highways, DOT is continuing its critical work to improve 
traffic and safety. NHTSA has enhanced requirements for 
notifying owners about vehicle safety defects and has adopted a 
risk-based approach to reviewing recalls. However, safety risks 
can take years to resolve. For example, faulty Takata airbags 
remain on the road even after years of ongoing recalls.
    In addition, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration faces 
challenges in improving safety data and its assessments for 
large trucks and buses, as well as overseeing commercial 
driver's licenses, medical certifications, and license 
disqualifications.
    The recent Norfolk Southern train derailment, meanwhile, 
has focused national attention on freight trains carrying 
hazardous materials. PHMSA's implementation of the PIPES Act 
will help advance the safe transportation of hazardous material 
but will require the agency to hire more inspectors and 
enforcement personnel, among other actions.
    Rail track oversight will also remain a challenge. In that 
area, our recent audit work has recommended steps for FRA to 
improve its management of its automated track inspection 
program.
    Alongside these and other safety challenges, DOT must 
identify and then manage the financial risks associated with 
infrastructure spending, including the IIJA funds. DOT will 
need to verify that contract and grant costs are based on sound 
pricing and also establish controls to detect and prevent 
improper payments.
    Compliance with Made in America laws will also require 
attention, especially given the recent expansion of those 
domestic preferences in federally funded infrastructure 
projects.
    The large scale of current infrastructure spending brings 
with it fraud risks too. A key challenge will be identifying 
and mitigating fraud in high-risk areas, such as bid rigging. 
DOT must monitor red flags and improve outreach to recipients 
and contractors about their responsibilities.
    And, while all of this goes on, the Department is preparing 
for the future of transportation, which brings new workforce 
and policy challenges to manage alongside these traditional 
safety and stewardship objectives. Not only must DOT hire, 
train, and retain a right-sized workforce to oversee its grants 
and contracts, it must also strive to maximize the efficiency 
and effectiveness of that workforce in a hybrid work 
environment.
    In the National Airspace System, DOT must face the 
challenge of overseeing its consumer protection mission while 
delivering on systems and meeting staffing needs in ways that 
benefit all NAS stakeholders. And, across the board, American 
leadership and prosperity continue to depend on the 
Department's ability to strike the right balance between 
enabling innovation and new technologies and ensuring that that 
innovation does not compromise safety.
    To do these things and improve information security and 
implement executive priorities, such as addressing climate 
change and advancing equity, is no small task. So we appreciate 
the Department's commitment to prompt action in response to the 
challenges we have identified. Our office will continue to work 
closely with DOT and will keep you informed about the results 
of our work.
    That concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy to 
answer any questions that you may have.
    [The information follows:]  
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
    Mr. Cole. Within 5 seconds. That is a pretty impressive, 
on-the-mark performance.
    Thank you.
    We now recognize the HUD inspector general, Ms. Oliver 
Davis. Your full written statement will also be included in the 
record.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Good morning, Chairman Cole, Ranking 
Member Quigley, and members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify about my office's 
oversight of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. I appreciate the support of this subcommittee in 
providing us with resources to do meaningful oversight of HUD's 
important programs.
    HUD OIG delivers outstanding value to taxpayers each year 
by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse that threatens HUD 
program and operational success. Our work generates substantial 
cost savings, over $7 billion in fiscal year 2022, and our 
recommendations help HUD better serve the public. HUD's vast 
portfolio is challenging to oversee as it provides billions of 
dollars in grant funding for rental assistance, preventing 
homelessness, and recovering from disasters; ensures trillions 
of dollars for mortgage insurance of single and multifamily 
properties; guarantees trillions of dollars in housing finance; 
and investigates housing discrimination and enforces civil 
rights laws across the United States.
    During my tenure as inspector general, we have worked hard 
to ensure that our oversight portfolio appropriately covers all 
of HUD's programs, and we concentrate our work on the areas of 
most significant risk.
    My top priority is oversight of health and safety hazards 
in HUD's rental assistance programs. The affordable housing 
stock in America is old, and many HUD-assisted properties need 
critical repairs. Too many properties are failing physical 
inspections and have emergency health and safety deficiencies 
that must be addressed.
    In recent years, our reports identified several 
opportunities for HUD to enhance its oversight of dangerous 
environmental hazards in HUD-assisted housing, including 
tracking lead-based paint remediation, developing a strategy to 
respond to unsafe levels of lead in the water supply, and 
enhancing strategies for identifying and mitigating risks from 
radon and contaminated sites. HUD's actions in response to our 
recommendations from these reports will make programwide health 
and safety improvements for the millions of households these 
programs serve.
    Last week we reported the results of an audit of the 
Philadelphia Housing Authority's management of lead-based paint 
hazards in their public housing in which we identify the 
Authority needed to be more timely to assess the condition and 
maintenance of lead-based paint in public housing. HUD OIG is 
expanding our portfolio in this area, and we have initiated 
multiple audits at housing authorities and properties across 
the country to examine unit conditions and lead hazard 
management at the community level.
    We are also committed to holding landlords accountable for 
upholding their obligation to provide decent, safe, and 
sanitary housing to HUD beneficiaries. We are opening more 
investigations into allegations of landlords, contractors, and 
inspectors failing to ensure maintenance work and inspections 
are completed and performed in compliance with environmental 
safety rules.
    In this fiscal year, we have announced large results from 
our investigations, including a civil money penalty of $1.2 
million against a group of multifamily landlords for breaching 
their contract with HUD by knowingly failing to address water 
damage, mold, cracked paint, and other necessary repairs in 
units of an assisted apartment complex in Illinois.
    We also announced a 16-month sentence for a contractor to 
Federal prison for failing to perform lead paint removal work 
safely at a home where a young child with lead poisoning was 
living.
    An area of particular emphasis for me is investigating 
landlords that sexually assault or harass tenants. No one 
deserves to be preyed upon in their own home. We are doing 
important work across the rest of HUD's portfolio to promote 
accountability, integrity, and effectiveness.
    We have ongoing audits of several large FHA mortgage 
lenders to examine their process for ensuring mortgage loans 
receiving FHA insurance, ensuring they are eligible and meet 
HUD's requirements. We will soon report on our audit examining 
Ginnie Mae's process for managing troubled issuers within its 
program.
    We have initiated an audit to assess how emergency shelter 
grants that received unprecedented pandemic funding are 
monitoring their subgrantees and contractors. ESG-CV grantees' 
pandemic funding represented a 1,391 percent increase to their 
existing funding. We have examined fraud risk-management 
practices at HUD, as well as with HUD's largest disaster 
grantee, Puerto Rico.
    With the support of the subcommittee, we will continue 
investing our resources in work that generates meaningful 
results at the ground level, protects HUD beneficiaries in 
funding, and influences positive change in HUD programs.
    On behalf of my office, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    I know that members on both sides of the aisle have a lot 
of questions, so we are looking to both of you for answers. We 
will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds, alternating 
sides, recognizing members in order of seniority as they were 
seated at the beginning of the hearing, and we will try to move 
quickly so that everyone can get their questions in.
    Please be mindful of your time. I know this is a wasted 
admonition, but try not to ask them a question in the last 2 
seconds and put both them and us in a time bind if you possibly 
can.
    And let me just say up front, without making any 
commitments because nobody knows where our allocations are, I 
looked at the budget requests from both of you. They are very 
reasonable. I think this is money well spent, so thank you for 
the job that you are each doing.
    Ms. Oliver Davis, when we last had a hearing with the 
inspectors general, a long time ago, 2017, your predecessor, 
Mr. David Montoya, said the financial management was HUD's most 
significant challenge due to--and I quote--quote, failure of 
leadership at all levels, unquote.
    Since then, it appears some positive steps have been taken, 
and the Department has been receiving a clean audit opinion on 
its financial statements for the last 3 years. Sound financial 
management is critical given HUD's loan portfolio is almost 
$3.5 trillion. The Department, however, still has a ways to go, 
and your annual top management challenges list continues to 
include financial management as one of HUD's most serious 
challenges. There are still open recommendations from the OIG 
and Government Accountability Office to be implemented. Your 
office continues to find reporting errors in financial 
statements and perhaps even a violation of the Anti-Deficiency 
Act in fiscal year 2022.
    Given all of that, can you give us your latest assessment 
of the Department's financial management position, what we need 
to do to resolve weaknesses and avoid making errors and 
potential ADA violations?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Thank you for that question, Chairman.
    We have characterized HUD's financial management over the 
last 2 years as sustained progress. And you mentioned my 
predecessor's testimony about the lack of leadership. We have 
actually been quite encouraged to see very strong leadership in 
this area with the previous administration and continuing 
presently to the CFO who is currently in the seat.
    What you are speaking about, in respect, is the potential 
ADA violation. And what we did find, even though we have had 
clean opinions with HUD's consolidated financial statements for 
the last couple of years, we still see material weaknesses.
    Particularly you are speaking about an incident where the 
Department exceeded its borrowing authority, which it was 
authorized to do from OMB. It was by $7 billion. So it was a 
considerable amount of money. And then, in turn, we saw FHA 
didn't appropriately book the interest on that amount of money. 
Our contractors caught it. They did make the CFO's office aware 
of it, and it is turned over to the--the ADA violation was 
turned over for investigation to the CFO's office to their 
appropriations law division. So we will anxiously await the 
outcome of that investigation.
    In that particular instance, I would say what we need is 
better governance. I think we need the CFO's office to have 
better insight into, certainly FHA, but all of the program 
offices and their financial reporting and have real-time access 
to information so they can get ahead of these things.
    You also mentioned, I believe, improper payments. Improper 
payments is something that they are struggling with. This is 
the ninth year in a row that we have seen HUD not be compliant 
with the Improper Payments Act. You know, this is a control we 
really want to see in place at the Department. It is really, in 
our mind, a way they can continuously improve. It is a way they 
make an estimate of what they are paying out there that is 
improper. They test it. They put controls in place, and they 
have continuous improvement year after year.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Good. That is good news to hear.
    Mr. Soskin, last year you noted the FAA has not assessed 
its internal resources or organizational structures to more 
effectively establish counter-UAS programs. You were in 
Oklahoma recently. That is an area of focus both at FAA and, 
frankly, more broadly in the State.
    In your view, what more needs to be done by the FAA 
internally to effectively engage with other Departments in this 
really important security matter?
    Mr. Soskin. Well, you know, it is so hard to watch the 
videos coming in from the land war over in Europe over in 
Ukraine and see the innovative use of UAS in threatening ways 
there and not think about our needs in terms of counter-UAS. 
And, as we reported last year, although the FAA has begun the 
testing of counter-UAS systems as required by the 2018 FAA 
Reauthorization Act, there is still a lot of progress to be 
made. Completing just phase 1 of their five-phase counter-UAS 
introduction plan is something that will take, we estimate now, 
until at least 2024, and that is just the testing of 10 
potential counter-UAS systems at 5 airports.
    They have made progress. I learned recently that they have 
graduated five detection systems that have been rolled out to a 
number of airports around the country. And there is additional 
testing of some of the counter-UAS systems that will hopefully 
come this year as the year goes forward.
    FAA has attributed elements of this delay to supply chain 
challenges, to the decisions they made to protect FAA staff 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. But FAA needs to take into 
account the risks of inaction and nondeployment in this area 
and set milestones that they can achieve in order to roll out 
and make more rapid progress testing and deploying these 
systems.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    We will now go to my good friend Mr. Quigley for any 
questions he might have.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you again, Chairman.
    You both did a good job spelling out your task, the 
challenges you have, given limited resources. From safety, 
whether it flies, floats, or rolls, there are issues that we 
are dealing with right now. And, obviously, in housing, there 
are issues of lead paint, mold, fire hazards, and neglect by 
people who should know better. And then the magnitude of the 
work that is involved sorting out fraud, waste, and abuse given 
the landmark and historic infrastructure bill, the question is, 
how do you prioritize, given all of these challenges, given 
your limited resources, and perhaps, more importantly--if you 
could divide this up a couple minutes a piece--what if you are 
facing a significant cut somewhere between 10 or even 20 
percent, how do you prioritize? And what is at risk?
    Mr. Soskin. I can take that one first, Representative 
Quigley.
    To start with the prioritization question, we have a 24-
month audit planning cycle in which we use a risk-based and 
data-driven approach to prioritize the audits that we think 
will have the greatest benefit to go alongside those audits 
that are mandated for us and requested of us.
    And, on the investigation side, we set expectations by 
prioritizing the most impactful public safety and fraud cases 
for our investigators to pursue. And so, regardless of the 
scope and extent of our resources, these are prioritization 
methods that we can use effectively to deploy our resources.
    But our budget is composed of, you know, 75 percent of 
salaries and people-associated cost benefits, and most of our 
nonsalary benefit items are for things like rent and 
contributions to the working capital fund, over which we have 
little or no control.
    So when budgets are tight, and if our budget is rolled back 
or we don't receive the requested amounts, what that ultimately 
means is that we have to cut people. And we will seek to do so 
by attrition and through retirements as we can. But, since what 
we do is audits and investigations and those are people-driven 
activities, having fewer people will mean fewer audits and 
fewer investigations, and we will work our way far less down 
the priorities list that we establish.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We are similarly situated, I suppose.
    I could not be happier with the strategy around our 
portfolio right now in terms of looking at HUD's management 
challenges at the program level and then being able to go out 
into the field, looking at specific grantees, looking at 
specific partners, because that is really what HUD is. It is 
made up of tens of thousands of partners.
    We just announced our audit from the Philadelphia Housing 
Authority where, you know, they lacked documentation between 
2019 on compliance with lead paint. We are doing sexual 
harassment and misconduct in housing cases. These are all 
extremely people, man-force intensive. We have one case that is 
pending, so I won't go into great detail, but we just executed 
a series of interviews in a sexual harassment matter where a 
landlord is preying upon victims. We did that with main DOJ, as 
well as the U.S. Attorney's Office out in the field. But it is 
60 interviews, and those are sit-down interviews with victims, 
so they require travel, they require manpower.
    So, as my colleague said, if we were in a budget crunch, I 
would fear that our impact would be lessened in that respect.
    We also are driving hotline complaints to our new hotline. 
We recently turned the hotline back on. We had, for the longest 
time, the only way beneficiaries could contact us was via our 
website, and now we have people that answer the phones. So, if 
we have victims of sexual misconduct in housing, if we have 
parents who have children with lead issues in housing, they can 
reach us now by picking up the phone. But we need to continue 
the manpower there. We also need to do data analytics, updated 
analytics of our hotline, analyze the complaints that are 
coming in to further inform our work.
    And, as my colleague said, 75 percent of our budget, as 
this subcommittee well knows, is salaries. So there is little 
left for innovation. We have to keep pace with inflation.
    I have to say I echo what my colleague said about 
attrition. I think that would play a big part in what we would 
face if there were to be severe budget cuts.
    Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Cole. We will next go to my good friend from 
California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. But my good friend from 
Florida here has to go, so I am going to give my spot to him if 
that is okay.
    Mr. Cole. You are a very generous person for our former 
chairman.
    The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. His kindness will 
cost me something later. We know that. Right? And I apologize; 
I do have to go to another hearing. And I want to be brief.
    Mr. Soskin, we spent a considerable amount of money in the 
last number of years on NextGen, and this is something that has 
been talked about and worked on for, now it seems like, you 
know, forever. And yet we now recently have read about, you 
know, close calls and other kinds of problems. And I understand 
that we have had some factors that are not necessarily under 
our control, whether it is, you know, shutdowns or CRs or 
COVID.
    But if you would give us an idea as to--because my 
frustration is, again, we spent a considerable amount of money, 
and it seems that we are obviously not there yet. And if you 
could give us some sense of where you think we are and where 
are we missing the mark.
    Mr. Soskin. That is a great question.
    NextGen, of course, has been a topic for this committee and 
for FAA for 15 years or longer now, and it is something that is 
best viewed as a suite of ongoing upgrades and programs at this 
point, rather than one fixed package of things that will 
somewhere be completed.
    But as our audit work has shown, each of those individual 
upgrades and programs has faced challenges, has fallen behind 
schedule, and the planning process for all of them has not 
always taken into account the ways that they are interlinked 
together. And progress in one area, or a lack of progress in 
one area, can hinder the development of those systems.
    The failure to achieve some of the anticipated benefits--
whether it is because of inadequate forecasts for air traffic 
that failed to take into account the range of potential traffic 
scenarios or the lack of planning for how one system's 
nondelivery would impact others--means that the private 
partners whose investments are key to achieving full progress 
on things like ADS-B [Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Braodcast] and other technologies that require private 
investment to attain, it is hard to persuade the private 
partners, the private industry to take those steps when they 
are not seeing, you know, the benefits.
    We hope to see advancement in the deployment of controller 
automation tools. I think we have an audit coming up of TFDM 
[Terminal Flight Data Manager tool] that will take into account 
the efforts to move to electronic flight strips.
    But one of the things that we have seen across the board 
for FAA is the need to set achievable milestones and then 
prioritize resources and carry out and execute a plan to 
achieve and accomplish those milestones.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, again, I apologize that I 
have to leave. I don't envy the chairman and the ranking 
member's job. This subcommittee has a lot of fixed costs that 
you don't have a lot of flexibility with, and they are going to 
have great challenges. But I don't think it has ever been led 
by two more able people than we have in the subcommittee right 
now.
    So thank you for your kindness, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cole. That tells me how bad it is going to be when you 
are that nice.
    Mr. Quigley. Then he leaves.
    Mr. Cole. Yeah, and then he leaves.
    Next go to my good friend from Labor-H, Mrs. Watson 
Coleman. Good to see you again.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Good to see you too, sir, and we will 
figure out how to split ourselves up and be in two places at 
one time right now.
    Thank you for your presentations to us. I have some 
questions. I just want to rotate.
    So I am interested in how well you are suited right now to 
meet the challenge of all of your investigations, inspections, 
and job in general, and then how long it takes for 
investigations to be completed, and then how are you 
positioning yourself with the possibility of losing 10 to 20 
percent of your resources.
    So let us--let me start with you, Ms. Oliver Davis.
    And I am going to ask you the same question, Mr. Soskin.
    How many people do you have on your staff right now that do 
the inspections, the investigations, the oversight?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We have roughly 525 FTEs. Now, some of 
those folks are support staff, but they all keep the machine 
going and all produce the deliverables at the end of the day 
certainly.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. You, Mr. Soskin?
    Mr. Soskin. I think our fiscal year 2023 budget request was 
for 397 FTEs, so we are a little bit smaller than HUD OIG.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. So how many open investigations, 
inspections do you have at the moment, Ms. Oliver Davis?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. That is a very good question.
    I can tell you right off the bat, within multifamily, we 
have 160 alone, and that is just one program. We have, I would 
venture--I am going to have to get back to you with the exact 
amount--the exact number there, but we have many, many 
investigations.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. You, sir?
    Mr. Soskin. I will have to get back to you with that 
number. We have about 100 special agents who are in the field, 
and each of them has several ongoing investigations.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do you have sort of an understanding 
of how long it takes to complete the normal investigations?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. It is tough because we have such a varied 
portfolio. I mean, we may have a false statement case. We may 
have a long complex case against a corporate landlord. It is 
impossible to know the timeframe for an investigation. We 
certainly urge our investigators and our attorneys who work on 
these matters to work expeditiously. You know, we impress upon 
them the importance of the portfolio and the sense of urgency 
in getting matters out to the public, and--the investigations, 
certainly, help with HUD's programs as well, their efficiency, 
preventing fraud. We are always thinking in terms of getting 
those done as fast as possible.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Is it unusual for a case to be open 
for a year?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. I would say it is not unusual for a case 
to be open for a year.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. It is not unusual?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. I would say that is not unusual. Usually 
we are----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Is it unusual for a case to be open 
for 5 years?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We would hope to not have a case open for 
5 years. I mean, obviously, there are statute of limitations, 
but some cases are more complex than others, and some are 
ongoing schemes.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mr. Soskin.
    Mr. Soskin. I think IG Oliver Davis well summarized the 
diversity of investigations. The same thing is true in our 
portfolio. They may range from simple investigations related 
to, say, a misuse of a drone over a public event. They may be 
long and complex fraud investigations that take years to 
complete.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, on my list, the last two 
questions, one to you, has to do with notification of action 
that needs to be taken on properties in which there has been a 
60-percent or 60 measurement of noncompliance or 
nonconformance, if it gets a rating of 60.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Oh.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. I need to know how we are working out 
getting through those.
    With you, sir, I want to know how well we are doing with 
oversight in the expectations of the use of minority-owned 
businesses and women-owned businesses with the infrastructure 
program and what mechanisms we have in place to ensure that 
these businesses are given these opportunities and what 
corrections that need to be made.
    So you first, ma'am, and then you, Mr. Soskin. And then I 
would yield back, sir.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Certainly. I believe you are speaking 
about a troubled--like a troubled property that would receive a 
failing score below 60----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Right.
    Ms. Oliver Davis [continuing]. On its REAC inspection. That 
is something that we are spending a considerable amount of time 
on is looking at the REAC process. It has long been in need of 
overhaul. It is something our colleagues at GAO have 
recommended. We have recommended it as well. The Department is 
currently in a demonstration of incorporating new standards 
into that process. It is called NSPIRE, and we have work going 
on in the moment as we speak on that process. And I believe our 
draft is actually with the Department, so it will be coming out 
soon. But that is something we are committing great resources 
to because the below 60 score is certainly a reflection of poor 
living standards.
    We are also looking at how HUD does oversight of those 
failing properties, and so we are examining their tools to see 
how they keep pace, and we are finding that they need reform 
all around.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Mr. Soskin. We have put a real priority on investigations 
of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise fraud. In the past, we 
have also done some audit work in that area. Most of our DBE 
fraud cases are focused on prime contractors or subcontractors 
who misrepresent their use of DBEs. And, you know, we think it 
is just essential that those opportunities are preserved for 
legitimate DBEs, for women-owned businesses, for veteran-owned 
businesses. And, of course, that the purpose of the DBE 
program--which is to build competition and make sure there is 
plenty of competition in contracting--to make sure that purpose 
is achieved.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. You are welcome.
    We will now try again, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you both to our guests for your testimony today and 
your time.
    Recent audits of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program 
found that HUD did not effectively monitor and enforce program 
requirements leading to potential waste and misuse of taxpayer 
funds as ineligible participants received funding.
    Has HUD taken action to address deficiencies identified in 
your report? And how can HUD ensure that the Section 8 Program 
is effectively serving low-income families and preventing fraud 
and abuse?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Thank you for the question.
    We have been doing considerable oversight about Section 8 
and considerable oversight with respect to voucher utilization. 
And we found that the occupancy rate in the PHAs was often 60 
percent or more where they didn't have occupants, where they 
had--pardon me--62 percent of the PHAs were not fulfilling 
their role with the vouchers. They weren't getting people in 
housing units.
    The ineligibility issue I am not familiar with. I am going 
to have to get back to you on that one in terms of that 
particular issue.
    Mr. Valadao. So do you mind clarifying a little bit, on the 
60 percent where they are not being used, are facilities not 
available, or people not showing?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. I don't believe that we have the answer 
to that question. It is something that we encouraged HUD to get 
with the PHAs to work further to make sure that every voucher 
is utilized. You know, the voucher is really in so many ways 
the optimal thing that the tenant has. The tenant can go out 
with the voucher and find their own unit, but there are many 
restrictions in that area we are learning. Often landlords 
won't take the vouchers. Sometimes the vouchers don't help the 
tenant make up the rent that they have to pay. It only goes to 
a certain amount. And, if the rent is higher than the fair 
market value that HUD has attributed to the voucher, then the 
individual has to come up with that amount.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And I know you touched on it 
earlier, but your testimony also referenced efforts to ensure 
HUD tenants do not have to choose between having a roof over 
their head and being sexual harassed or assaulted by their 
housing provider.
    The fiscal year 2024 budget requests states that your 
office is committing resources to stop other instances of this 
inexcusable conduct. Can you go into detail of the actions your 
office is taking to prevent the sexual harassment or sexual 
assault in those HUD programs?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Certainly. And thank you so much for that 
question.
    This is something that we are taking particular attention 
to. And, when I first learned of this activity, I learned that 
it has been going on for quite some time. We have heard 
instances of this in previous years, and we have just really 
put concerted effort in addressing it.
    We have success in this area. Thankfully, we have the case 
out of New Jersey where we worked with locals and our DOJ 
partners to bring a landlord to justice who was preying upon 
tenants in his housing. He was at times, you know, extorting 
sexual acts for rent, telling people either they couldn't live 
in the housing if they didn't come through to his advances, or 
they were at times evicted because they didn't submit to his 
advances.
    And we had over a $4.5 million settlement in that case 
against the landlord. It was unprecedented. And the individual 
agreed to sell his properties and never be a landlord again. So 
these cases are extremely important to us.
    One thing that we are trying to do right now is really 
trying to get the word out, let people know that we are a 
resource in this area--to the extent that we can--drive these 
complaints to our hotline. We know these are everywhere. We 
think they are in everyone's district, and we are doing the 
best we can to address these.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And then one more question, one 
more.
    Recent reports of the Department's oversight of public 
housing authorities showed HUD did not adequately ensure that 
public housing agencies complied with Federal regulations, did 
not always enforce penalties for noncompliance.
    A 2019 report said that HUD provided public housing 
agencies with multiple opportunities to correct the 
noncompliance, such as addressing health and safety hazards in 
public housing units before enforcing penalties.
    Another report in 2021 found that HUD again did not ensure 
public housing agencies took action to address health and 
safety concerns in public housing.
    How is the Office of the Inspector General working to 
ensure that this does not continue to happen and Federal 
housing funds are being used efficiently and effectively?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We are working to shine considerable 
light on safe and sanitary issues. We have ongoing work that we 
have launched in multiple areas. We are continuing to look at 
lead, which is an issue. We are hoping to open more cases 
against landlords who aren't keeping their properties in safe 
and sanitary conditions.
    We recently announced a settlement for $1.2 million against 
a property owner in Illinois for not keeping the property in 
safe and sanitary condition, and I hope to see more of that. I 
think this is an area where we could really partner with the 
Department.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well thank you.
    And I yield back the time that I don't have.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We go next to my good friend, old Rules Committee 
colleague--we miss her there a lot--Mrs. Torres from 
California.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I miss 
you, but I am not sure I miss the committee work.
    Mr. Cole. That is a pretty common sentiment, not missing 
that committee.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Yes.
    Thank you both for being here.
    I would like to hear your perspective, you know, your role 
that you have played in the allocation of resources from the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    Mr. Soskin. Well, as co-chair of the Inspector General 
Communities Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Working 
Group, I guess I will take that question first.
    You know, we as inspectors general provide independent and 
objective oversight on the use of those funds, so we are not 
directly involved in allocating the funds.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Does that objective include 
previous violations, for example? I am specifically thinking 
about housing authorities that might have had State violations 
for failing to maintain, failing to keep their tenants safe, 
having predator employees, you know, preying on young girls 
living within housing authorities' jurisdiction. How does that 
bad record play in your investigations to ensure that Federal 
funding is being utilized by good actors? And I am not just 
talking about the private contractors. I am talking about 
public agencies, sister agencies who often get a pass, you 
know, a slap on the hand. And, when we issue violations, it is 
the same victims that are paying for those violations, because 
then it becomes lack of infrastructure that is readily 
available for them.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, thank you. Thank you for that 
question.
    I mean, HUD is in a situation where, throughout its 
portfolio, it depends on its program partners, whether they are 
grantees, PHAs, lenders. And there is an accountability issue 
there certainly, whether it is the PHAs keeping lead out of 
public housing or whether it is the landlords maintaining safe 
and sanitary housing----
    Mrs. Torres of California. How about asbestos?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Asbestos, I think--you know, HUD has an 
obligation to keep HUD-assisted properties hazardous free; 
asbestos being a hazardous. I am not aware of any issues where 
PHAs or landlords have to test for asbestos, but I would assume 
that some of these issues might come up in the inspection 
process, whether it is REAC or the annual inspection that 
landlords have to do.
    Mrs. Torres of California. So can you continue to expand on 
the role that your Department plays in maintaining that 
oversight of State and local housing authorities, again, public 
agencies? When you discover that they have been issued a 
willful violation, you know, basic issues, what is your role 
there? What steps do you take to ensure that we protect the 
hardworking taxpayer dollars?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Certainly. We risk-assess throughout 
HUD's portfolio, and I believe that, you know, the safe and 
sanitary issues are some of the most difficult parts of HUD's 
portfolio and some of the most trying and most important to 
citizens. This is a very intimate mission. It is something we 
place a lot of importance on. We risk-assess and see, you know, 
where the riskiest public housing associations are. We look at 
those when we can. You know, we are currently doing oversight, 
like I said, of REAC earlier. We are also looking at public 
housing conditions, post-RAD conversions, so we are actually 
doing boots on the ground, going into the properties and seeing 
the kind of situations that HUD beneficiaries are living under.
    Mrs. Torres of California. I just hope that we are not 
taking the too-big-to-fail approach with some of these housing 
agencies that are massive and that we are still holding them 
to, you know, the same standard that we would hold a private 
owner, a private landlord, a private contractor.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. May I.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Yes.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Look, I couldn't agree more. And I can 
tell you, from talking to HUD principals, none of us want bad 
actors in the programs. That is certainly the case.
    I do think we have to recognize there is a tension here. 
When we take a landlord out of the game, when we do something 
like shut down Alexander County in Illinois and relocate 
people, or whether it is Memphis, Tennessee, where Peppertree 
has been a very well publicized instance of tenants having to 
be relocated, HUD has to consider, where will these people go? 
So they would have to continue to drive the right kind of 
program participants to the programs.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you.
    And I yield back to the Chair.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Next is my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to be on the 
subcommittee with you. And I appreciate our witnesses being 
here today. I was kind of moving in the direction of asking 
some questions about eligibility determinations, and I have 
been distracted, unfortunately, by Mr. Valadao. And I said I 
would give him credit, but I am going to give him credit for 
the distraction.
    I want to talk to you, Ms. Oliver Davis, about the process 
and procedures you follow when it comes to your attention that 
there is sexual harassment, any kind of sexual violence. I see 
you were an AUSA. I was a prosecutor as well. It always--I tend 
to believe that local law enforcement, local prosecutors are 
going to be responding faster to these incidents.
    Can you talk about the timelines? Say a call comes in on 
your hotline. I mean, most of the people in public housing are 
going to go to a law enforcement officer first. But talk to me 
about your procedures that you go through.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Sure. Thank you so much for the question 
and the interest in this initiative.
    Well, first of all, I have to say we are not getting as 
many complaints via the hotline as you would expect in this 
instance. And I think that is one thing we are hoping to do is 
improve that outreach, let people know that we are here to talk 
to them about this.
    Locals absolutely have a seat at this table. In the 
instance in New Jersey, the case I referenced there, we had an 
ongoing pattern-of-practice case that we worked, you know, a 
civil money penalty case.
    Mr. Cline. Was there a criminal action----
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Cline [continuing]. In parallel.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Cline. Okay.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. And also each of these individuals have a 
fair housing complaint, so we have to make sure that FHEO at 
the Department knows about that and looks into that as well. 
Our cases are pattern and practice. We are looking for 
landlords that are--that have a handful of victims, that have 
people--sometimes we have seen 30 victims, 40 victims.
    Mr. Cline. Do you refer to DOJ?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We do. We work with our DOJ partners. I 
should be clear about that, we have.
    And, in the case I mentioned earlier, the one where we did 
60 interviews, that was DOJ Civil Rights and a local U.S. 
Attorney's Office. So we had trial attorneys and AUSAs 
alongside with our agents out in the field interviewing 
victims, both men and women, who have been preyed upon by their 
landlords.
    And there are State cases. There is also--to your point 
about States responding, you know, we had specialized training 
in this area. We have sought out training for our agents. I 
mean, this is a different type of investigation.
    Mr. Cline. Yeah. But talk to me about the time it took from 
when it first became evident that this landlord was engaged in 
these practices to justice for the victims in, say, the 
criminal trial, which may have come before the civil, but----
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, I don't believe we had a trial in 
the New Jersey case, and the trial has not yet happened in the 
associated State case.
    Mr. Cline. So it has been years?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. I don't know that it has--I will have 
to--I tell you what, I would love to talk to you more about 
this, love to talk to you more.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. But I am just trying to make sure that we 
ensure that justice is delivered for the victims as soon as 
possible. And so the resources at the local level often would 
enable a local prosecutor, local law enforcement to engage and 
get that justice more quickly.
    Now, in sizeable cases like the one you are talking about 
in New Jersey, I would assume that that would need to be a DOJ 
case. But how much cooperation is there between DOJ--I guess 
you don't know this, but we can find out--DOJ and local law 
enforcement? I guess they keep you apprised, so there has to 
be----
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, the Centanni matter in New Jersey 
was worked alongside local law enforcement----
    Mr. Cline. Okay.
    Ms. Oliver Davis [continuing]. DOJ and local law 
enforcement and our agents working together on that matter.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I want to make 
sure that the people in public housing do have the information 
they need to be able to reach out, whether it is a hotline or 
making sure that there is a--that one of the factors is time 
because it does become an issue when, just because it is 
happening on a Federal project, that they have to wait that 
much longer for DOJ.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, Congressman Cline, if I can make a 
point. Another thing that I think is very good about us 
committing our resources to this is it is part of the 
agreement, the civil settlement, that this individual gets rid 
of their properties and is never a landlord again. And that is 
something that I am not sure that the State criminal courts can 
accomplish. It is something that we can with DOJ's authority.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Next go to my good friend, Ms. Wexton, from 
Virginia.
    Mr. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so glad to have 
this opportunity to be here. I want to thank the witnesses for 
appearing before us and for everything you guys do to help be 
good stewards of our money, which is first and foremost very 
important.
    Mr. Soskin, I want to start with you. Last November your 
office named air traffic control and airspace modernization as 
one of its top management challenge areas for fiscal year 2023. 
It is not surprising to me because my congressional district 
includes three air traffic control towers, a TRACON, an air 
route traffic control center, and the air traffic control 
systems command center, so lots and lots of air traffic control 
in my district.
    My priority is always to ensure that we have a good, well-
trained workforce and that that workforce is sustainable. One 
of the things I keep hearing is that there are real issues with 
that, and I am glad to hear that it is being acknowledged by 
your agency.
    So, in your November report, your office identified 
staffing shortages and training delays as some of the key 
challenges facing the air traffic control workforce.
    The report also noted that the FAA had room to improve in 
how it tracks and manages controllers' scheduling and fatigue. 
With air traffic reaching pre-pandemic levels and even getting 
above it sometimes, how is your office working with the FAA to 
address these challenges to develop a robust, well-trained 
controller workforce? What kind of resources would you find 
would be useful to your team in supporting this work?
    Mr. Soskin. We have been engaged now on, and are bringing 
to a close, our audit on FAA's air traffic controller workforce 
that is going to look--that is looking into these issues in 
more detail. And we look forward to releasing that and sharing 
it with this committee and the public.
    The pandemic has certainly proven challenging to FAA from a 
workforce perspective, both in terms of air traffic controllers 
and in other roles, like in aviation maintenance technicians, 
where we have another audit underway. One contributing factor 
was that FAA, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, paused its 
training activities at the FAA Academy out in Oklahoma City.
    Mr. Wexton. My understanding is they are catching up on 
that at this point. They are really--they have got very full 
classes, and they are trying to catch up. It is my 
understanding that they are doing everything they can to make 
that happen.
    Is that what you found that they are making progress in 
making it happen?
    Mr. Soskin. That's right. There is a backlog that they are 
making progress on. There is a limited size to the facility and 
only so many folks that they can, you know, run through. We 
have seen now that what counts most in busy air traffic control 
facilities is the presence of the fully trained controllers. 
And, in places like New York and Chicago and other major 
facilities around the country, there is currently a shortage of 
staffing.
    Congress in the ACSA [Aircraft Certification, Safety, and 
Accountability Act] has provided additional funding to expand 
hiring in some of those facilities. But one of the things that 
we have seen is that FAA has seen challenges in finding 
qualified people to fill those roles. That is going to be a key 
item for us to watch going forward.
    Mr. Wexton. Would you be able to say what would happen if 
you suffered a cut of 10 to 20 percent, let's just say up to 20 
percent? What would happen to that controller workforce? What 
would happen with that, with the progress we have made and with 
the controller workforce moving forward?
    Mr. Soskin. Well, with a budget cut, it would, of course, 
be FAA's responsibility to figure out how to cut that budget 
and where the cuts would take place. If it led to a reduction 
in the number of controllers, what we would see is an inability 
for FAA to meet its controller targets. And that would have 
impacts for the National Airspace System.
    Mr. Wexton. Your report also highlights that DOT received a 
significantly higher volume of consumer complaints regarding 
airlines, airline on-time records, right, canceled flights, 
things like that. We all heard the news over the summer about 
all of these flights being canceled for weather reasons but 
also for staffing shortages. Is that correct?
    Mr. Soskin. FAA has acknowledged, particularly recently, 
the contributions of staffing challenges to that and, as you 
may have seen in the media, has been working with carriers in 
some of the most crowded aviation cities, air traffic control 
spaces.
    Mr. Wexton. And DOT issued a proposed rule last summer 
talking about--you know, clarifying times that consumers would 
get refunds. Is that correct?
    Mr. Soskin. I believe FAA has a proposed rule out for that 
and some voluntary agreements with airlines in place.
    Mr. Wexton. Voluntary agreements, but do you know what 
process would be taking place in order to make sure that it is 
enforceable?
    Mr. Soskin. I believe that will be completion of the 
proposed rule and issuance of a final rule.
    Mr. Wexton. Very good. Thank you very much.
    No further questions.
    Mr. Cole. I will now go to my good friend from Florida, Mr. 
Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I will just follow up on that conversation. I can tell 
you the--I am from northeast Florida, so we have got that 
Florida funnel, and that control center there in Jacksonville 
is overwhelmed. During the COVID situation, I heard from 
controllers regularly about that situation and then, of course, 
the pause on the training. And I understand that. Just knowing 
whatever we can do to help alleviate that staffing problem, 
whether it is hiring bonuses or retention bonuses, whatever 
great ideas you can come up with, we really need to address 
these staffing issues because they are becoming severe.
    So thank you for that.
    Ms. Davis, first, I want to thank you and your team. You 
know you have put a priority on safety within our HUD 
facilities. And, you know, being from Jacksonville, we just 
recently had a really horrible situation with Eureka Gardens. 
New ownership is taking care of that, and so it looks like we 
have got that fixed.
    But my question is when--and you mentioned lead earlier. We 
have a plan to get the lead out, but I didn't see--or it seemed 
like there were difficulties--it looked like there were going 
to be difficulties in actually following these facilities and 
whether they are actually complying with your plan to get the 
lead out.
    Can you tell me what do we need to do to help with that?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Thank you.
    Lead, as you said, I mean, it continues to be a problem. We 
have made recommendations, GAO has made recommendations that 
the Department have a plan for overseeing lead in public 
housing. We have done back-to-back work in this area. We have 
looked at PHAs' compliance with the lead safety hazard rule, 
and we looked at HUD's oversight of PHAs and remediation in 
lead. And, in each instance, it is lacking. So there needs to 
be more attention to it for sure.
    We find----
    Mr. Rutherford. Excuse me.
    So do we need to do more of that at the local level, 
requiring somehow putting teeth into the oversight?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, there are Federal regulations that 
govern this, and HUD has requirements that landlords have to 
abide by, and they have to identify lead and remediate lead.
    One area of tension here is that PHAs have stricter 
guidelines than landlords that participate in the housing 
choice voucher program, and we have a dearth--there isn't going 
to be more public housing. So HUD is repositioning this into 
the private sector. So those individuals participating in that 
program need strict standards, just like public housing.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. But we do see a lack of oversight from 
the Department at the public housing level as well.
    Now, to be fair, there are 3,300 public housing 
authorities.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yes.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. So, you now, we have made priority 
recommendations in this area. Two of our priority 
recommendations deal with the lead in public housing. It is a 
remarkable effort to oversee. It is an important one, 
certainly.
    Mr. Rutherford. Is there a way to stop adding to the 
problem by, when we transition to RAD, is there any step in 
that process that requires a lead determination before that 
property can actually become a RAD facility?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. There are inspections that are required 
along the way, and when a property is converted to RAD, there 
is a capital needs assessment and a financing plan. And looking 
for lead hazards should be, and I believe it is, part of that 
process certainly.
    We have work that we have announced looking at RAD 
conversions in the units and the safe and sanitary standards 
post-RAD conversion to see if there is actually an improvement. 
So I hope to have more to tell the subcommittee on that.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
    And very quickly, on the COVID-19 situation where they had 
forbearance on these loans, but they weren't informed or they 
were misinformed, I mean, did we make it really tough on some 
people that actually should have had forbearance during that 
time? Or how did that play out in real life?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. It appears that there were at one point, 
I guess, maybe a third of the individuals who were delinquent 
in their FHA loans who were not informed appropriately of the 
information.
    Mr. Rutherford. A third.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. And then there was one-sixth that were 
actually in forbearance where forbearance was misapplied. So 
there were considerable people there that didn't get to take 
advantage of the pandemic relief, yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. I next go to my friend from New York, Mr. 
Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Soskin, in your testimony, you cited your work in 
addressing challenges in the National Airspace System, 
including matters that have already been brought up: flight 
delays and cancellations, 600,000 flights scheduled, 100,000 
delayed, 18,000 canceled, which have impacted many of my 
constituents, particularly those traveling to the Caribbean, to 
Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and other places, 
especially during the holiday season as we approach the Easter 
break.
    Moreover, I have heard, like, many complaints from 
constituents about their inability to get fairly compensated 
for these delays or cancelations.
    What are some of the next generation transportation system 
programs that DOT should implement to improve efficiency and 
reduce passenger delays as air traffic increases?
    And do you see any potential cuts being proposed impacting 
this arena? Will folks continue to experience delays, as I am 
sure all of us have here in this States?
    And what do you see the implications are if these cuts are 
implemented?
    Mr. Soskin. We have recently announced an audit where we 
will be looking at the reported causes of flight delays in the 
air traffic system, and we will also be looking at FAA's 
oversight of the reporting of those delays. But we have a good 
sense of what the causes are for delays and what the 
reliability of our information----
    Mr. Espaillat. Why would you say that there are those good 
in your opinion? You have a sense. What is your sense that 
these causes are?
    Mr. Soskin. So we see that in our work, what is widely 
reported on are shortages of staff on the part of the airlines, 
shortages of staff at FAA in terms of air traffic controllers. 
Severe weather, of course, was a major factor reported on for 
the holiday season disruptions, and then Southwest's cascading 
set of failures that have----
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, we may not have control over severe 
weather, but, I mean, we maybe environmentally could do things 
that can improve the weather.
    But how do you see these cuts impacting what we must 
accomplish to reduce delays and cancellations?
    Mr. Soskin. We haven't done any work looking at the 
potential impact of any particular set of resource cuts to FAA. 
FAA will have to, if there are cuts in their budget, will have 
to determine how to allocate its resources and how to try to 
maintain safety in the National Airspace System while also 
accommodating its consumer protection mission.
    Mr. Espaillat. Will you be looking at that in your audit?
    Mr. Soskin. I don't think we have any planned audit work 
right now to look at the impacts of budget cuts on FAA.
    Mr. Espaillat. My recommendation is that you do. I mean, 
there is a real potential threat of some budget cuts that will 
potentially impact further on delays and cancellations being 
experienced by travelers. And so, in your quest to take a look 
at this issue, I think that is something that you must 
consider.
    Mr. Soskin. We certainly welcome the input, and our staff 
can discuss how we could shape our audit work in a way that 
will be useful to answering that or any other questions that 
you might have.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Ms. Davis, quickly, according to your testimony also on the 
fiscal year 2023 annual performance plan, finding an affordable 
home in America is harder now than it has been since the 2008 
financial crisis.
    If we were to return to fiscal 2022 funding level, how will 
this exacerbate HUD's ability to connect people with affordable 
housing and reliable housing?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. I think that that funding level would 
certainly impact HUD's ability to provide more affordable 
housing. It would impact HUD across its entire portfolio, 
frankly. There is a lack of affordable housing. You know, we 
see the need for more landlords in the program. We see the need 
for fair market rents to be set at an appropriate level so 
individuals can actually benefit from the vouchers they are 
given. It would absolutely impact that, certainly.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I will next go to my good friend, Mr. Gonzales, from Texas.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My first question is for Ms. Davis.
    Many of the colonias in my district lack proper water and 
sewage infrastructure. Colonias are, essentially, 
unincorporated communities, oftentimes along the border.
    In 2008, your office published an audit regarding HUD's 
Community Development Block Grants set aside for colonias and 
not used for its intended purposes. How can we ensure that the 
residents of the colonias receive funding to replace, repair 
critical infrastructure?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Thank you for the question.
    Well, first, the 2008 audit may not speak to the problem. 
So certainly there needs to be renewed dialogue in this area. I 
am happy to meet with you all and speak with you about this.
    I understand this is part of the CDBG grants. You know, we 
always want to ensure those grants go for their intended 
purpose, and we want to hear about any struggles that that 
community is having in either utilizing the grants, whether 
they need more work, more time, whether they need more 
technical expertise.
    So I am happy to discuss that more with you.
    Mr. Gonzales. Right. No, I would love to work together on 
this. There are a lot of communities that, I mean, lack 
literally indoor plumbing, access to water. I mean, it is just 
Third World-ish, if you will. I would love to be able to find a 
way to deliver who some results for those communities.
    My next question, also to you, Ms. Davis, moving on to IT. 
Your office recently published a report regarding HUD's IT 
infrastructure. In this report, you found there were 
significant delays in processing computer security updates, 
network performance issues, passport--password exploration 
policy was not enforced, and the help desk system did not 
capture complete data.
    Because of this inadequacy of Department's IT 
infrastructure, was the PII of people at risk?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We have reported on HUD's struggles with 
IT for years now, and I believe the report that you are talking 
about references our look at HUD's migration to telework during 
the pandemic, and we did identify certain areas of concern, and 
there were problems with the network. I believe those were 
addressed.
    There are some longstanding cybersecurity issues that does 
put PII at risk. Outside of the mandatory telework issue, we 
have old computers, old mainframe computers. We have old IT 
infrastructure that doesn't always support PII, and that is 
costly to repair and maintain.
    We are encouraged in some way by some of the advancements 
we see. They have implemented one of our priority 
recommendations in cybersecurity, which was web applications 
have to be authorized by the CIO's office. That is important so 
there is not this sort of shadow IT structure that the 
Department is maintaining.
    So there are a number of good things in that respect. We 
have a number of priority recommendations that are still 
outstanding. My team tells me, though, that is the hard stuff, 
right.
    Mr. Gonzales. I spent 20 years in the Navy as a 
cryptologist, and oftentimes these organizations, the IT 
infrastructure is the last to eat, but it is the absolute 
critical that is under attack on a daily basis.
    This is the world that we live in, and when you think of 
HUD, you don't think of their IT infrastructure. When you think 
of DOT, you don't think of their IT infrastructure. But every 
organization is now an IT company first and then you do other 
stuff.
    And I get it. I get it. It is a difficult problem. You have 
legacy systems, and when you are struggling for dollars, but 
this is something that is absolutely critical to get ahead.
    In 2014, Congress enacted the Federal Information Security 
Modernization Act of 2014. The goal of this legislation was to 
improve Federal cyber security and clarify governmentwide 
responsibilities.
    Can you speak to why HUD received an F in the most recent 
edition?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, we did see improvements, actually, 
in our FISMA review, and we did have the administration 
identify core metrics, which were helpful. We saw some 
improvements, but they weren't in the core metrics that HUD 
improved. So they actually performed worse in our FISMA 
evaluation they had in prior.
    You know, all of this is IT modernization what you and I 
are talking about, of course. It is going to require 
prioritization.
    Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. It is going to require----
    Mr. Gonzales. I don't have much time and----
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Okay. Certainly.
    Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. I get that. I would love to 
speak on it more.
    And I just want to highlight, to Mr. Soskin, you also 
received an F in this 2014 edition, and so what I am seeing is 
I am seeing two F students come before us asking for more 
money, which we absolutely want to make sure that your 
organizations have what you need. But please do not forget the 
critical aspects of the IT infrastructure.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. To be fair, neither of our inspectors general got 
an F. It was the Departments they are working on that did. I 
just want to make that clear for the record.
    Mr. Ciscomani.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Ms. Davis and Mr. Soskin, for being here 
with us today.
    In my home State in Arizona, the I-10 connects Phoenix and 
Tucson, and it desperately needs funding for expansion. This is 
what I like to call the artery for both trade but also security 
for our State. It is the main road connecting the two major 
cities.
    And the Department of Transportation recently applied for a 
mega grant through DOT and was denied despite a clear and 
evident need.
    On December 16, 2021, the Federal Highway Administration 
issued a policy memo to States encouraging them to prioritize 
using Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act formula funds for 
road and bridge repair over capacity expansions. This memo, 
which has since been rescinded, prioritized the implementation 
of partisan policies and disregarded congressional intent.
    In December, GAO determined that the guidance memo is a 
rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. I find it highly 
concerning that the Federal Highway Administration went beyond 
its reach here and expressed policy, preference, and what was 
supposed to be a guidance memo.
    While I recognize that this is a bit outside the scope of 
your role as the IG, I am wondering if you can give any insight 
on if your agency has taken a look at this in a similar way to 
how GAO reviewed it, and if not, I would encourage you, as the 
IG, to look into and keep a close eye on how DOT is issuing 
policy preference in their decisions.
    Mr. Soskin. We haven't looked into and done any work 
relating to the now-withdrawn 2021 highways memo, and I 
understand that there have been general expressions of favor 
towards their replacement with the new memo.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Well, then how is DOT going to take into 
account the needs of States moving forward here with the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act formula when it comes 
down to the implementation process?
    Mr. Soskin. From our work in interacting with the 
Department in its Infrastructure Act oversight, one of the 
things that we have certainly seen is an effort by the 
Department to engage in outreach and to provide technical 
assistance to communities and to States that are seeking to 
apply for the discretionary grants.
    And we and GAO, in their work, have encouraged the 
Department to be transparent with their decision making, to 
document that decision making, and to apply lessons learned 
from successful projects, as well as unsuccessful projects.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Well, I sure hope that that gets implemented 
and also that that is successful. That could have been and 
still can be helpful in the process here of my State applying 
for the I-10 expansion, which, again, is in clear need and a 
strong case for it.
    I have a couple minutes. So I would also like to bring up 
another quick issue here.
    The use of drones in Arizona and nationwide present a 
substantial opportunity for economic and technical development. 
For several years, the FAA has been working to accelerate safe 
integration and enable more complex UAS operations. What is the 
status of the FAA's efforts to integrate more complex UAS 
operations into the National Airspace System?
    Mr. Soskin. Last year we released a report on our audit 
work related to the FAA's drone integration activities. We 
looked at two of the FAA programs in it. One was called the 
IPP. That was kind of their initial phase of an Integration 
Pilot Program. That flowed over into a program called Beyond, 
which was the successor program, which we also looked at.
    And what we found was that, while FAA made some progress, 
for example, helping out five, four or five companies become 
certified to do initial work doing drone-based package 
delivery, at the same time, there are still some substantial 
challenges to be overcome. And the private partners, and some 
of them are actually public partners, engaged with FAA in those 
programs and have generally not seen their expectations 
reached.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Sure. Well, I appreciate that.
    And I have one more question for Ms. Davis.
    Many tenants of public housing may be more vulnerable to 
human and drug trafficking. In districts like mine that is a 
border district with high instances of these forms of 
trafficking, is HUD doing anything to ensure tenants are safe 
from these things?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. So thank you for the question.
    I am not aware of instances of human trafficking in HUD-
assisted housing. If there are instances of that, I certainly 
want to be aware of that. I want to engage my agents. I want to 
engage with my DOJ partners.
    I was a part of a human traffic investigation years ago 
when I was a line attorney at DOJ. So that would be something I 
would certainly want to know about. So we should talk about 
those challenges.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Let's do that.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Okay.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
    Thank you, sir. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We will now move on to the second round of questioning. 
Should any additional members who have not yet had the chance 
to ask a question arrive, we will have them take priority in 
the ordering.
    My Democratic colleagues, I think quite legitimately, have 
expressed concerns about what would happen in this agency or 
that agency or this portion of the Departments you both 
represent if we had cuts of 10 to 20 percent. I don't know what 
our top-line number here is going to be at this point, but I 
think that is a prudent question to be raising.
    So I am going to do a terrible thing to both of you. I am 
going to ask you to abandon your lofty positions as IGs and 
become Congressmen for a day. What, in your respective 
Departments, if you had to prioritize, facing something like 
that, what are the most important things? Your own budgets 
aside. We will set those aside for a moment. They are pretty 
modest parts of this.
    But if you are thinking like a Secretary had to think or a 
Member had to think with a low allocation, what respective 
functions would you emphasize? What would you discount?
    I will start with you, Mr. Soskin, and then we will go to 
you, Ms. Oliver Davis.
    Mr. Soskin. Well, Chairman Cole, I think the critical 
mission for the Department of Transportation across its 
different modes is the safety function, and DOT, administration 
after administration, has been very consistent about 
emphasizing that mission.
    I don't envy the challenges, the difficult decisions that 
this subcommittee, this committee, that Congress and 
policymakers in the executive branch face. Limited funds and 
determining how best to put them to use are challenging 
questions.
    We personally try to always be realistic and responsible in 
the budget requests that we submit, and we will continue to 
prioritize our work towards the most important safety and fraud 
issues, whatever the budget levels are that are set.
    Mr. Cole. Okay.
    Same question, obviously, to you, Ms. Oliver Davis.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. That is an amazing question. It is 
difficult.
    Mr. Cole. A very unfair question.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Yes. Yes. Yes, it might be.
    And, again, Chairman, if I can ask for clarification, 
putting myself in the secretary's role?
    Okay. HUD has such a vast mission. I don't need to tell 
this subcommittee. Disaster relief, affordable housing. I 
think, given the affordable housing crunch, coupled with these 
safe and sanitary challenges that we see in housing, which 
further limits the housing stock, I think I would be forced to 
focus my efforts there.
    That said, HUD, Ginnie Mae, they hold a remarkable place in 
our housing arena. They both have trillion dollar portfolios 
that carry tremendous risk, and they both have the faith, full 
faith and credit of the government behind them. And that is a 
remarkable thing to carry on HUD's shoulders, and I believe I 
would have to put my attention there.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    Let me ask you an additional unrelated question. We talked, 
and I am very impressed and very pleased with your work in 
terms of sexual exploitation of tenants by landlords.
    Years ago, I worked for a guy named Frank Keating who was 
actually chief--later Governor of Oklahoma but was at one point 
chief legal counsel at HUD and Acting Secretary. And he had a 
law enforcement background. He had been an FBI agent, been a 
prosecutor, been an associate attorney general, all before he 
arrived at HUD.
    And, of course, his big concern--I asked him once. We were 
chatting about this, and he said: My number one concern was 
actually crime inside some of these facilities because we have 
lots of good people in tough circumstances.
    But you get some predators in there as well, whether they 
are drug dealers, whether they are--so what are the actions 
that are taken to protect tenants within various housing 
projects from if we have inadvertently let somebody in that 
honestly shouldn't be there? They are hard to get out 
sometimes.
    So what are your observations on that?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Well, certainly, if we are talking about 
my sexual harassment initiative, we are talking about the 
landlord being the predator, and that, of course, is the most 
problematic fact pattern.
    We do hear--you know, for instance, in Peppertree, a 
Memphis, Tennessee, property where HUD just abated the 
contract, and the city of Memphis got involved and had some 
discussions with HUD and was basically declaring this a 
nuisance. And part of that was ongoing reports of crime coming 
out of that property.
    So I think, in some instances, this is a real problem. We 
have talked internally about how we can address it with our 
toolkit. We might do some special review in that area. It is 
something we would be willing to speak with you about 
certainly.
    There are eligibility requirements, of course, for people 
that come into the PHA arena. We have had discussions around 
that as well. I know HUD monitors that, but we are still 
looking into that.
    Mr. Cole. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I go to my good friend, ranking member, Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chair.
    As someone who occasionally teaches, I want to help improve 
those F grades mentioned earlier. So extra credit is available.
    But let's focus in on a different aspect of this. The IT 
systems at HUD contain sensitive, private information relating 
to the multitrillion dollar portfolios at FHA and Ginnie, 
including financial information on every FHA mortgage 
applicant.
    You know, as you know, HUD is carrying on a multiyear 
investment, Catalyst, that began in 2019, supported by funding 
directed by this subcommittee to modernize that infrastructure 
to reduce cost, risk, and fraud, and bring them in line with 
current industry practices. But having a strong infrastructure 
backbone for FHA not only protects the privacy of individuals 
but our overall reliability of its role within the mortgage 
industry.
    How is that going? What is its biggest challenge? And are 
there other vulnerabilities that this subcommittee needs to be 
aware of?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We reviewed the work progression of FHA 
Catalyst at the request of this committee. So we are certainly 
aware that it is a concern.
    What we want to see with IT, whether it is at FHA or 
throughout the Department, is we want to see modernization, 
right. I mean, that is what we want to see in this entire 
portfolio. With that requires collaboration. It requires 
collaboration between the CIO's office and the program offices 
to ensure that, frankly, they are fitting the bill. The IT 
modernization efforts have functionality at the Department 
level, have functionality to the end user, certainly.
    We want to see better project management. You know, there 
is a roadmap for modernization, which is encouraging to us. I 
think it would be helpful if it included lessons learned.
    I know the subcommittee is concerned about some of the 
history in IT funding over the years. I think taking some 
lessons learned from that and incorporating that into the 
roadmap would be good.
    And ultimately we want prioritization, especially with 
Catalyst. I think in our review----
    Mr. Quigley. Especially with what?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Catalyst.
    Mr. Quigley. Okay.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Which I believe is the concern.
    Prioritization, certainly. I believe, in our review, we 
uncovered that the modules were coming forward in a piecemeal 
fashion with Catalyst, right. And I think that provided an 
opportunity for priorities to shift.
    I think we are back on track. You know, we are in constant 
collaboration with the CIO's office. We have a very good 
relationship there, and I believe we can see this hopefully 
come through in March of 2025, if not sooner. That is my hope.
    Mr. Quigley. Part of my concern is what we have learned 
from other massive hacks is often the entity doesn't know they 
have been hacked for years. And, second, the--I am talking 
about large government and private sectors. They are often--
companies, major corporations don't know they have been hacked 
for years. Someone else had to tell them they were hacked.
    Do we have some sense if we are flying blind here at all?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. We have certainly priority 
recommendations in the area of cybersecurity that are still 
unimplemented. We want HUD to be able to monitor all of the 
inbound and outbound traffic on their network and all of their 
devices. That is something we are hoping they can implement. 
This will help in this respect.
    We need to do penetration testing. That is something that 
our office needs to be doing as well. We let them know of any 
vulnerabilities in real time as soon as we are aware of them, 
but we still have some progress to be made there.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Well, I would advise my friend, since it is just 
him and me right now, take as much time as you want on any 
question you would like.
    I have a couple I want to get in for the record. And, 
again, if the ranking member wants, if another question comes 
up or something, please, I will certainly give him the time to 
do that.
    Inspector Soskin, a core responsibility of the Pipelines 
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA to make it 
short, is ensuring that companies, you know, transport 
hazardous materials, or hazmat, in a safe and secure manner.
    With 3.3 billion tons of hazmat valued at 1.9 trillion 
transferred by air, highway, rail, and sea annually, it is a 
pretty critical task. In the East Palestine derailment, we have 
seen real risk involved in transporting hazardous material.
    Last year you audited PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Material 
Safety and their ability to conduct fitness reviews of 
applicants seeking approvals and permits.
    I understand that, of your 12 recommendations in your 
report, PHMSA has completed all but two. So that is a good 
sign.
    Can you speak to the progress that PHMSA has made in your 
view in conducting hazardous material review and permitting 
process?
    Mr. Soskin. We certainly appreciate the spotlight being put 
on our March 2022 report on PHMSA and hazardous materials. I am 
sure the Department and PHMSA will appreciate being recognized 
for having addressed 10 of our 12 recommendations.
    I believe the two recommendations that are outstanding in 
there, one pertains to some of the communication of the 
agencies' software systems with each other so that the 
inspectors and decision-makers have all of the information in 
front of them when they are evaluating the applications for 
hazardous materials, approvals, and special permits, which are 
a form of exemption from the hazmat regulations.
    And the other outstanding recommendation I believe relates 
to revising and entering into a revised version of an agreement 
with the other Federal agencies that regulate the 
transportation of hazardous materials. The current agreement 
was signed in 2014, and this is with agencies such as the Coast 
Guard, the FAA, and the Federal Railroad Administration--
obviously important in that East Palestine derailment, as well.
    And the key reason for having an up-to-date agreement is 
just to make sure that the agencies are all correctly assigning 
the roles and responsibilities to get the information to each 
other in the intermodal transportation of hazardous materials 
when more than one regulator and more than one mode is 
involved, making sure that these exemption decisions are made 
with all the possible information in front of the decision-
maker.
    Mr. Cole. Do you think that would make a real difference in 
what we have seen in terms--you know, obviously, this isn't the 
rule, but they do happen, and they are pretty awful when they 
do.
    Do you think it would make a material difference if we had 
that interagency agreement?
    Mr. Soskin. We can't judge whether any particular incident 
would be ameliorated by a circumstance like this. There are, of 
course, a lot of factors that go into this. NTSB is still 
investigating that particular derailment. But overall, making 
sure that decisions are made based on the best available data 
and information, has been a consistent theme of all of our 
work, and it is applicable in the hazardous materials 
transportation area, as much as anywhere else.
    Mr. Cole. Okay.
    Let me ask you both one last question, if I may. You know, 
obviously--and this is not a partisan question because I would 
say this would be true in both the last--the current 
administration and the last administration.
    We are dealing with unprecedented crisis in COVID and had a 
lot of economic ramifications, had a lot of impacts on the 
lives of individual Americans, and we put an extraordinary 
amount of money through the systems, you know, and quite often 
without much in the way of oversight or checking. And I think 
we have seen some pretty--again, I am not questioning what 
people do in an emergency. You do what you have to do.
    But there are certainly plenty of players out there that 
have taken advantage of that in one program after another, and 
some of these have come up.
    How great a concern--No. 1, do we have the oversight 
capability in place to handle something like this? I guess, by 
definition, we don't, but what should we do to get better at 
this if we ever face another crisis like this?
    Again, nobody saw a pandemic coming, and nobody did much in 
the way of preparation, but we now have seen one. We live in a 
world where it could happen again.
    So, if you were building guardrails, so if we had to rise 
to another occasion quickly, you know, what things beyond what 
we have in place now would you add so that we would have a 
better sense, as Congress, that we actually were putting lead 
on the target and making a difference and minimizing the amount 
of money that bad actors might be taking out of these systems?
    Ms. Oliver Davis. Thank you for the question, Chairman.
    I would say fraud risk management throughout the 
Department, certainly in the program level. The people who are 
implementing these programs, whether it is nonpandemic times or 
pandemic times, they know the programs best.
    And incorporating our insight into that process and having 
just a culture of antifraud, being able to spot improper 
payments, you know, better oversight of all of our program 
participants and our grantees, ensuring they have the capacity 
they need to carry out this tremendous funding.
    I think I mentioned in my opening statement certain 
grantees received 1,379 percent more funding than typically. 
That had to put a strain on their capacity. So ensuring we have 
capacity in individuals and the entities that get the money.
    But the fraud risk piece, the fraud risk piece is certainly 
key. Identifying that early on and mitigating against it over 
time.
    Mr. Soskin. And, consistent with that, one of our ongoing 
audits in the Infrastructure Act area is of the Department's 
efforts in the surface transportation modes to evaluate fraud 
risk, and then to employ a risk-based approach to addressing 
that.
    We have certainly learned a number of lessons across 
government from the pandemic implementation. Our office, you 
know, is part of the PRAC, the Pandemic Response Accountability 
Committee, and, you know, there we have seen some important 
lessons that we continue to apply in our audit and 
investigative work.
    For example, the need to provide targeted oversight where 
self-certification is the method that is being used by those 
eligible for a program to say, hey, we are eligible. That is 
certainly an efficient way of getting large sums of money out 
the door quickly. But if there isn't the follow-on oversight to 
have documentation for that and to have targeted drill downs to 
make sure that those folks are eligible, then you are going to 
see the kinds of problems we have seen in pandemic programs.
    Mr. Cole. I would again direct this to both of you.
    Are you satisfied that the Departments which you both have 
oversight roles in are spending enough time on lessons learned 
coming out of COVID?
    And, again, I am not aware of what they are doing. I am 
sure they are. I mean, you can't go through something like this 
and not have an after-action report.
    But, number one, are you aware if they are doing it? And, 
number two, if they are, are they sharing that with you? Are 
you participating in that sort of thing?
    I will start with you, Mr. Soskin.
    Mr. Soskin. In our Top Management Challenges report, one of 
the issues we looked at and talked about is in terms of the 
workforce of the future, making sure that the Department has 
drawn lessons from and is taking advantage of the new era of 
increased hybrid work, increased telework, and ensuring that 
they are getting effective and efficient work out of the 
workforce in that environment, as well as leveraging it to 
recruit and retain employees.
    As a broader lesson, I think that, as we look at some of 
the effects and the continuing effects of the Department and 
the government's COVID-19 responses, some of which we have 
talked about today, we do have to make sure our minds are open, 
even in an emergency, to evaluating what are the different 
kinds of risks of the actions that we are taking, as well as 
the risks of inaction.
    Mr. Cole. Ms. Oliver Davis.
    Ms. Oliver Davis. I think we are all learning. I certainly 
see HUD principals learning from this and, as my colleague 
pointed out, navigating around the workforce and return to the 
office, certainly.
    Something that my colleague said earlier when he talked 
about self-certification, you know, that is something we have 
repeatedly pointed out as a huge risk if it is the only 
internal control.
    As we come out of this, I would like to see stronger 
certifications, and what I see a lot is my agents coming to me 
with a certification of the Department, whether it is a low-
level certification or a certification from a PHA who says the 
PHA has complied with lead remediation. The certifications 
aren't strong enough. They aren't strong enough for us to take 
them to our DOJ partners and have them prosecuted. They are 
nuanced.
    We need to have strong certifications, and so often at the 
Department we are dealing with different program offices and 
different certifications. There just needs to be an overall 
look at strengthening those, and I think that would help 
governmentwide.
    Mr. Cole. Just overall, this is my own personal opinion, I 
know we have other committees looking at COVID in a variety of 
ways, but I would much prefer, in addition to knowing where it 
came from, which I am very interested in, that some of the 
focus was on these kinds of questions. I mean, what did we 
really learn confronted with really the ultimate stress test 
for the Federal Government? How did it do? How can it do better 
again?
    I doubt this is the last crisis we are going to face. 
Hopefully, we won't see another one like this.
    With that, let me turn to my good friend, the ranking 
member, for any additional questions he might have or any 
closing remarks he wants to make.
    Mr. Quigley. No, Chairman, that is good.
    I want to thank both of our guests today for their service 
and their effective participation today. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Let me associate myself with the ranking member's 
remarks.
    Thank both of you for being here. Thank you for your 
testimony and cooperation. Thank you for the service to the 
country, and we look forward to working with you going forward.
    With that, we are adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  

                                          Thursday, March 30, 2023.

                              MEMBERS' DAY

                                WITNESS

HON. KIM SCHRIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
    Mr. Cole. The subcommittee will come to order.
    Good morning. Welcome to this year's Member Day hearing. 
Today, we welcome our distinguished colleagues to testify on 
their priorities for the Departments of Housing and Urban 
Development and the Department of Transportation for the 
upcoming fiscal year.
    As the ranking member and I noted in our Dear Colleague 
letter inviting our fellow Members of Congress to come before 
the committee, Member engagement is a key to the appropriations 
process.
    Our bill is unique, as every district nationwide has 
housing and transportation assets and needs. Your views are 
important as we begin this new appropriations season. We look 
forward to your testimony today.
    With that, I recognize our distinguished ranking member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for 
any statement he cares to make.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chair.
    The chair is right; this subcommittee funds programs that 
impact every district in the country. Whether it flies, floats, 
or rolls, or provides a family with a safe and stable roof over 
their heads, the programs in this bill create jobs, keep 
communities safe, and help advance our Nation's economy.
    We look forward to hearing your testimony.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Quigley.
    Today, we will begin with the gentlelady from Washington, 
Dr. Kim Schrier.
    Please keep in mind that we are on a tight schedule--
actually, we are really not, other than the floor activity. So 
every Member will have the standard 5 minutes to testify.
    Your full written remarks will be included in the record. 
Please make sure the microphone is on when you testify.
    So, Dr. Schrier, you are recognized for your testimony.

 Statement of Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress from the 
                          State of Washington

    Dr. Schrier. Thank you, Chairman Cole. Thank you, Ranking 
Member Quigley. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about 
my priorities and concerns as Representative of Washington 
State's Eighth Congressional District as you work to finalize 
appropriations for transportation, housing, urban development, 
and related agencies.
    Washington State has a diverse set of housing, 
transportation, and development needs. As you noted, every 
district does. My 10,000-square-mile district has diverse 
housing needs. Tribal, veteran, senior, many other diverse 
populations benefit from the programs that your subcommittee 
oversees. I wanted to focus on a few, specifically.
    First, Community Project Funding has been so important to 
my district, and I have put in for three important projects 
within the district. One is the Pearl Street veterans' housing 
project; one is Bridge for Kids, which I will explain; and the 
other is for the Pangborn Airport.
    The second topic I wanted to hit on was concerns with the 
Department of Transportation implementation of Culvert Aquatic 
Organism Passage from the IIJA.
    And the third is the HUD housing program.
    So, in terms of Community Project Funding, which has been 
so critical across the country, I would like to highlight just 
those three projects.
    The first is Hope Source's Pearl Street veterans' housing 
project.
    Kittitas County is a rural county. Nearly half of all 
residents over 65 are veterans--excuse me--nearly half of all 
residents are over 65. Many of those are veterans, many on 
fixed or limited incomes. And while funding exists for rental 
and other support, affordable housing remains a big challenge.
    This would help remedy that problem by developing a 12-unit 
apartment building dedicated to low-income senior veterans in 
Kittitas County. Eligible residents will be 60 years or older 
with income below 60 percent of the area mean income. And I 
just think it is our responsibility to take care of our 
veterans.
    The second is for the city of Orting, another tiny town 
with less than 10,000 residents, and it is called the Bridge 
for Kids.
    The town of Orting sits in the shadow of Mount Rainier, a 
volcano, and if that volcano erupts, even a minor eruption, 
then the town is right in the path of something called a lahar, 
when just massive amounts of mud and debris and volcanic 
material come down and can completely submerge the town.
    Happily, all you have to do to evacuate is move to a higher 
elevation. This Bridge for Kids would first allow them to cross 
a highway every day to get to school and would also allow them 
to escape from a lahar by foot. And this is a very real concern 
in Orting.
    The third is the Chelan-Douglas Regional Port Authority's 
Pangborn Airport. Representative Newhouse and I are both 
submitting this project as one of our community projects. It is 
a 1960s-era terminal, and it just cannot accommodate passengers 
and fire response and our military.
    And, beginning in January of 2024, the Washington Army 
National Guard intends to relocate its operations there, 
putting some urgency on this project, which we both support in 
bipartisan fashion.
    Next, I wanted to talk about the Department of 
Transportation implementation of culvert projects.
    In Washington State, we are tasked with creating passage 
for salmon in about 1,000 runs at a cost of about $4 billion. 
This was ordered by the Supreme Court as an obligation to 
Tribes.
    The IIJA provides significant funding for removal and 
replacement of culverts, but there are obstacles particularly 
in smaller areas who aren't able to achieve matching funds, for 
example, or up-front costs. And so I would just ask for some 
flexibility in this program like matching requirements when it 
comes to smaller communities.
    The third is HUD housing for Washington's Eighth District. 
I want to emphasize the importance of affordable housing 
everywhere. We have land trusts in part of our district that 
allow people to not just throw away money on rent but to invest 
in perpetually affordable housing and take that money with them 
when they go and buy their next house.
    And I wanted to emphasize the importance of the SHOP 
Program and the HOME Program, which help people with services 
and getting into housing. This supports Habitat for Humanity, 
for example.
    So thank you for your attention to these issues. I am 
making it just under the wire, and I appreciate your attention 
to these issues.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Well, you do get extra points for superb timing. 
I mean, coming within 2 seconds of the 5 minutes is pretty 
impressive.
    Ms. Schrier. I edited significantly at the end.
    Mr. Cole. Well, you are free to take additional time if you 
need it or want it. But I will say just, these are all very 
worthy projects.
    I particularly come from a district that has a huge Tribal 
presence and a huge veterans presence as well, so I 
particularly appreciate your focus on those groups.
    And, you know, we will wait and see where we are at at the 
end of the day when we get an allocation, but I can't imagine 
these wouldn't be competitive projects.
    With that, I yield to my friend and ranking member for any 
comments he cares to make.
    Mr. Quigley. I am curious: Mount Rainier, its history of 
activity, how recent has it been and how severe?
    Ms. Schrier. So the last activity was, I believe, thousands 
of years ago, but when they look at the timing of these events, 
which they can tell----
    Mr. Quigley. Would ``it's due'' come to mind?
    Ms. Schrier. It is due. It is due in the next 400 years. 
And I know that seems like a long timeframe, but it could also 
be tomorrow.
    Mr. Quigley. Yeah.
    Dr. Schrier. So, every year, all the kids in school do an 
evacuation drill where they figure out how to do it, how to get 
kids with disabilities out. Like, this is a very serious issue 
in Orting and some of the other surrounding towns.
    So I know 400 years seems like a big range, but----
    Mr. Quigley. Well, it won't happen until it does.
    Ms. Schrier. Exactly.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Barring further questions, all right, the 
gentlelady is excused.
    Perfect timing. Just come immediately to the----
    Mr. Quigley. The waters part for you. It is just----
    Mr. Cole. And now we will turn to Representative Landsman 
for his testimony.
    Representative Landsman, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.

            Hon. Greg Landsman, a Representative in Congress
                         from the State of Ohio

    Mr. Landsman. Well, I appreciate the opportunity again to 
come in and visit with you all. I think these Member Day 
experiences, at least for a new Member, is really wonderful to 
be able to just weigh in on a couple of things.
    On this particular issue, I wanted to talk about housing 
and mostly from my experience in southwest Ohio, in Cincinnati. 
Our region, like most, we are dealing with serious housing 
issues, and arguably it is a crisis.
    We don't have enough housing, and the housing that we do 
have is very expensive. And this is across the board, so we 
don't have enough low-income housing for folks--and I am going 
to do the AMI, right? So, at 30 percent of AMI or lower, we 
don't have enough there. We don't have enough between 30 and 
60, 60 and 80, 80 to 100. There are gaps along the continuum.
    And the more that we can do two things--this is my 
testimony today--is, you know, obviously, the funding makes a 
big difference. The more we can connect those dollars or 
incentivize those dollars to be connected with local dollars, 
the better.
    So, in Cincinnati, we have a sort of fund of funds. It is 
now over $100 million. Half of it is loans; half of it is 
grants. The ability to utilize more and more Federal resources 
as part of those dollars will help us spread those dollars 
further, right?
    So, as we are looking at the existing funding for housing, 
the ability for those dollars to be leveraged by local dollars 
so that those dollars can go further faster--and it is part of 
a local regional strategy--is just one point.
    The second one has to do--a little more complicated--has to 
do with land use and zoning and our ability, since we are big 
investors in housing, to incentivize communities to broaden the 
space in which we can build housing. This is a big issue for us 
and a lot of cities.
    We have some legislation that would get us to collect data 
on these land-use zoning changes, but I would suggest we go a 
step further and leverage our dollars to incentivize 
communities to update their zoning and land-use policies so 
that we can build new housing everywhere, not just in some 
places.
    And the land-use piece--on the zoning side, there is the 
density question and can we have greater density across the 
board in neighborhoods and communities all over, as opposed to 
what happens now, which is we are only able to build, you know, 
multifamily, multi-unit apartment buildings in certain places, 
which is truly problematic. And then the land use. You know, 
you have a piece of land. The ability to build more housing on 
that piece of land makes a big difference.
    And so my suggestion is, as you guys are working through 
these bills, that if there is language--we submitted some--that 
you would consider, that would help to get more and more 
communities to say, ``Look, yeah, we know there is pushback, we 
know that this is tough change for some communities and 
neighborhoods, but we really want to be able to leverage more 
and more dollars for housing,'' I think it could be very 
helpful in getting communities to a better place as it relates 
to land use and zoning.
    That is it. Thank you all very much, and I yield back.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. First, thank you for your testimony. Thanks for 
coming back before the subcommittee again. Again, worthy 
projects. And we will certainly look at the land issue, because 
I think you make a good point when you raise it. But very happy 
that you are here.
    With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Quigley for whatever 
comments he cares to make.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chairman.
    I don't know the nature of the transit system that is in 
your district. Is it bus systems, rapid transit, or----
    Mr. Landsman. We just passed--it is both. So it is a bus 
system, although we just passed a big investment in public 
transit and infrastructure that will allow us to do BRT. I 
think we are opening up six bus rapid transit corridors.
    And that is--if this is where you are going--the corridors, 
we do have a little more interest, there is a little more 
political will, to update the zoning----
    Mr. Quigley. So transit-oriented development.
    Mr. Landsman. Yeah.
    Mr. Quigley. I mean, we allow much greater density along 
our rapid transit routes, for example. Is that in existence, or 
that is what they are contemplating?
    Mr. Landsman. Yeah. That we just, I believe, passed or we 
are in the process of passing. There is more, I think, an 
appetite for that because it is along a corridor, and I think 
people can wrap their--but obviously it is just still limiting 
us in terms of where we can build housing.
    Mr. Quigley. I mean, as they tell us, housing is transit 
and transit is housing. The two are inexorably linked.
    The hard part for us is 435 districts. It is hard for us to 
be viewed as dictating policy. It is more a sense of 
encouraging.
    Mr. Landsman. Well, and that is why I used the word 
``incentive'' as opposed to ``require,'' that, you know, you 
get extra points. And maybe this is more on the--this is 
obviously more on the language side.
    But I do think communities could use that push or that 
extra incentive to say, ``Hey, we really want to get this HUD 
grant. We want to be first in line for these Federal housing 
dollars. To do so means we really need to have a 21st-century 
zoning and land-use policy.''
    Mr. Quigley. Right. Understood.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Landsman. Yeah, thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Well, thank you again for appearing, and you are 
excused.
    Mr. Landsman. All right. Thanks.
    Mr. Cole. The chair sees no additional Members.
    Mr. Quigley. I guess we solved the world's problems for the 
day.
    Mr. Cole. Well, in that case, I will turn it over to you to 
make any remarks that you care to make, and then I will close.
    Mr. Quigley. I do think these are valuable as an outlet for 
people to express the issues they have to us. It is also a 
valuable tool for us to learn what the needs are across the 
country.
    Mr. Cole. I agree very much with what the ranking member 
had to say. I thought the testimony was useful for both of 
these Members.
    Probably a little tough that we did this on a fly-out day 
and with votes impending. But that is okay; we have everybody's 
submissions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. And I look forward to working with you in due 
course to evaluate those and come to a collective decision.
    With that, I will declare the hearing closed.

                                           Tuesday, April 18, 2023.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                               WITNESSES

HON. MARCIA FUDGE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
    DEVELOPMENT
    Mr. Cole. The subcommittee will come to order. Today, we 
welcome our esteemed former colleague, the Secretary of the 
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
Honorable Marcia Fudge, and it is just so great to have you 
here, and I mean that quite sincerely. You are obviously back 
to the House for a hearing on HUD's fiscal 2024 budget request.
    Thank you for appearing today, Madam Secretary. I look 
forward to this discussion and especially looking forward to 
hearing from a distinguished and well-respected former 
colleague. I am very glad that HUD has a Secretary who 
understands what we do here in the House, and we thank you for 
your hard work and service to the American people.
    I also want to welcome my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle for this budget hearing. I know we are all excited to 
hear from you and start the process of getting a bipartisan 
bill that responsibly funds the government. We all recognize 
the importance of having a timely full year appropriations bill 
for HUD and the government as a whole. We know the consequences 
of not responsibly governing year to year. When we accept 
continuing resolutions, we waste time and effort, and accept 
the priorities of prior Congresses rather than put in the hard 
work to define our own.
    We on the Appropriations Committee have a duty to allocate 
resources to the programs that work and negotiate our way to a 
consensus at the end of the day, through regular order, to 
support the American people. That process starts right now. As 
we hear testimony from the Secretary about the President's 
budget request, we need to come together to ensure that 
communities receive the support they need while also making 
sure that we are not contributing to surging prices and out of 
control deficits through irresponsible fiscal policies.
    This is where you can help us out, Madam Secretary. We 
understand that so many different communities receive support 
from HUD, including Tribal and rural communities across the 
United States. HUD's programs affect every district, from 
providing rental assistance to helping first-time home buyers 
get a mortgage to keeping the secondary mortgage market running 
smoothly. HUD programs keep people safe from hazards like lead-
based paint in their homes and other unsafe living conditions, 
and allow elderly Americans to live with dignity in housing 
that meets their needs. HUD's programs also help fulfill the 
Federal Government's treaty and trust responsibilities to 
Tribal communities.
    HUD's Indian housing block grants are key to providing 
safe, decent, and affordable housing to Native American 
families. Deciding how to best allocate funding to these 
important programs is our job here. HUD's fiscal year 2024 
discretionary budget request is $73.3 billion, excluding any 
receipts. When we add in the fact that receipts for the Federal 
Housing Administration and Ginnie Mae's credit programs are 
projected to be 47 percent lower than last year, we get a 17 
percentage point increase over last year's nonemergency 
appropriations.
    The budget also requests $60 billion in mandatory housing 
programs over the next 10 years, removing these programs from 
appropriations oversight. While we may start from different 
places, I am confident that we can find common ground and 
responsibly fund programs that provide housing opportunities 
for the American people.
    Your testimony, Madam Secretary, today will enlighten us on 
your budget priorities for the Department. I look forward to 
learning from you about HUD's successes and your plans for its 
future, and about how we can help the Department better serve 
all Americans as we put together the HUD fiscal year 2024 
appropriations bill.
    With that, I recognize my good friend, the distinguished 
ranking member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 
serve with you on this committee, and to welcome a former 
colleague today to help in this discussion. It is always great 
to see a former House colleague, especially one who shares our 
interest in transforming our Nation's housing infrastructure.
    As you know, this Nation faces significant challenges with 
housing affordability and homelessness. According to HUD's most 
recent report on worse case housing needs, nearly 8 million 
households in the United States pay more than half of their 
income for rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or 
both. The solutions to these challenges are sometimes complex, 
but this subcommittee has risen to the occasion on a bipartisan 
basis each year to make the necessary progress to help HUD meet 
its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive 
communities, and affordable housing for all.
    I am proud of the investments we made last year. We 
provided $58.2 billion for HUD, which included 12,000 new 
housing choice vouchers, 2,800 new units for seniors and 
persons with disabilities, 225 million for a new initiative 
named after former chairman, David Price, to preserve and 
reinvest in manufactured and mobile housing. It also included 
3.6 billion for homeless assistance grants, a targeted increase 
to help homeless service providers increase the number of beds 
available at emergency shelters and expand permanent support of 
housing and rapid rehousing for the most vulnerable.
    The broad reach of the investments can be seen in my own 
district. Just last month, you traveled to Chicago to announce 
a $60 million award to address unsheltered homelessness. This 
grant will allow housing organizations to provide over 700 
units of permanent supportive housing, 50 units for rapid 
rehousing, and expanded supportive services and street 
outreach. Earlier this month, I spent the day with the CHA 
leadership touring multiple housing buildings in my own 
district, including Brighton HUD, Lathrop Homes. These 
buildings had new and renovated units made possible by this 
Federal investment, and outdated and crumbling housing that is 
virtually unusable.
    It has become evident that initiatives like the rental 
assistance demonstration and flexibilities that empower public 
housing agencies to quickly respond to emergency housing needs 
to get us a step closer to preserving our Nation's federally 
assisted housing.
    But so much more is needed to improve the health, safety, 
and stability of our renters. While we have made important 
strides to reduce homelessness among veterans and families with 
children in particular, the fight to end homelessness 
continues.
    Based on HUD's 2022 assessment, over 1.2 million households 
experienced homelessness sometime during the year, and the 
number of individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness 
continues to rise. These impacts can be felt beyond our housing 
systems. Without the necessary investments in housing, 
hospitals, schools, and criminal justice systems bear a huge 
burden. These ongoing challenges posed by the housing 
affordability crisis necessitate that we protect and build on 
our critical investments. And yet, there are some who want to 
drastically reduce funding for critical public investments.
    I believe we have to be clear-eyed about what this would 
mean for HUD's programs, and it can make a difference between 
having a home, or sleeping on the street for tens of thousands 
of families. More funding and greater flexibility is critical 
to preserving and expanding our affordable housing and 
sustaining our communities. The alternative is taking a step 
back on the progress we have made to address homelessness 
safety and community revitalization.
    I am pleased that you have brought before us a budget that 
would build on last year's investments and continue our 
progress in addressing these complex challenges. Your proposed 
investments would ensure millions of Americans remain stably 
housed, and access the support they need to build a stable, 
safe, and thriving future. We look forward to your testimony 
and to working with you on how we can best invest in our 
communities in 2024.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. Madam Secretary, you are recognized 
for your opening statement.

                     Statement of Hon. Marcia Fudge

    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
congratulations on being the subcommittee chair as well as to 
my colleague, Mr. Quigley. And Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank 
you for your many years of leadership in this institution. It 
is a pleasure to see you again. And I want to thank your staff 
for the way they have worked my staff.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Quigley, and distinguished 
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify in support of the President's 2024 budget for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The support of 
this committee is critical to ensuring that every American has 
a roof over their head and can live in communities that are 
strong and resilient. This administration believes that 
everyone deserves to live in a safe and affordable home.
    Whether you rent or own, having a good home in a 
neighborhood with opportunities sets the foundation for 
everything else in a person's life. Without a home, it is 
harder for a person to access good paying jobs and decent 
schools. It drives up costs for families and adds to 
inflationary pressures. That doesn't just hurt hardworking 
people, it hurts communities.
    A lack of affordable housing hinders the job market and 
stifles economic growth. President Biden understands in order 
to build an economy that works for all, we must invest in 
housing to expand supply, lower costs, improve access to rental 
options and homeownership, and advance efforts to end 
homelessness. As the President often says, a budget is a value 
statement. The Biden-Harris administration values building and 
preserving affordable housing. We value rental affordability 
and housing fairness. And most of all, we value the people of 
this country, including the most vulnerable among us, and 
therefore, we do not believe they should sleep on our streets 
or under park benches.
    The President's budget builds on the tremendous progress 
made over the last 2 years and demonstrates the Biden 
administration's unwavering commitment to protecting all 
Americans, whether they live in big cities, small towns, rural 
communities, or Tribal Nations. President Biden is requesting 
$73.3 billion to fund HUD's core programs and initiatives, and 
an additional $104 billion over the next decade to make the 
critical investments in affordable housing our country needs to 
address the shortage of housing we experience today.
    The President's budget requests a modest increase over 2023 
enacted levels, one that is necessary to ensure millions of 
families and communities can maintain access to services upon 
which they rely. The 2024 budget provides $32 billion for the 
housing choice voucher program, which could help an additional 
180,000 low-income individuals and families find affordable 
housing, $3.7 billion to provide housing and services to 
individuals and families experiencing homelessness, $3.4 
billion to give communities flexible resources that they can 
use to create affordable housing, improve housing choices, and 
expand economic development.
    The President's budget includes $410 million in funding we 
need to remove and mitigate the threats posed by dangerous 
health hazards like lead, carbon monoxide, radon, and fires. It 
invests $752 million to support improving energy efficiency and 
resilience in HUD assisted and financed developments, and $90 
million to support HUD's Fair Housing program.
    The President's budget supports full authorization of the 
Community Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program. I have 
traveled to communities across this country in many of your 
home states that have been devastated by disaster, storms, wild 
fires, and tornadoes. They are not getting any less severe. In 
fact, they are getting worse. The Federal Government must be 
able to quickly and effectively deploy resources. Full 
authorization of CDBGDR will help us get there.
    Because the President values housing, his budget invests in 
building up HUD's internal staffing and IT capacity, not 
stripping it away. We cannot carry out our mission to end 
homelessness and protect affordable housing, something I know 
matters to everyone here, if we do not invest in the Federal 
agency and the Federal workers who are charged with doing that 
important work.
    The proposed budget for HUD funds programs that help the 
most vulnerable households in our country pay their rent, 
people with disabilities, low-income seniors, working single 
parents with children. Our programs touch every community, 
every town, every locality, but most of all, they help people. 
They help American families, families from all walks of life 
with all manner of experiences who want what we all deserve: 
access to a safe and stable home that meets their needs.
    The families who rely on HUD can not afford for us to go 
backwards. As I noted in my letter to Ranking Member DeLauro, a 
reduction to 2022 enacted levels would mean thousands would 
lose the vouchers that help keep them in their homes. It would 
force our agency to short fund or cancel existing contracts 
with owners under the project based rental assistance program, 
which could lead to an unprecedented loss of existing 
affordable housing and cause mass evictions.
    Cuts to funding for Indian country would exacerbate the 
dire housing conditions there and a reduction in funding for 
homelessness services will reverse progress we have made and 
lead to an increase in homelessness. We cannot afford to go 
backward, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, and distinguished 
Members of the subcommittee, we have a responsibility to ensure 
the American people can access safe, affordable, and resilient 
housing in strong communities. I look forward to working with 
you to ensure full funding for HUD and its programs so that we 
can address the housing crisis our country is facing with 
resolve and urgency.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. We will 
proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds, alternating sides, 
recognizing Members in order of seniority as they were seated 
at the beginning of the hearing, and we will try to move as 
quickly as possible so everyone can get their questions in. So 
please be mindful of your time and allow witness's time to 
answer--witness, in this case, time to answer your questions.
    Let me start--because I suspect we will hear in this 
hearing, Madam Secretary, and it is quite legitimate, a lot of 
concerns about potential cuts. That is fair enough because I 
don't think any of us know yet what our top line is going to 
be. We just don't have that information. I would hope we have 
it in relatively short order.
    I do think it is fair to say we are unlikely to be able to 
give you the increase that you want, but I want to start in a 
place where I hope we have common ground. Whatever the amount 
we end up with, I think the worst outcome is always, as an 
appropriator, a continuing resolution. I mean, it freezes in 
place whatever we did for good or ill, makes it impossible for 
you to make adjustments, start new projects, and do what you 
think is appropriate.
    So I would like, if you would, just to give us your view of 
what the consequences of a continuing resolution would be for 
your Department.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The first thing I would say is we would probably lose 
housing for about 125,000 people we are currently supporting. 
We would be about $500 million short in renewing our projects 
based rental assistance program, which means that we have 
contracts with people across the country to provide housing 
through vouchers. We would lose the ability to continue with 
those contracts in the amount of about $500 million, and we 
would serve about 32,000 fewer people experiencing 
homelessness.
    And lastly I would say that, we maintain information, very 
private information, for people. If we don't keep up our IT 
systems, if we can not operate and continue to support the 
systems we are building, we may be in some serious trouble. We 
actually have hired someone to do cyber work for us that we 
think is very, very good. But we do not want to put at risk 
people's information. So those would be the top issues that I 
would raise with you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. Let me ask you a related question, if 
I may, Madam Secretary. This is not partisan. This is 
institutional. Congress hasn't done a very good job, no matter 
who is running, about getting its work done on time. You know, 
you have a budget that runs from fiscal year to fiscal year, 
you very seldom get it in a timely fashion where you can 
operate.
    So sadly, assuming we don't come to an agreement and give 
you your budget by the end of the fiscal year and you were 
operating some sort of a CR, what would be the consequences for 
you in that period before we actually delivered a budget, if 
you were simply sort of frozen in place? That is never a good 
thing, but I am very interested in what you think the specific 
difficulties would be for HUD.
    Secretary Fudge. There would be a major setback for our 
public housing authorities. There would be a major setback in 
terms of how we address supporting our landlords through the 
housing choice voucher program. We wouldn't even be able to 
really know how much rent we could pay.
    I mean, rent is going up, as you know. You know, housing is 
a crisis in this country. We would not even know how many 
people we could serve without certainty as to where we are 
headed.
    And I would just say this, Mr. Chairman, and I know that 
you will understand this quite well. I understand how difficult 
the budget process is. Not only did I serve here, but I was a 
former mayor as well. But I would just ask you to consider the 
fact that you do not want to balance your budget on the backs 
of poor people or people who need our help the most.
    It would put us in turmoil, quite frankly. We would not 
know what we could do from month to month. We serve about 4 
million people a month, Mr. Chairman, and I would hate to put 
them, our public housing authorities, our private partners, our 
contractors in a position where they have no idea where we go 
next.
    Mr. Cole. Let me ask you this as a follow-up question to 
that: If we found ourselves in this unfortunate situation 
where, quite frankly, we have been year after year for a long 
time now, what are the consequences of that for your private 
partners? You do a lot of contracting with an a lot of people. 
They have to make business decisions on how they are going to 
finance properties that they are renting to some of your 
clientele. So what are the likelihoods some of them would drop 
out of their arrangements with HUD, and we would have a real 
problem for folks who were getting housing?
    Secretary Fudge. There is no question that they would drop 
out first off because we couldn't pay them, and I don't think 
we can expect any private business to just, you know, hold on, 
we will get back to you. They want to get their resources, and 
in a market that is as tight as the market is today, they can 
easily go and get renters and owners from other areas, and it 
puts them out of the market for helping people with affordable 
housing, which is the greatest need in this country today, 
affordable and low income housing. So we cannot pay them, which 
we would not be able to, and then we would lose their 
contracts.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I yield to my good friend, Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, I truly respect the Chairman and agree with him 
wholeheartedly about the fact that a continuing resolution is 
very, very bad policy, and he asked you to detail what it would 
mean to you to the extent possible if we were operating on it, 
and you listed some facts and figures.
    But there is the specter of something, if possible, worse 
than the continuing resolution, and that is upwards of 20 
percent cuts. Can you put those figures into perspective, if it 
is not a continuing resolution, but indeed a 20 percent cut?
    Secretary Fudge. You are absolutely right. A 20 percent cut 
would be significantly worse than a continuing resolution. They 
are both bad, but that would be significantly worse because 
what we would end up doing at the 2022 levels is that we 
would--we could not do things like simple things, just doing 
inspections on our housing properties.
    We would not be able to pay for most things within our 
budget. Think about what we do. HUD, itself, does not provide 
housing, our partners do. Public housing would just be--I mean, 
it is bad now, which you know. It would get worse because we 
could not do the capital improvements we needed to do. We could 
not recover from COVID, which has destroyed a lot of the 
payment plans in public housing. We would not be able to do 
project based--we would lose housing vouchers. It would be 
devastating.
    Mr. Quigley. Do you have a way of projecting how many 
housing vouchers you would lose? Is there a way to project just 
how much evictions there would be and the increase in 
homelessness?
    Secretary Fudge. I think we do.
    We are looking at what might be as many as 640,000 people 
that would lose housing if we go back to the 2022 levels. We 
would serve 95,000 fewer people who are experiencing 
homelessness, 95,000. We would be $4 billion short in renewing 
our project based rental assistance. So between the loss of the 
vouchers to these project based--it is $4 billion we would lose 
if we went back to 2022.
    Mr. Quigley. How much discretion do you have if put in that 
situation? How do you prioritize under that kind of nightmare 
situation? Do you have the ability to, or are your previous 
commitments such that you really wouldn't have much choice 
about what you would do?
    Secretary Fudge. We don't have much choice for a number of 
reasons. One, we don't have much choice because of the way that 
legislation is written. We can only do certain things with 
certain pots of money. We happen to be one of the few agencies 
that has to come back to Congress to check for many things we 
do. So we can't just automatically make adjustments and changes 
to line items. We just can't do that by rules that are set up 
by the Congress.
    Further, where do you start? We are one of the very few 
agencies that directly affect people's lives, one of the very 
few, that have one-on-one relationships with the general 
public. Where do you begin?
    I mean, certainly, what we would want to do is make sure we 
keep people housed. We can't do that. We want to make sure 
people can live in some place decent like public housing. We 
can't do that.
    We can't, as I said, we can't inspect. We can't help 
people. There is nothing we can do that is going to be good 
with that process. Everything is going to be reduced. And I am 
one of these people that does not believe you do budgeting by 
just cutting across the board. We must prioritize. I don't even 
know where we would start.
    Mr. Quigley. So that classic form, if I had to predict, we 
do things later than we should. If it was just up to the 
appropriators, that would not be the case, I think on both 
sides. But given the scenarios you talk about, we find out 
about this relatively late in the game. So I would imagine that 
would exacerbate the situation that you would be actually in 
the year and finding out that you have far less money.
    Are you able to prepare contingencies for such a 
circumstance?
    Secretary Fudge. I am not sure that we do. I mean, 
certainly we would be forced to make some decisions. There is 
no question about it, if that is what happened. But I would 
just say that there would be no good decisions because 
everything that we would have to do at the last minute would 
create a snowball effect, and it would just affect everything 
else we do. So I don't know. Yes, we could do it if we had to 
do it, but I don't know where we would even start.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Now, my good friend, the Gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 
Womack.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And madam Secretary, 
thank for your service. It is good to see a former colleague at 
the table.
    I want to go back to Mr. Quigley's question just a minute 
ago and your answer. 600--if I heard you correctly, 640,000 
people would lose housing if we went back to fiscal year 2022 
levels. Is that your testimony?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Womack. When did we come off of the fiscal year 2022 
budget? In other words, you were operating under fiscal year 
2022 numbers through when?
    Secretary Fudge. Through the fiscal year 2022.
    Mr. Womack. And beyond, because we didn't have a full year 
appropriation.
    Secretary Fudge. But we actually did get an increase in our 
budget.
    Mr. Womack. Okay. And when did that increase take effect?
    Secretary Fudge. Fiscal year 2023.
    Mr. Womack. In 2023, which really didn't become law until 
January, correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Correct. But you also have to realize we 
had rescue funds. We had COVID funds. We had a lot of other 
things.
    Mr. Womack. I get that. I guess my point is this: A lot of 
fire alarms being pulled today over this whole notion of fiscal 
year 2022 levels, but the Federal Government was operating 
under fiscal year 2022 numbers really through December of last 
year.
    So in four months, now we are hitting fire alarms that if 
we go back to those numbers, thousands and hundreds of 
thousands of people are going to be out on the street. So I 
don't know that I agree with those numbers totally. And 
frankly, I know we all share a desire up here to get a full 
year appropriation. We would like to do it by the first of 
October. I have my doubts as to whether that can be done or 
whether it will be done at fiscal year 2022 levels. But I just 
want to make the point that we were on those numbers all the 
way up until we passed the fiscal year 2023 omnibus package, 
which happened in late December.
    I want to move to the next point, and that is, home 
investment partnership program, very important tool, targeted 
at individuals and families at below 80 percent of area median 
income, receive steady appropriations over the last several 
years; 1.4 billion per year. This year, you requested a $300 
million increase to the home program bringing that request to 
1.8 billion. I hope my numbers are correct.
    The American Rescue Plan included 5 billion for the home 
investment partnership program. So home ARP is in addition to 
what the Congress already gives. But here is the problem, home 
ARP has only expended about .7 percent of the funds, and the 
action plans weren't even due to the agency until last month.
    So the first question is: How do we justify the increase 
when home ARP is only expended .7 percent? I realize some of it 
has been obligated, and how do we classify that as pandemic 
related when the pandemic is now really over and the action 
plans weren't due until effectively when COVID ended? So, your 
turn.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. Let me start with the first 
question. Again, I would say to you with ERAP funding, with 
rescue money, COVID money, we brought all of those people into 
our tent. So we currently do support a lot more people than we 
did under just the budget for 2022. They are now in our care. 
And so if we--we are not going to have anymore of those 
resources. So that's why the number gets to where it is.
    Mr. Womack. But we don't have COVID.
    Secretary Fudge. Correct. I am not suggesting we do. What I 
am saying to you, the question was, what would happen, and that 
is the question I answered. Because we had at 2022, all of the 
people that we were supporting through the other programs, so 
we don't have those, and those programs would go away and those 
people would go away.
    As it relates to the home resources, about 60 percent of 
home ARP is already obligated. When you talk about building 
housing or housing units, it is not something that happens 
overnight. And so people do need to plan, and it does take 
time. The other thing that Congress did in its wisdom, is it 
gave them time to put in place the plans and the people to make 
these projects work. It doesn't happen over night.
    So now most of these communities are getting up to speed, 
and it has been a delay. I am as upset about it as you. I 
thought it would have happened faster. But we are working with 
the communities as best we can. They now have obligated the 
resources. We have their plans. As soon as they are approved, 
the resources will start to go out.
    Mr. Womack. Madam Secretary, thank you for your time.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. My good friend from New Jersey, Mrs. 
Watson Coleman.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for your thoughtful questions, and to Mr. Quigley as well.
    It is good to see you, Madam Secretary, and it is good that 
you are in this position. And I recognize that almost like what 
our Statue of Liberty says, give me your tired, your poor, your 
huddled masses, yearning to breathe free; and the poor, the 
elderly, the children, the minorities, that is who you take 
care of. You address the most fundamental survival needs of 
those most in need.
    And I need to ask you a couple of questions about what you 
are able to do now, and what you would be forced to do 
quantifiably, if you can, if we are fraught with the 2022 
funding levels that are proposed, but not in stone yet, thank 
God.
    I am interested in supplying. I think that we undersupply 
affordable housing on so many different levels, and I am 
wondering if you are able to tell us today with the fiscal year 
2023, what percentage of the needs you are able to meet in that 
category, and what would happen under the 2022 proposal of 
cutting?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is 
nice too see you as well.
    One of the things we do know is that, let's just take rent, 
rental assistance. We would not be able to cover the rent for 
approximately 345--350,000 people if we went back to 2022 
levels. We would lose about almost $2 billion in our project 
based rental assistance, which I talked about. And we would 
serve a lot fewer people experiencing homelessness.
    I think that, Congresswoman, people do not realize the 
gravity and the crisis that we find ourselves in as a Nation. 
When you have on any given night 500 plus thousand people 
sleeping on the streets and you cannot assist some 50,000 plus, 
it just makes the problem even worse.
    It is just like with your house. My 2022 budget doesn't 
support my 2024 spending, quite frankly. I think that people 
need to understand that the problem is not getting better, the 
problem is getting worse, because of COVID, because of many 
other--because of inflation.
    Right now, there is such a crunch on credit that even 
people who wanted to move, to buy a home probably couldn't. I 
would say that as people talk about our receipts being down 
Congresswoman, receipts were going to be down anyway. The 
economy is driving a lot of this. People are not buying homes. 
People are not refinancing homes. You know, credit is tight. 
Our FHA and Ginnie Mae, which supplies trillions of dollars to 
the Federal Government doesn't go to HUD, even though it is our 
receipts. It goes to the Treasury. We would be in a position 
where we could not support half of what we do. And I don't know 
that I can quantify it all exactly, but I would suggest to you 
that when we start talking about putting people out of their 
homes, not being able to make public housing safe----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. That is another question I wanted to 
get to, that whole issue of not only making it safe, but making 
sure that landlords are treating tenants in a way that is 
respectful of who they are, and particularly as it relates to 
discrimination.
    One of the things I realized is that under your 
predecessor, HUD had really reduced its staffing and its 
capacity tremendously, and you all have tried very hard to 
bring the staffing up to meet the needs of whatever percentage 
you are able to deal with at this point.
    I would like to know what would happen if you were faced 
the--going back to the funding levels of 2022 in order to 
enforce the safety and security measures that are important and 
to enforce the civil rights rights that individuals have to 
access the safe and affordable housing.
    Secretary Fudge. I am really glad you asked that. I mean, 
our Office of Fair Housing was basically hollowed out. We were 
not doing inspections for 2 years. If we go back to 2022 levels 
we would be at a staff that was so small that we could barely 
function. At one point, HUD made up 7 percent of the Federal 
budget. Today, it is less than 1 percent. So when I came in, it 
was agreed by most people that our staffing should be somewhere 
around the 8,000 number. It was well under 7,000.
    You cannot function with a team of people who work like my 
team works--and they work very, very hard, but they are 
overworked and they are underpaid, quite frankly. And they do a 
job because they believe in the mission, but you have to give 
people support. We cannot do our work without staff.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I do hope 
that this issue of 2022 funding is a bad rumor and nothing 
more. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I now go to my good friend 
from Montana, Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Madam Secretary, 
thank you for your service. It is not an easy job, and I 
commend you for taking it on board.
    So this morning I met with a number of Tribal council 
members, and I got an ear full. So I would like to kind of 
relate what they expressed to me as I represent the Great 
Plains Nations.
    So regionally inappropriate housing requirements for 
Tribes. So there is a couple issues that across the Nation, one 
house doesn't fit very well across the Nation when you have 
different climates and terrains. And one example HUD program 
was so restrictive, the rules regarding the building design, 
that they requested to pitch the roof to accommodate the winds, 
and HUD would not give them an exception at all.
    Another example is that HUD would not adjust the doors 
because in some cultures having the door faced to a particular 
direction is part of their cultural heritage. That was not 
done. The other area that that was concern is that--forms. As 
you are looking for a loan, the HUD form and the BIA form are 
different, and they refuse to talk to each other, and yet that 
is preventing that.
    So Madam Secretary, I have a list of grievances from the 
Indian Nations, and I would just like a pledge from you because 
I know you are sensitive to the Nations and discriminatory 
policy over time, and I would ask that you work with myself and 
my staff to remedy these.
    Secretary Fudge. No question about it. I mean, if that is 
happening, I agree with you it shouldn't be. But I did have a 
meeting just on last week with the heads of all of the Tribal 
Nations so that they could be at the table to have these 
conversations and tell us what is wrong. It is the first time 
HUD has ever brought all of the Nations together, and we do it 
on last week because we need to make clear that their input is 
important. We have to recognize the sovereignty of Tribal 
Nations and I am happy to work with your office to make sure we 
are not doing things that are detrimental.
    Mr. Zinke. Since--in the spirit of bipartisanship and 
working together on an important issue, the other issue we are 
going to have to address is fractionization. So some of the 
nations over time, this passing of property has required that 
there may be multiple owners on a track of land, making it 
almost impossible for them to get a loan or qualify for many 
programs.
    Although they are sovereign, we are looking at perhaps a--
taking a percentage of maybe 80 percent of that land. If you 
had 80 percent ownership, then you control that land in order 
to get a loan. But I would like your commitment to also work 
together with us to find a path through some of these difficult 
places where it seems to be a lot of the tribal members are 
being boxed out of financing for a home because their 
fractionization.
    Secretary Fudge. I am happy to do it.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back Mr. 
Secretary--or Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. I appreciate the promotion. That is okay.
    Mr. Zinke. I am not sure it is a promotion.
    Mr. Cole. I will leave you two to debate that. You are the 
only two qualified people to address that issue.
    Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 
Secretary, thank you for your commitment to housing and 
families across the Nation.
    Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous support--consent to enter a 
letter into the record from the national not-for-profit Compass 
Working Capital in support of family self-sufficiency programs 
and in support of Secretary Fudge bridging the wealth gap 
agenda.
    Mr. Cole. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, I know that you have been invested in the self-
sufficient programs and your budget reflects 175 million for 
these programs, like the job plus initiative, and family self-
sufficiency. And these programs have traditionally been and 
have received bipartisan support.
    So I wanted to know how a 2022 level budget would impact 
these programs, the self-sufficiency programs.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, our estimate, Mr. Espaillat, is that 
we would have to remove about a 100,000 people from those 
programs. We think that they are vital to creating the self-
sufficiency that this Congress talks about quite often, as well 
as to put residents of public housing in particular in a 
position to move beyond public housing and to homeownership.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you for that 
answer.
    Displacement continues to be a major problem in blue 
States, red States, purple States. It continues to really 
impact households. And I know that the low income housing tax 
credit, which my predecessor had--was a champion of, is a 
program that developers that build affordable housing are--
really depend on, and I wanted to find out: What is the status 
of the low income housing tax credit? Is it healthy? Is it on 
life support? Do we need to give it a blood transfusion? What 
is the status of the program that really helps families and 
communities with the displacement issue?
    Secretary Fudge. It would be very helpful if we could raise 
the caps and put a little more resources in it. I think that 
when private developers are trying to build what we are hopeful 
will be affordable housing or low-income housing, we need to 
give them as much help as we can.
    So between the low income housing tax credits, we have 
proposed as well a neighborhood housing tax credit. We have 
looked at home resources and CDBG resources to help do gap 
funding for some of this building. It is a vital program, and I 
am hopeful that--it always has had bipartisan support. I hope 
it will continue to have it.
    Mr. Espaillat. Yes. And with regards to RAD and PRAC, I 
know that I have gotten a lot of complaints about how the 
program is working, whether in fact it is being sort of like 
applied to address critical issues in the apartments that I 
represent, the buildings that I represent, like mold 
remediation instead of like cosmetic jobs that often look great 
and feel great, but are not right at the top of the agenda in 
terms of priority.
    How can we work together with HUD to ensure that this 
funding is being applied to initiatives that are really 
important for families?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, it is my priority. So if there is a 
particular development or particular housing authority that is 
having a problem, just let us know, Mr. Espaillat, and we will 
make sure that we take care of it, at least look into it and 
see what we can do to make the situation better.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary, 
thank you for your commitment to housing.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. Next I will go to my good 
friend from Florida, Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, one of the things that I am really 
concerned about, and I know you are too, is when we see this 30 
percent reduction in workforce within HUD over the past few 
years. And yet, we are going to increase the budget, it looks 
like, and we are trying to, you know, increase the 
accountability, the compliance, all of that, that has got to be 
difficult to do when your workforce is down. Can you talk a 
little bit about how--what can we do to help get the staffing 
that you need so that we can run these programs and have that 
information coming back to make good decisions with?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so very much.
    I would say that we have started to finally get people into 
the system. So our workforce numbers are going up. They need to 
go up more, admittedly. And that is why we are hopeful that we 
will get the request in the budget. But I would also say that 
one of the things that does create situations that prove that 
we need more help--let's just take something as simple as, I 
forget the actual term for it now. We used to call it earmarks 
when I was here. I don't know the actual term now, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Community fund projects.
    Mr. Rutherford. Community fund projects.
    Secretary Fudge. Okay. That is it. Well, we got 2,600 of 
them, right? So we have to stand up the ability to handle 2,600 
new programs, and we have to do it in a very short period of 
time. We don't always have the staff. We, thank goodness, did 
beef up the staff in that particular office, and so we were 
able to do it fairly quickly. But we do a lot of things people 
don't realize we do. And so, I am hopeful that we will get our 
mark on salaries, and then we can do the work we need to do--
continue to do the work we are doing.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, I hope we can help you with that.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. Because I think that is going to be 
important.
    On the FHA annual insurance premium, the decision was made 
to reduce that by 30 basis points, and that is going to help on 
the monthly bill. But I can tell you, I hear from a lot of 
folks that the challenge is not so much the monthly payment as 
it is the down payment.
    And so my question is: Do you think that the FHA would be 
open to adjusting its down payment requirement as well?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I am glad you asked that as well. In 
the President's 2024 budget, there is about $10 billion in 
assistance for down payments. You are absolutely right. The 
biggest impediment to owning a home is the down payment. And so 
yes, we are looking at it. We are looking at other ways that we 
can make homeownership more affordable for people in terms of 
how we address student debt, how we address credit. So yes, 
sir, absolutely.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And, well I am really glad to hear 
you say that because I am about to reintroduce the Helper Act, 
which will help our first responders with no money down, 
actually be able to move into the districts that they work in. 
Many of them right now can't afford to live where they work.
    Secretary Fudge. I agree.
    Mr. Rutherford. And so, that is encouraging, and I thank 
you for that. Let me ask one more question. I know that 
homeownership and crime are connected. As homeownership goes 
up, crime goes down. We have done overlays. I was a sheriff in 
Duval County in Florida, and we did overlays, and everywhere 
that we were able to increase homeownership, we actually saw 
reductions in crime.
    And so, can you talk a little bit about section four, the 
capacity building program, and how that can help revitalize 
some of these neighborhoods with single family housing while at 
the same time making those homes affordable for the people that 
are there so they don't get displaced?
    Secretary Fudge. One of the problems we have with housing 
today is that we just don't build starter homes anymore. We 
don't build homes that are affordable for people because 
developers tend to not make money doing it.
    And that is why we are so determined to make sure that we 
can use LIHTC in a way that should be, so that we can give 
credit in ways that we haven't in the past and we can do gap 
financing through housing finance agencies and other things 
that the Federal government does to make it more affordable.
    But the other thing we are looking at is zoning. Because 
there are zoning requirements that building--home builders are 
telling me adds 40 percent to the cost of building a house. So 
it is not just us. So we have to work within the system, the 
entire supply system.
    Mr. Rutherford. Across the country.
    Secretary Fudge. Right.
    Mr. Rutherford. And that is why I think, you know, I know 
you are focusing on the IT aspect to be able to collect some of 
this information across the country--and I see my time as 
expired, so I will pass on that for now. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. If you will hang around, I bet you get another 
shot.
    As usual, my friend, Mrs. Torres has exquisite timing and 
got back just in time to reclaim her place in the queue. So the 
Gentlelady from California is recognized.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you for your patience, Mr. 
Chairman. And Secretary Fudge, appreciate you being here. I am 
bouncing between three hearings that are really critically 
important to the work that we are doing here in Congress.
    I too want to thank you and your staff for the great work 
that you are doing every single day, trying to meet the bare 
minimums in our community, and that is providing a safe place 
to call home for so many people that find themselves in a 
situation many times not caused by, you know, something that 
they did themselves, but unfortunate circumstances.
    You know, using myself as an example, I lost my home to a 
fire in 2005. I never thought that I would find myself in that 
spectrum of being homeless, but for 14 months, you know, we 
were doing just that, going from, you know, hotel to temporary 
shelter to another hotel. It is a very, very difficult 
situation for any working adult, but add three, you know, 
children to that. And I can tell you from just my personal 
experience how traumatic that is for a family.
    So the fact that your--the work that you are doing and the 
work of your staff, focusing and connecting with these 
families, for that to continue to be a priority for you is so 
important, you know, for me.
    I know that my Republican colleagues are--have been 
ignoring, you know, that work that you have been doing, and 
ignoring the ongoing affordable housing crisis and the homeless 
epidemic in your country. I know that my Republican colleagues 
continue to blame Blue States for not fixing these issues. But 
at the same time, Republicans are working to drastically cut 
the Federal funding States receive, all States, not just Blue 
States, but Red States also.
    When we are working towards sensible solutions to complex 
problems, why kill the budgets of the folks that are working to 
solve these problems? My Republican colleagues are more 
concerned with giving tax relief to the rich rather than 
investing in working communities like the people that I 
represent.
    If the proposed Republican cuts go into effect, Madam 
Secretary, they will impact my district that is composed of 
thousands of hard working class families that are in that same 
scale where one paycheck away from being homeless.
    Secretary Fudge, can you share with us: How would the 
Republican cuts impact HUD's ability to help States meet their 
accordable housing needs? And how will those cuts help HUD? 
Because I don't understand how those cuts will help you meet 
the goals that you have set for your agency.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much. I would say that 
housing is a crisis everywhere. There is not one place in this 
country that housing is not a crisis. And so if we don't have 
the resources, we can't build as many homes. We can't build as 
many rental units. We can't move people off of public 
assistance and into housing if they are prepared to do it 
because we have no place for them to go.
    Part of the problem we have even now, we have got vouchers 
out and we are using them to the best of our ability. But what 
is happening because the economy is so strained that even 
landlords don't want to take our housing vouchers because they 
make so much more money on the private market.
    So housing is a crisis across this country. I don't care 
what State you are in. And if we don't have resources to start 
to help builders to build homes that put in new projects that 
are going to allow people to live in housing that today is 
affordable, but if we wait two or three more years, it becomes 
less and less affordable.
    So that is biggest issue. Not being able to provide 
housing. We are about 1.5 million housing units short of what 
we need in this country today. If we don't do something about 
it today, the problem just gets worse.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you for that question. In 
the next round, I will go into more detail about what your--
what you are doing to help State and local housing authorities 
meet their needs. So with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    My good friend, Mr. Ciscomani has arrived, and you actually 
are next up for questions.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Secretary, thank 
you so much for being here.
    Also, in my home State of Arizona, we know too well just 
how bad the homelessness crisis has become. I was recently 
holding a roundtable in one of the retirement communities that 
is known for a lot of things but homelessness is not one of 
them. And that was one of the main issues that came up, 
something that you wouldn't expect. These are people that are 
many cases known as snow birds coming in from other parts of 
the country to spend a few months out of the year in Arizona 
due to weather or other things.
    So this was not something that used to be a prevalent 
issue, but we are seeing it more and more across the entire 
State. And one of my priorities in Congress is ensuring that 
all Americans from our youth to our veterans have access to 
safe, affordable housing. Arizona recently received a $93 
million--from HUD--grant to combat homelessness and invest in 
affordable housing for which we are grateful for, but there is 
still much more work to be done.
    So my question is: By providing assistance to very low 
income households seeking housing in the private rental market, 
HUD's housing choice voucher program has proven to be an 
effective tool in reducing overcrowding, homelessness, and 
housing instability. However, concerns about the negative 
experiences with the program have discouraged some private 
landowners from participating.
    Is there anything the Federal Government can do to help the 
public housing agencies and other organizations improve 
landlord participation, and by of course, participation I mean 
their experience that they are experiencing--their experience 
in this process? How can we attack this?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, one thing I think that is helpful is 
you are telling me about it. So if you have some specific 
examples--one of the things we have found is that there are 
some things that we can do to incentivize landlords to 
participate in the program and things that we can do to make 
that experience better. So if we know that there--if you could 
just give us a little more information about what it is that is 
creating a problem with landlords, we are happy to try to 
address it.
    Mr. Ciscomani. I would love to provide you those specific 
examples, and also in the area of incentivizing, I think that 
is one of the avenues that we can go on here. Again, it is a 
program that has worked when it does work. However, the 
negative experience that is--that I keep hearing more and more 
about is discouraging private landowners from----
    Secretary Fudge. Please let us know because we need 
landowners. We need them to stay in the program.
    Mr. Ciscomani. I agree with you.
    Now, let me move onto a second question here. In--now 
established by this committee in 2016, the Youth Homelessness 
Demonstration Program works to address the unique challenges 
experienced by homeless youth through incentivizing coordinated 
community approaches. This program has helped make real 
progress at reducing the homelessness youth population in 93 
communities that have received funding, including a major city 
I represent and where I live, which is Tucson, Arizona.
    Addressing youth homelessness is of particular importance 
to me. Last year in my home State of Arizona, we saw the 
largest increase in homeless youth to date. According to the 
December 2022 HUD report, 917 youths in Arizona struggled with 
homelessness.
    Can you speak results of this program, and how it has 
informed HUD's coordination with local homeless service 
providers to address homelessness, and what are some of the 
best practices you have seen in this sixth award rounds to 
date?
    Secretary Fudge. It has been a very, very effective 
program, especially because we have been able to connect them 
with our continuance of care and with social service agencies. 
Also, in the President's budget, there is a line item that 
requests funding for youth aging out of foster care, which is a 
major problem in this country. So between those funds, the 
youth demonstration funds, we do believe that we are making an 
impact in communities.
    Mr. Ciscomani. You know, you mentioned the President's 
budget--this is my last question. I am running out of time--
but--the program has been successful. Why is it funded at a 
lower level this year than in previous years in the President's 
budget?
    Secretary Fudge. Because we added in the foster care 
funding, those aging out of foster care. So between the two, it 
is an increase.
    Mr. Ciscomani. So between two, it is an increase. Thank 
you, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I will go to my very patient friend from Virginia, but 
before I do, over the break you made the announcement, which I 
suppose everybody knows, that you have Parkinsons. I just want 
you to know you have our deepest sympathy and total support on 
this committee on both sides of the aisle. Thank you for being 
here to fulfill your important work. The Gentlelady is 
recognized.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you Madam Secretary for being with us today. Good to see you 
again. It is nice to have you back, and I know that you don't 
miss us too much here in the House of Representatives. I hope 
at least you feel a little bit of nostalgia when you come back 
here. So good to have you back.
    I do want to add one thing that wasn't my original 
question. But I do want to commend HUD for everything you do in 
the fostering futures program. It is so important for kids to 
be able to have those extra resources until they turn 21 
because I was a guardian ad litem for very many, many years and 
the kids who turn 18, and I would ask them please, please 
don't, don't leave foster care if you can help it.
    They also have 90 days to change their mind if they do want 
to leave and then they come back. So it has been very helpful 
for them. I am glad to see you guys are really working to make 
sure you keep up the budget for that.
    We have spoken several times in previous hearings and 
subcommittee about affirmatively furthering fair housing. As we 
all know, protections ensure that entities who received Federal 
funding take proactive steps to reduce the housing 
discrimination and inequalities that has been prevalent in our 
communities for far too long.
    As you talked many times before--as we talked about many 
times before, too often we have seen people denied housing and 
forced to pay more for housing due to their race, religion, 
gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, and other 
protected characteristics. This February, HUD had released its 
proposed role on affirmatively furthering fair housing. To 
understand the service, leading to the public comment through 
the rest of this week; is that correct?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Can you tell us specifically how this rule will 
empower HUD and its grantees to fight discrimination and 
provide fair housing to all?
    Secretary Fudge. Unfortunately, Congresswoman, because it 
is in a comment period, there is not really much of a 
discussion that I can give you until it comes out of the 
comment period.
    Ms. Wexton. If it does----
    Secretary Fudge. I would say this, the Fair Housing Act 
requires that we proactively fight discrimination and 
segregation. And so, what the rule does is requires communities 
to show us how they are doing that, if that is helpful.
    Ms. Wexton. More than just post notices about it and things 
like that, it requires that they actually take affirmative 
steps to prevent----
    Secretary Fudge. That is what--basically, that is what the 
Fair Housing Law requires them to do.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you. How would these efforts and other 
HUD fair housing programs be impacted if the Department were to 
have its spending cut by approximately 20 percent?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I think that when you look at the 
fact that we have reinstated the Disparate Impact Rule, the 
fact that we even in the President's budget have put tens of 
millions of dollars into fair housing so that we can work with 
communities at a different level than we have in the past. I 
think that you will see that people will understand very 
clearly that we intend to enforce the Fair Housing Act, and we 
continue to say to people you are required by law to reduce 
and/or try to eliminate discrimination and segregation, and 
fairly treat all persons in their housing market. So I will 
think you will be pleased with the rule.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I want to talk a little bit about VAWA (Violence Against 
Women Act), which we passed last Congress. I was very, very 
pleased that we finally got that done, and included significant 
resources for victims of and survivors of domestic violence and 
sexual assault, including strengthening housing protections for 
survivors.
    So I was very pleased to see that HUD announced new 
resources for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking earlier this year, including but 
not limited to a new VAWA resources website and $5 million VAWA 
training and technical assistance to HUD grantees and 
stakeholders. It has only been a couple of months since these 
new resources were announced.
    Would you share how they have been helping survivors of 
domestic violence and how they fit into HUD's vital work to 
ensure the accessibility of housing and emergency services for 
victims of--for survivors of domestic violence?
    Secretary Fudge. The first thing, we just recently 
published a centralized VAWA website on our website that people 
can--it is going to be wonderful. People will be able to go 
right on our website, and they can just go to hud.gov/vawa. We 
have FAQs. We have trainings. We have guidance. Everything that 
we believe is appropriate to put on the site is there, and we 
are working on a proposed rule to implement VAWA 2022, which is 
expected in the fall of this year.
    Ms. Wexton. The website that you are referring to, does it 
include resources for regular people or just for grantees?
    Secretary Fudge. No. No. For regular people.
    Ms. Wexton. So they will be able to look there and see what 
they have available in their State or county where they live?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Good to know. Good to know.
    Secretary Fudge. And we also have technical people that if 
they want to speak with someone, they can do that as well.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
    Homelessness. We were talking a little bit about the 
efforts to combat homelessness, particularly among older 
Americans as we all know so many States are seeing rising 
housing costs as everybody else. We often find that they live 
on fixed incomes and have a lot of health needs and are one of 
the fastest growing groups experiencing homelessness. If 
nothing changes in the next 15 years, Harvard's Joint Center on 
Housing estimates that an estimated 2.4 million older adults 
lose access to affordable housing.
    Can you speak to the efforts undertaken for housing and 
security in homelessness among older adults? Is there anything 
that Congress can do to support HUD's efforts?
    Secretary Fudge. One of the things we did in this 2024 
budget was to request more resources for 202 senior funding, 
for senior housing, because we do know that seniors are some of 
the fastest groups of people who are moving to the streets 
because on fixed incomes, they just cannot afford the rents. 
And so we find that that is a fast growing group of homeless 
people.
    So we are requesting more funding for senior housing as 
well as we are asking communities, mayors and cities in 
particular, to use their--it is called section 108, but it is a 
loan function that they can use to also assist. So the program 
is setup such that a city can borrow up to five times their 
CDBG value and help developers develop housing in their 
communities. And seniors and disabled are two of our top 
priorities.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I see my 
time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We now go to my good friend 
from California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Secretary 
Fudge, for testifying today. I look forward to hearing about 
the work priorities, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development fiscal year 2024, and how we can work together to 
ensure the agency runs well.
    Can you provide me with information on the home investment 
partnership programs production in rural areas for the last few 
years?
    Secretary Fudge. I am sorry. I didn't get that.
    Mr. Valadao. I am sorry. I guess I am not close enough to 
the mike. I can use that one. I don't know.
    Can you provide me with information on the home investment 
partnerships program production in rural areas for the last few 
year?
    Secretary Fudge. Off the top of my head, I cannot. I will 
get it for you.
    Mr. Valadao. Well I appreciate that. That is what I was 
going to ask for next.
    Many high quality affordable housing project eligible for 
the home investment partnership program or other HUD funding 
get sidetracked or derailed by cumbersome and rigid 
requirements for environmental review and other Federal delays.
    What is your Department doing to streamline the delivery of 
these programs, particularly when they are used with other 
Federal and State programs in the same project?
    Secretary Fudge. I agree with you, but those are 
requirements that come from Congress. Congress needs to change 
them. It is in the language we receive, and we are, obviously, 
obligated to follow what Congress has said. So it really isn't 
us. And then the other thing I would suggest is that when we 
deal with local communities, because many times local 
communities are so afraid to spend resources, they put more 
restrictions on themselves than is necessary as well. So if 
you're a city or community that is having some issue with their 
HOME resources, just let us know. We would be happy to talk to 
them.
    Mr. Valadao. Well--and this is something I think is a much 
larger conversation we need to have in Congress. The permitting 
reform and the ability to get projects moving has been a huge 
problem.
    Secretary Fudge. It is.
    Mr. Valadao. Obviously, in California we are seeing that on 
the waterfront right now with infrastructure for flooding 
control. And now we have got communities flooding. But I have 
got communities where housing prices are skyrocketing, and 
looking for opportunities to build more housing would be hugely 
beneficial to some of these communities, especially some of 
these underserved communities. And when you hear of permitting 
being a problem, obviously it is an issue that we both--sounds 
like we both share.
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, we do. We do. I was talking to Indian 
Nation the other day, and they were saying, why do you make us 
test for radon? We don't have a radon problem, right? But that 
is what is required by the law.
    Mr. Valadao. So I look forward to having your support as we 
try to move some common sense reforms through Congress.
    Secretary Fudge. Happy to do it.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you. I spoke with Inspector General 
Davis about reports that have shown a serious problem with 
sexual assault in public housing.
    Can you go into a little bit of detail on the actions your 
office is taking to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault 
in HUD programs?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I know that we are in the process 
right now of bringing to justice some instances that we are 
aware of. If we are made of aware of, we act immediately. So if 
somebody can tell us where there--obviously, we have people in 
the field, but they don't hear a lot of these things. But when 
we are aware of it, we immediately go to our Office of Fair 
Housing, and they bring actions. And we have got two major ones 
going on right now.
    Mr. Valadao. I can imagine it would be a little bit 
frustrating just because the person that is probably doing the 
harassing is the one that controls any type of literature that 
is in the main office or the ability to get information to 
those. But we have got to find a better way to better 
communicate with folks and get that information out there and 
give them the ability or the freedom to be able to speak up and 
speak out so we can prevent these types of situations.
    Secretary Fudge. But the worst part is it generally happens 
with migrants or people who are limited English speaking. We 
actually have 200 different languages that are spoken at HUD so 
that we can talk to people because many times they don't 
communicate well. But it is always those who they feel are most 
vulnerable that are prayed upon. So we are aware of the 
situation, we just would like some help.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And obviously, you heard about the 
flooding in California. I am just curious what steps HUD is 
taking to support California residents affected by the recent 
historic flooding? Can you provide any specific details about 
the emergency disaster relief efforts being provided, such as 
temporary housing solutions, mortgage or rental assistance, and 
support vulnerable populations to help those who have been 
displaced or otherwise impacted by the flooding in California.
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. I think sometimes--just so that 
people are clear on how we do this, once FEMA goes in and 
determines what the need is or what the resources should be, 
FEMA then brings us the numbers. And then we have to come back 
to you and say, okay Congress, we need to authorize us to spend 
these resources so that we can go on for the long haul. We are 
the people who help really rebuild. It is FEMA that does the 
temporary housing often. It is FEMA who generally makes an 
assessment. But I was asking earlier--and I hope that I can ask 
this again, the longer it takes for Congress to give us an 
authorization to go in, the longer it takes for us to help 
people. We need a permit and authorization like FEMA does so we 
can go in immediately and start to help people. They shouldn't 
wait for us six months or seven months to come in.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    And I will now go to my good friend from Virginia, Mr. 
Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to start by asking about policies related to mental 
illness. Housing providers and homeless shelters coordinators 
in my district have expressed concern that concentration of 
administration of housing programs at the Federal level and 
policies are not addressing the diverse nature of homelessness 
across country as well as underlying factors contributing to 
homelessness, including untreated mental illness. HUD's all-in 
plan includes initiatives to address risks, such as mental 
illness.
    However, the data HUD is using that is specific to mental 
illness and substance use disorder is from 2010. The homeless 
management's information system provides the data standards for 
collection of information from COCs, and that includes mental 
health. So data should be recent and available.
    Similarly, housing providers and homeless shelters 
coordinators in my district have expressed that percentage of 
20 to 25 percent of mental illness prevalence in the homeless 
population not accurate. As you know, continue care providers 
that receive Federal funds are required to report on cases of 
severe mental illness and substance use disorder, but 
methodology is not regulated except for that data is collected 
once a year, point in time.
    First, can you tell me why isn't HUD using updated data to 
inform their policy decisions? And do you think HUD can 
properly address the intersection of mental illness and 
homelessness with old data?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, certainly we use that data that is 
given to us from continuous care. That is one of the things we 
give them resources for. We fund them. We do believe--and most 
of the time, the ones we fund are in partnerships with those 
local communities and other persons in the community. They 
don't just function on their own. And so, we have to believe 
the data they give us is accurate. If it is not, certainly we 
can start to look into how we get better data.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Would you agree that 13 years is probably 
a long time when it comes to----
    Secretary Fudge. No question about it. But we do get----
    Mr. Cline. The accuracy of the data.
    Secretary Fudge. We get data on a yearly basis. Do we 
aggregate it the way that you are talking about? Probably not, 
and yes, it is a long time.
    Mr. Cline. Do you think collecting data one night a year 
point in time during the coldest month of the year is the best 
way to collect data?
    Secretary Fudge. I don't, but that is what we do. I don't 
believe it is the best way to do it.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Do you have suggestions for ways to 
improve that?
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, yeah. We have community partners and 
others who have made suggestions to us that we are looking at 
that we think would be better, because we do believe that most 
times we get an undercount, quite frankly. So we believe the 
problem is worse than it is reported.
    Mr. Cline. I would agree that 20 to 25 percent of homeless 
having mental illness is probably underestimated. It is 
probably much higher than that.
    Secretary Fudge. But I think the way that they look at it--
so say for instance, they would not say that a veteran with 
PTSD has a mental illness. I don't know if you count it as one, 
but if you do, then yes, the numbers are significantly lower 
than they should be. When you think about the fact that of the 
500,000 people--we quote all the time 580,000 people. About 
200,000 of them are veterans, which is a disgrace.
    Mr. Cline. Which is unacceptable. Absolutely.
    Secretary Fudge. But I think you are right. It just depends 
on what you consider mental illness. And the other thing this 
Congress did many, many years ago before any of you were here, 
is they basically said, in order to get help through Medicaid, 
you cannot house but so many people who have mental illness, 
won't you let you do it. So we fight against the rules that are 
already in place as well.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    HUD has taken on an aggressive role in attempting to 
mitigate climate change because they attribute homelessness to 
climate change. In fact, you have an entire climate action plan 
devoted to climate justice when it comes to homelessness.
    Secretary, HUD has pointed to climate change as being one 
of the biggest causes of homelessness.
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, I don't believe that.
    Mr. Cline. How did you arrive at this conclusion, and can 
you explain how climate change is such a contributor, cause of 
homelessness?
    Secretary Fudge. Oh, I don't believe--I don't believe we 
said climate change is a cause of homelessness.
    Mr. Cline. One of the biggest, is what has been said.
    Secretary Fudge. I don't know about that one. I have to get 
that answer for you because I don't--I can't--they are giving 
me notes.
    I don't believe that it is. Clearly, it is a cause for many 
things. But climate change can, in fact, contribute. I don't 
think that it is a major issue.
    Mr. Cline. I share your position that it is not, and I 
appreciate your willingness to go back and consider the 
statements coming out of HUD regarding that.
    Secretary Fudge. Let me look at the wording on that.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. On that wonderful note of bipartisanship, I will 
resume questioning.
    I want to pick up actually where Mr. Zinke left off. And as 
he knows, and my friend, Mrs. Torres, knows, we have served 
together, I care a lot about Native American issues, and I know 
you care a lot about all people being housed appropriately. But 
I wanted to share with you some information--and this is not--I 
want to say this in triple, it is not directed at the 
administration, it is not meant to be a partisan statement. I 
just look at these things over time, and this is a population 
that is usually left out and forgotten, doesn't matter who 
happens to be in power at the time.
    And so, I asked my staff to give me some numbers. And the 
ones I found most interesting: while HUD gross discretionary 
appropriations have increased 145 percent between 2000, and 
2023, the Native American--various Native American programs in 
HUD at that time constituted about 2.12 percent of all HUD 
expenditures at the beginning. That is now about 1.45 percent.
    So, you know, their expenditures on native programs in that 
same 20-year period, administrations of both parties, 
Congresses of both parties went up about 65 percent. So I just 
say this to highlight--and I saw this when I was chair of labor 
H in program after program--it is a small percentage of the 
population. I commend you, by the way, on the housing council 
that you set up. I know a couple of the members that you have 
are from Oklahoma, Chief Batton, in particular with Choctaw is 
a very good friend of mine. And you have some excellent, 
excellent people on that council.
    And your Department has been of help to us as we started to 
look at Native American issues. We had a round table. We are 
going to have later another look at Native American programs. 
And it is just because it is an interest of mine. It doesn't 
happen very often. And again, your Department has been very 
helpful to us. So I want to commend that.
    So just looking at that, knowing we have a historic problem 
here. We have very remote populations, difficult areas in many 
cases. As my friend, Mr. Zinke, pointed out unusual land 
allocation uses that really complicate the provision of private 
housing and public housing.
    Tell us some of the ideas you have and maybe even some of 
the things you heard from the council that you met with about 
things you think we should do going forward from a HUD 
perspective and a Congressional perspective, if you like.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I would say this, Mr. Chairman, I 
have had the opportunity to visit a couple of reservations. And 
I am committed more than I ever have been to try to help people 
who live in conditions that I have not seen in many places.
    One of the things I think that we need to start to look at 
is how we can pull together like things from the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill and what we do. Infrastructure is as big a 
problem as housing is. So if we could start to get the 
infrastructure in place--I mean, to me, for people in this day 
to live without plumbing is something I just can't even fathom.
    Mr. Cole. Or the electricity if you go to the right or 
left.
    Secretary Fudge. So we need to start to work together and 
not in silos. It would be great if this committee could pull 
together just in a meeting--I don't mean a hearing--but to talk 
with Secretary Buttigieg, with myself, with HHS how we can 
build together the kind of services. I have talked with the 
home builders. The terrain is so difficult, and it is so remote 
that there is a problem with people even wanting to build in 
those communities. So maybe we need to start to think about 
things more like manufactured housing. Maybe we need to start 
to think about more things like communal housing. We have to 
find ways that are going to work. And so we have to think out 
of the box, Mr. Chairman, and I am hopeful that you will help 
me do that.
    Mr. Cole. Oh, I look forward to working with you on this. 
Secretary Buttigieg will be here this week, and we will talk a 
little bit about these range of issues because you are exactly 
right in terms of the infrastructure challenges some of these 
communities face.
    I don't have a lot of time, but let me ask you: One area in 
particular that you may be able to help us on, and we are 
having discussions with your folks at the staff level now, and 
you have been very receptive. One of the common complaints you 
hear in Indian country--and this is a population that actually 
serves in uniform way above the national average, the highest 
enlistment rates. I mean, you know, it is almost I think one 
out of nine serve at some point or another. So they are 
eligible for a lot of veterans programs.
    And we have a situation in public housing where we 
sometimes have subsidized public housing. Then we have vouchers 
that veterans, as an earned benefit, are eligible for. They are 
not getting it for any reason except they put on the uniform in 
the United States and did what they were asked to do.
    And some cases that appeared not to be--you can't use them 
because it is considered double dipping somehow in some 
bureaucratic decision. And I would like us to look at that and 
see if there--I hope you are receptive if there is--to me, if 
you earn a benefit, you ought to be able to use it, even if it 
is for a public voucher. That is not double dipping to me. You 
have an earned benefit, and you are applying it. And quite 
often, as you know--and excuse me. I have gone a bit over time, 
but then I will stop--but quite often, that is the only housing 
available. We don't have much of a private market, and I have 
talked to a number of tribes about this already that have 
raised this particular problem, and just asked, is there 
something we can do about it so our folks that have earned a 
benefit can actually use the benefit to help us get them into 
decent housing that, you know, might be HUD housing.
    Secretary Fudge. I think you would be glad to know that 
Secretary McDonough from VA and I are trying to work to figure 
out how we can solve this problem because I agree with you.
    Mr. Cole. Well, hey, look I am big fan of the Secretary. I 
worked with him when he was President Obama's chief of staff. 
He is an exceptionally able guy. So between the two of you, I 
bet you can figure it out. But we are going to keep asking 
about it until you do.
    Secretary Fudge. All right. That works out. I am going to 
tell him we need to do it quickly before we have to come back 
again for another hearing.
    Mr. Cole. You are always welcome back here, Madam 
Secretary.
    With that, let me go to my good friend, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Quigley. Mr. Chairman, don't worry about the clock when 
you speak. When the chairman speaks, time stops.
    But the Chairman mentioned something about the Secretary of 
Transportation being here this week. And it is all together 
fitting and appropriate that the two of your are speaking in 
the same week because as you know, transportation and housing 
are inextricably linked, and we learned that extraordinarily 
well in Chicago. Transit-oriented development has taken off, 
and it is thriving.
    Let me ask you this: Seeing the benefit of aligning 
affordable housing with expanded transportation options, how 
does this budget support that, and how can we expand these 
development models, such as transit-oriented development to 
more areas, including rural and tribal communities?
    Secretary Fudge. One thing Secretary Buttigieg and I do 
have is a program that we are working on called Thriving 
Communities. The one thing that we know is if we are going to 
be smart about this new building that we are talking about 
doing, as well as pulling together the infrastructure 
resources, our resources, you have to give people the ability 
to live in an environment in which there is transportation.
    We don't want to create these islands that we have created, 
especially for low-income people that we have created over the 
years. And so, there are resources in the President's budget 
through community development block grants as well as through 
technical assistance through our thriving communities to talk 
with transportation about how we best work together to deal 
with the whole issue of transit-oriented development.
    And we are talking to cities about it, as we talk with 
cities about how they plan new developments. Because I think so 
often people forget that HUD is really the representative of 
government, of local, State, and Federal government. We are the 
people who deal with the governors. We are the people who deal 
with the mayors on a regular basis. So when they present us 
programs, we have the opportunity to talk with them about have 
you looked at transportation as a part of this plan. So we are 
doing an awful lot actually now even.
    Mr. Quigley. Let me move on and mention something about 
housing for persons with HIV or AIDS. The President's budget 
request includes 505 million for the HOPWA program, which 
allows for continued housing assistance for current residents, 
but does not expand housing options for people living with HIV 
or AIDS. If not through the HOPWA program, how does this budget 
request expand housing options for people living with HIV or 
AIDS?
    Secretary Fudge. HOPWA is the only program, the only 
Federal program anyway, dedicated to addressing housing needs 
of people with HIV and AIDS. It is the only one. So we must 
maintain it and put as many resources in it as possible, but it 
is the only Federal program that does that.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We will now go to my good friend, Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, I want to say I am so thankful for this 
continuum of care program and the benefits are significant. I 
know I am involved now in a bipartisan task force called the 
Second Chance Reentry, which is also, you know, trying to take 
those who are getting out of State and Federal prison, bringing 
them back into the community successfully and housing is always 
a big challenge on that. And this continuum of care where you 
can actually wrap these services around those individuals, that 
is--I can tell you from Jacksonville's experience, it is 
incredibly impactful and successful.
    One of the things that I have been asked to question you 
about is it is--you know, the old Sampson grants. You get all 
these demonstration grants. They are good for a year, and then 
you have to do another one. And everybody spends all their time 
doing administrative work instead of providing services. So my 
question is: Would it be possible--because this is such a good 
program--would it be possible to extend this to a two-year 
grant process as opposed to a single year so that--number one, 
you are short staffed. You don't have to do all that 
administrative work. They don't have to do all that 
administrative work, and we can serve a lot more of our MA 
populations coming back and other homeless populations that we 
have in our State.
    Is that something we could look at?
    Secretary Fudge. It absolutely is. As a matter of fact, we 
actually put it in the President's budget.
    Mr. Rutherford. Oh--well, I missed that.
    Secretary Fudge. Yup.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, thank you.
    Secretary Fudge. You are welcome. I am glad I could make 
you happy today.
    Mr. Rutherford. I completely missed that.
    Secretary Fudge. Yes. It is in there.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, thank you. I can tell you the 
changing homelessness group Duval County is going to be 
ecstatic. Thank you.
    Lastly, let me ask you about lead hazards. Inspector Davis, 
when she was here last month, she spoke about the lead hazards 
in public housing, specifically that HUD had established a 
procedure to eliminate the lead-based paint hazards in public 
housing, but that we really didn't have a plan to manage how 
these hazards were being removed or if they were specifically 
being removed by the owners.
    Can you tell me a little bit about how we are--I see there 
is 410 million in there for the removal of these health 
hazards. Is lead going to be prioritized in this? Can you talk 
a little bit about that effort?
    Secretary Fudge. Mr. Rutherford, let me just say to you and 
my team can tell you, lead removal is one of the most important 
things on my priority list.
    Mr. Rutherford. It is mine too.
    Secretary Fudge. I come from the city of Cleveland, Ohio. 
The Cleveland Clinic, the president called me and said that 
lead--elevated levels of lead in the blood has been found in 
almost every single child in the public schools. It is a 
debilitating issue for us, and I can't afford to lose just not 
even a thousand people in my county every year, but across the 
country. Lead is a major issue in this country, and we do know 
that most homes built prior to 1978 have lead paint in them. So 
our program is really designed for our partners to look at 
homes that were built prior to 1978 to test for lead. And if 
lead is there and they meet the income qualifications, then we 
will remove that lead. It is a number one priority----
    Mr. Rutherford. But are we relying too much on the owners 
to give us that testing and that information back?
    Secretary Fudge. No, because what we are doing is we are 
educating--we are saying to people, if you notice any of these 
symptoms in your children or if you notice any of these 
symptoms--we are putting out PSAs. We are sending it out the 
way we know how to get the message out. We are doing it in 
hospitals. We are doing it everywhere so that people--because 
most people don't even realize that they have been affected by 
lead unless they know what some of the symptoms are. So we are 
doing everything we can to provide not only technical 
assistance, but get the word out as broadly as we possibly can.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. I see my time is up. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Madam Secretary, it is not very often I see Members leave 
and come back. So you are like a star witness here. I will go 
to Mrs. Watson Coleman next.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to 
see her. I rarely get to see her anymore.
    Two things, Madam Chairman. I love the idea that you all 
are focusing on low cost mortgages, mortgages that provide 
opportunities for first-time home buyers, low income home 
buyers. I am wondering if you have any information for me about 
what would be the impact of providing that service or that 
opportunity if we were operating under 2022 funding levels?
    And then the other question I am gonna just give it to you: 
In general, I am very concerned about housing supply. To the 
extent that you can, could you give me some idea of the 
shortfall in the myriad housing that you need for the 
populations that you all care for, attend to, and are trying to 
address?
    Secretary Fudge. I am sorry, Congresswoman. I would have to 
get those numbers for you for the first question. I don't know 
what they are. But I would say to you that some 40 plus percent 
of people who apply for mortgages are first-time home buyers 
and are first-generation home buyers. Those are persons that 
have the most difficult time getting mortgages, and that is why 
we have done things like recalculate student debt. That is why 
we have looked at how we determine whether a person is 
creditworthy. I don't know the number, but we can probably come 
up with a number for you.
    But I do know that if we cannot provide the assistance, 
whether it be down payment assistance, whether it be things 
like the 40-year mortgages we have put in place now to help 
people stay in their homes, the things that we have done will 
just be rolled back because we won't have the resources to do 
it. We estimate that just from the reduction in the mortgage 
insurance premium, we are going to help 850,000 people over the 
next year. So that is a good mark to start at because those 
would all be first-time home buyers.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. What would be the impact if you were 
confronted with funding levels of 2022?
    Secretary Fudge. Those 850,000 people would be off the 
table.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. Thank you.
    I just keep asking this question. I am not sure anybody can 
really answer this, but I don't really have a handle--I know 
that there is a shortfall in housing needs for people because I 
see them in shelters. I see them in train stations. During the 
winter, Bill and I went out to give blankets and coffee and a 
few dollars out to people. Can't do a lot, just try to do a 
little.
    I have no idea what HUD thinks in terms of the shortfall of 
available, affordable, different housing to meet the needs of 
people. Are we like at 30 percent meeting the needs? Are we at 
70 percent meeting the needs? Is there any way to quantify 
that?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, we believe that we are today 1.5 
million homes short--housing units short of where we should be. 
1.5 million.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Good to know. Thank you for that 
answer.
    Secretary Fudge. Today.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Today. And the proposal for 2024 would 
be to address that to what extent?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, because what we are doing is we are 
talking about building as many as--what was the number? 200,000 
homes--right. So that is just us. But what we do with the 
resources we have is we assist developers and private builders 
through our work, through things like the tax credits, through 
things like helping with zoning challenges, through things like 
land acquisition, through our housing trust fund, housing 
finance agencies statewide that can lend money at lower rates 
than other lenders. So we are doing a lot of things to 
encourage and spur the market, but we have to start building 
more affordable housing in this country.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I know will go to my good 
friend from California, Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Once again, I wanted to go back to the conversation that we 
had started earlier, Secretary Fudge.
    Tens of millions of American households and families live 
in areas that are more impacted by severe weather. Low income 
folks tend to live in those high risk areas. For example, in 
California we suffered with over 13 atmospheric storms in the 
last few months, which greatly impacted my district by flooding 
of freeways, and roads, and homes.
    Disadvantaged communities like the Inland Empire are 
disproportionately impacted because they are historically 
underserved and are located in areas more prone to natural 
disasters. My primary concern is that we need to invest more in 
these communities, and that starts by ensuring that Federal 
funding is equitably distributed. All too often, localities 
can't afford to hire grant writers, for example, to get Federal 
funding or any other type of funding. And areas that can't 
afford grant writers don't get to compete for big Federal 
dollars.
    State and county housing authorities are primarily 
responsible for distributing Federal funding to create more 
affordable housing and help low income communities. However, I 
am concerned that their efforts is just simply not enough, and 
oversight is needed to ensure that funding is equitably 
distributed by these entities.
    Secretary Fudge, what role does HUD play in oversight of 
State and county housing authorities when Congress allocates 
funding like our annual appropriations? Is there some constant 
accountability that you--process that you work through to 
ensure that communities that are mostly at risk and may not 
have the technical assistance in-house to be able to--that they 
are applying for these applications and drawing down on this 
money?
    Secretary Fudge. One of the things that I am very 
determined to do is to level the playing field. I happen to 
have been a mayor of a small city, not an entitlement city. So 
when the Federal government basically decides to fund special 
things through grants, it is difficult to run a government on 
grants. It is difficult to run a government on grant funding.
    And so what we have done is start to provide technical 
assistance to communities, smaller communities. We are 
directing resources to communities that are smaller, well under 
the threshold for entitlement communities, so that we can put 
resources that we believe will be helpful to them. It is hard. 
I am just going to tell you, it is not something that is easy 
to do because we do so much by grants. And if you don't have a 
grant writer--but we are asking communities like the ones you 
are talking about to partner with larger communities because if 
there is some larger or entitlement communities in those same 
areas that they can partner, then we can give a bigger grant 
and they can share those grants.
    Mrs. Torres of California. And sometimes, let me tell you 
how, as a former mayor how those partnerships sometimes work. 
They are also not equal. Where the partnership comes in, we 
will help, you know, pass through funding, but you will also 
take, you know, our major bulk of the homeless population or 
the most needed families into your communities. So it is sort 
of--we are at a cross roads, but I would love to continue to 
work with your office to ensure that communities like the ones 
I represent are able to have a contact for that assistance that 
you provide.
    Secretary Fudge. But the other thing that we did this time 
is we have now--we are doing grants in tiers so that we can let 
the smaller ones look at some of the things the bigger ones 
have done, and we are directing some resources directly to 
those communities. So we are trying to deal with the equity 
issue. But I am sure that there are some other things we can 
do. But I would be happy to have your staff talk to us about 
some suggestions you have.
    Mrs. Torres of California. We would also love to host you 
in our district. I know Pete and I share some cities--I am 
sorry, Congressman Aguilar and I share some cities. So you are 
always welcome in the Inland Empire. I yield back.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Congressman from California, my good friend, Mr. 
Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, your second 
favorite Member from California on this side over here 
apparently.
    Mr. Cole. I wasn't going to make it obvious, but yes.
    Mr. Aguilar. Yeah. I did, at the risk of calling attention 
to my prior absence before the break in this hearing, I did 
want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. You are no 
stranger to holding the gavel in these hearings rooms, but all 
of us respect and admire your public service and your work. We 
look forward to working with you on this committee and in the 
years to come.
    Madam Secretary, good to see you.
    Secretary Fudge. Nice to see you too.
    Mr. Aguilar. I wanted to ask a couple quick questions.
    Research obviously has shown that housing stability worsens 
in individual's health--worsens as individual's health is unmet 
and their social needs become issues. California is trying to 
address the housing crisis and trying to provide health 
services for individuals experiencing extreme homelessness.
    How is HUD working with HHS and the centers for Medicaid 
and Medicaid services at CMS to ensure individuals experiencing 
housing instability can better access healthcare services?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Aguilar.
    We work very closely with HHS because what we realize is 
that housing really is a social determinate of health. So once 
we can get people housed properly, we can then bring in the 
services that they need. And so we do work closely with them. 
They have programs that are aligned with ours to make sure they 
get people the help they need. It is something we do on a 
regular basis.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, and I appreciate it. The State is 
going to be having conversations with the administration. I 
know they have, and would just call your attention to those 
letters and potential waiver requests as we have these 
conversations about how we best serve individuals, what 
resources the Federal Government can bring to bear. I think 
because as you highlighted, because of close proximity of 
housing instability and healthcare, that these are 
conversations that we all need to have and look forward to your 
continued guidance on that.
    Secretary Fudge. Can I just throw this in as well? Since we 
do fund continuums of care, that is also a part of their 
responsibility. So just be sure that your continuums of care 
are doing what they should be doing, and if they are not, you 
need to let us know that as well.
    Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Thank you.
    Also wanted to call attention the fiscal year 2024 HUD 
budget highlights $25 million for supportive services under 
tenant-based rental assistance programs. Again, we have heard 
calls to reduce the budget to fiscal year 2022 levels, and how 
it is going to impact public health agency's ability to provide 
supportive services.
    Can you talk specifically about this, about supportive 
services, what would happen if we--if we unfortunately roll 
back funding to those services, what that means to your 
Department?
    Secretary Fudge. Be happy to do. The one thing we know is 
just this month actually--or is it this month--we are going to 
be allocating $25 million to our public housing authorities to 
do just that, for supportive services. That would be something 
that would go away immediately. And then it would come in so 
many other areas as well. Because the first that would happen, 
of course, is we would not have the resources to keep as many 
people within our family. So we would be not be supporting as 
many families. So the numbers would automatically go down, and 
so the services would go down because we can't afford to keep 
people in their homes.
    Mr. Aguilar. So just to put a finer point on this, I mean, 
specifically mobility related expenses, supportive services 
that are provided, what more can we do? I mean, I am--we have 
had conversations in the past. You know, those type of 
supportive services are just so helpful, but we need to ensure 
that they are there. We need to ensure that they provide that 
backstop.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, those would go away. There is no 
question about that. We are within this funding opportunity--I 
was just talking about the 25 million--it would also allow for 
resources for mobility services. But it is not something that 
we do on a large-scale basis now. It would even be less if we 
had to go back to 2022 funding.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank, Madam Secretary. Good to see you again.
    Secretary Fudge. Good to see you too, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I advise my friend, I have more questions, but if you 
don't, then we can close. And you have been such a good 
witness, Madam Secretary. You probably deserve to get out of 
here a little bit early. So with that, I invite my friend for 
any closing comments that he cares to make, then I will make 
some, and we will wrap it up.
    Mr. Quigley. Mr. Chairman, just to thank the Secretary for 
her service and her help today as we look forward to our 
continued cooperation.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cole. Well, that was short and sweet. I won't be quite 
that nice, but I do want to associate myself with my friend's 
comments. We do thank you for your service. You have done an 
exceptional job. As a matter of fact, the IG when we had our 
hearing with the IG made a point of saying that, you know, they 
are an IG so they can always find something wrong, but there 
have been significant improvements and transparency and 
accountability at HUD under your leadership. And you should and 
your team should take that as a compliment, and we certainly on 
this committee did.
    My friends in the hearing have talked a great deal, and I 
think it is all perfectly legitimate about the consequences of 
cuts if we go back to fiscal year 2022. I don't know since I 
don't have a top line yet where we will be. It may be better 
than you think. It could be as bad as you think. It could be 
worse than you think. The one thing I will guarantee you, it 
won't be what you like. So we will have plenty to debate about 
and talk about there.
    But I will also point out to my friend, we would argue that 
overspending is what caused inflation, and we are not alone in 
that. Larry Summers would say that. Jason Furman, who was 
chairman of the White House Economic Advisors under President 
Obama would say that. Steve Rankin, hardly Republican, but a 
great guy in the Obama administration on the auto industry 
would say that. They all three argued initially that that 
helped spark inflation, the American Rescue Plan in particular.
    That is an issue here too. Nothing is tougher on low-income 
people than inflation. They have a hard time keeping up. And 
nothing is tougher on housing than inflation. And frankly, 
interest rates have been pushed high in an effort to deal with 
inflation. That complicates every program that you operate, 
everything that you do, and we recognize that. So we see that 
as a major problem, and we will have an interesting discussion 
on that over the next few months I suspect.
    What I will commit to you, Madam Secretary, and to my 
colleagues up here is we will try to get to a deal. I don't 
believe in, you know, CRs. I think they are terrible. And we 
will try to work with you. We think there are a lot of areas we 
can work together on, and we know you are a person of good 
faith and hard bargaining, but good faith. And we will try and 
get there.
    And we do appreciate what you and your team do at HUD. It 
is an important mission for the country. You know, one of the 
things that you always learn a new portfolio when you change 
gavels. And one of the things that surprised me honestly is how 
little is done at the State and municipal level on these 
programs, and how much of the responsibility has fallen on you 
and your team at HUD.
    I noticed you alluded to that a couple times in there. That 
is something we need to do, is figure out how to get localities 
that can to do more so it is not just exclusively a Federal 
effort in this area.
    And that is another area, longer term, I would like to work 
with you on as well because I am sure you will have good ideas. 
I was intrigued when you made the point to my friend, Mrs. 
Torres, it is hard to govern by grants. I think two mayors know 
that probably better than anybody else, providing technical 
services that you can do on a continuous basis may make a lot 
more sense. I was pretty impressed with that.
    So with that, again, thank you for your service. Thank you 
for your testimony. I look forward to working with you, and we 
are adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                          Thursday, April 20, 2023.

              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUDGET REQUEST

                                WITNESS

HON. PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Mr. Cole. The subcommittee will come to order. And Mr. 
Secretary, it is fabulous to have you here. We welcome your 
testimony, and, you know, thank you for again appearing before 
us, Mr. Secretary, and thank you very much for your service to 
our country, both in uniform, and out.
    Mr. Secretary, I appreciated our recent phone call about 
your visit to the FAA's Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center and 
the Will Rogers Airport in Oklahoma City a few weeks ago. I am 
glad you were able to see firsthand some of the critical 
transportation assets that are in Oklahoma, and I look forward 
to discussing what more we can do in Oklahoma, given our unique 
geography, DOT facilities, and opportunities with other Federal 
entities, like the Department of Defense. And naturally, I am 
even more anxious to see what we can do working together to 
improve our country's critical and complex transportation 
system.
    The Department of Transportation is requesting $27.9 
billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2024. 
Coupled with the $36.8 billion in advanced appropriations and 
the nearly $80 billion in the Highway Trust Fund, DOT is 
seeking $145 billion in total resources. The Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act included over $184 billion in advanced 
appropriations over a 5-year period.
    Let me be clear, these appropriations are under the 
jurisdiction of this committee. We will not be treating these 
large amounts of taxpayer dollars as if they are on autopilot. 
The funds will be subject to strong oversight as we consider 
the fiscal year 2024 appropriations.
    Mr. Secretary, I know that the Department takes safety very 
seriously. So do I and the members of this committee. Safety 
will be among our top priorities, if not the top priority, as 
we carefully consider how to allocate resources. From railcar 
derailments, to motor vehicle traffic fatalities, to airline 
close-calls, there is no shortage of safety concerns. Even as 
we work to rein in excessive spending, I want to work with my 
colleagues to provide the appropriate level of support to DOT 
programs that ensure the safety of our skies, roads, and 
railroads. This issue has a nationwide impact, whether it is in 
Tribal, rural, or urban areas, and our concerns are common.
    I also want to work with you, Mr. Secretary, to find ways 
to meet the unique transportation needs of Tribal and rural 
America. Nearly 70 percent of America's road miles are in rural 
areas and about 145,000 miles of roads pass through Tribal 
lands. These communities face notable challenges and have 
different needs from urban areas. Additionally, these 
communities too often do not have the resources they need to 
compete for funding in competitive discretionary programs at 
DOT, which were dramatically increased by the IIJA.
    We need to make sure that the programs under your 
leadership effectively serve the taxpaying public. That 
includes commonsense regulatory reform to reduce burdens on 
state and local and Tribal governments. It also means that we 
need to continue looking at ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and 
abuse across all programs under the jurisdiction of the 
subcommittee.
    I am concerned that the administration's policies have not 
appropriately addressed inflation and supply chain bottlenecks. 
While inflation cooled to 5 percent last month, it remains well 
above the 2 percent target. And the high interest rates that 
the Federal Reserve has implemented to deal with inflation 
inflict enormous pain on American families and businesses. 
Excessive government spending is not the right approach to deal 
with this problem, as these challenges continue to adversely 
impact our constituents' quality of life.
    We are eager to hear your testimony today on how you will 
utilize the resources at the Department to foster a safer 
transportation system, address supply chain challenges, and 
help Tribal and rural communities with their distinct 
transportation needs. Given the history of bipartisanship of 
this subcommittee, there are common interests shared by members 
on both sides of the aisle. As we begin the appropriations 
process, I look forward to working with my colleagues and with 
you, Mr. Secretary, to responsibly fund the government.
    I would now like to recognize my good friend, the 
distinguished ranking member from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, as I am 
sure you have learned, our chairman is a good friend, and a 
very thoughtful, hard-working chairman, and we look forward to 
working with him and yourself on these issues. You and I have 
had the pleasure of connecting over the last couple of years in 
your capacity. You have been a great partner, and I look 
forward to continuing our work together in my role as ranking 
member.
    Overall, the budget request dedicates more than $108 
billion to sustain our transportation networks and protect the 
safety of our airways, waterways, and railroads. This 
investment includes hiring 1,800 additional air traffic 
controllers; nearly $3 billion to expand bus and rapid transit 
to help everyday Americans travel to work, school, and health 
appointments; and $4.8 billion to prevent collisions, improve 
worker safety, and perform signal and track upgrades on our 
rail systems. There was a derailment again in Chicago last 
night on top of our minds. These investments will ensure that 
whether it rolls, floats, or flies, our transportation does so 
safely and efficiently.
    Now, the enactment of the 2022 bipartisan Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act makes great strides to advance safety 
and modernization of the Nation's modes of transportation. The 
IIJA included more than $660 billion over 5 years, to 
accelerate improvements to ports, roads, bridges, airports, and 
rail lines, making safety, resiliency, and mobility 
improvements possible in this decade.
    Funds in IIJA prioritize lengthy and costly capital 
backlogs that propel the sophistication of America's 
transportation networks. Due to their size and scale, these 
projects are not meant to be fully funded through this 
subcommittee's annual appropriations bill, which is why IIJA 
was so desperately needed. What the annual spending bill can do 
is provide the steady investment our Nation needs to move 
beyond a state of good repair for our transit networks and 
ensure these networks are safe, resilient, and efficient. In 
essence, it gets us closer to closing the funding gap, 
leverages other public and private resources, and helps to put 
shovels in the ground.
    This is a responsibility of our subcommittee that we must 
meet annually. Every single program dollar must be supported by 
Federal staff. Having the necessary resources, workforce 
pipeline, and information technology is critical to the success 
of not only IIJA, but the annual appropriated funding provided 
by the subcommittee. Revisiting the emergence of these needs 
each year is critical.
    Mr. Secretary, what you have put forward builds on the 
progress we have made in fiscal year 2023. This work takes 
time, diligence, foresight, and great leadership. While I 
believe every accident is preventable, you continue to rise to 
the occasion to ask for and deploy timely resources and 
reasonable solutions when emergencies and catastrophes arise.
    I look forward to working with the chairman and you, Mr. 
Secretary, in getting to a budget agreement that does not 
reverse or harm the progress we have made. I want to ensure 
that DOT has the support necessary to meet its mission to 
advance the world's leading transportation system in the most 
safe, equitable, and sustainable way. We look forward to your 
testimony, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We have the great privilege 
of having my good friend and old working partner on Labor H, 
the ranking member of the full committee. The gentlelady from 
Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, is recognized for her opening 
statement.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I might 
just say it is wonderful to be with you on the dais. And it 
won't be a secret to anyone, but I do miss working with you on 
the committee, but it is a delight to be with you and with 
Ranking Member Quigley this morning. And Mr. Secretary, thank 
you for being with us today.
    You know this and we all know this on this committee that 
our transportation infrastructure is central to the health and 
wellbeing of all of our communities. It connects everyone in 
urban, suburban, and rural areas to their jobs, schools, 
grocery stores, and the care that they depend on. And the work 
that your Department and this subcommittee do ensures every 
American has access to reliable, safe, and efficient 
transportation.
    As you will testify, and I quote, ``Our transportation 
system is at a turning point.'' Because together with Congress, 
over the past 2 years, you have done so much to repair our 
transportation infrastructure, but the progress must continue.
    In the 2023 government funding package this committee made 
robust investments in the safety and the durability of our 
transportation. We invested in airports, highways, transit, 
passenger rail, and port systems. We included $3.6 billion to 
ensure safe air travel, and for vehicle and highway safety 
programs. We cut emissions, improved resiliency, and addressed 
inequities, while creating and sustaining tens of thousands of 
jobs. We fought the climate crisis, and generated economic 
opportunities for working and middle class families. And we 
made strong investments in our districts through community 
projects. We included an overwhelming majority of requests from 
Democrats and Republicans through the Department of 
Transportation, a total of 773 projects. These projects meet 
the urgent needs of so many of our constituents. To build on 
this success, the President's request for DOT includes $27.8 
billion in discretionary funding to create a safer, more 
equitable, and more modern transportation system.
    If I can just touch on just a few of the programs important 
to my community in Connecticut. To make our rail infrastructure 
safer and more efficient, the request increases funding for 
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, including the Hudson Tunnels, to 
meet the needs of our Nation's busiest and most complex rail 
corridor. And you increased funding through the Consolidated 
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, CRISI, program to 
make significant advancements to the safety of our rail 
network.
    You also planned to make important investments to address 
the roadway safety crisis, including the critical funding that 
would accelerate development. And this is an area that I have 
written to you about, of the use of female dummies in crash 
testing. This will start to fight the gender inequity among 
vehicle safety and crash victims. This budget also builds upon 
and helps actualize the critical investments in the President's 
historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Before I conclude, I would just like to mention my worry 
over some, only some, of my Republican colleagues' calls for 
drastic cuts to government funding. Yesterday, Speaker McCarthy 
introduced a bill to cut funding back to the 2022 levels and to 
impose caps for the next 10 years. Please, let us not make a 
mistake, caps are just more cuts. And as you mentioned in your 
letter to me on the impact of these cuts, they would set our 
progress back significantly.
    Let me read some of them to you. Following the catastrophic 
derailments in Eastern Ohio and West Virginia, rail safety jobs 
would be dramatically reduced, with 11,000 fewer safety 
inspection days and 30,000 fewer miles of track which is 
inspected annually. After recent near-misses, our air travel 
would come to a halt, with 125 air traffic control towers 
shutting down, impacting one-third of all U.S. airports.
    The cuts are devastating. The safety of our communities and 
our transportation infrastructure depends on strong 
investments, which, in a bipartisan way, we have been able to 
do in the last 2 years, in 2022 and 2023. They should continue 
to move in that direction.
    I thank you again. Mr. Secretary, for all of your work. And 
with that, Chairman Cole and Ranking Member Quigley, I yield 
back. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, again, it is a 
delight to have you here, and you are recognized for your 
opening testimony.

                    Statement of Hon. Pete Buttigieg

    Secretary Buttigieg. Good morning, and thank you very much, 
Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, Ranking Member DeLauro, 
the full committee, and all of the members of this 
subcommittee, for welcoming us here and for the opportunity to 
discuss President Biden's budget request for the Department of 
Transportation, seeking resources totaling $145 billion.
    I want to thank the members on both side of the aisle who 
have been true partners as we work together to build a better, 
stronger, safer transportation system for the American people. 
Your leadership has helped make the 2020s into an 
infrastructure decade for our country.
    We are in a moment of both profound challenge, and historic 
opportunity for U.S. transportation. On one hand, our 
transportation systems are still grappling with the 
consequences of the pandemic, climate change, and decades of 
disinvestment. Industries have become more concentrated, often 
slashing staff and leaving the system less competitive. And 
when something goes wrong, Americans bear the burden, from 
millions of airline passengers stranded during the holidays to 
the residents of East Palestine, Ohio, after the Norfolk 
Southern train derailment there.
    Yet this is also a moment of unrivaled opportunity and 
progress. Thanks to the President's leadership and the work of 
this Congress, we have unprecedented resources to modernize our 
infrastructure. Every week, shovels are hitting the ground 
across our country. To date, we have announced over $200 
billion for over 23,000 infrastructure projects, and we are 
continuing to get funding to communities as swiftly as we 
responsibly can.
    To name just a few examples from the transportation 
dimension of that investment, already we have started repairing 
4,600 bridges and improving almost 70,000 miles of roads, which 
will mean lower costs, fewer delays, and safer trips. We have 
awarded the first round of grants under our Safe Streets and 
Roads for All program, delivering safety funding to big cities 
like Detroit, rural communities like Fayette County, Iowa, and 
Tribal lands, like the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.
    As you know, we see roughly as many traffic deaths in 
America as gun deaths every year. That is why the President's 
budget includes $3.1 billion for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program and advanced safety research initiatives. We have also 
advanced public transit projects across the country. This 
budget includes $4.45 billion for our popular capital 
investment grants, which have supported major initiatives, like 
the two light rail extensions in Phoenix and the red line 
extension in Chicago. And the budget would give transit 
agencies the flexibility they need to use Federal formula 
funding for operating expenses as they adapt to new post-
pandemic ridership patterns.
    We have strengthened ports around the country. From smaller 
ones, like Helena, Arkansas, and Kaskaskia, Illinois, to major 
ones in Portsmouth, Virginia, and New York City. Our work on 
supply chains has helped to cut the number of ships idling at 
U.S. ports from over a hundred down to the single digits. And 
the President's budget includes $230 million for the Port 
Infrastructure Development Program to continue this important 
work.
    For rail, we have made nearly $18 billion available, to 
improve service and safety, to advance more than 70 major 
projects, and proposed a new rule that would require a minimum 
of two crew members per train. Derailments are down compared to 
decades past, but it is unacceptable that we still see roughly 
three per day in the United States. That is why the President's 
budget includes $273 million to support FRA safety personnel 
and expand our inspection capabilities.
    I have been heartened by the recent surge of bipartisan 
support for rail safety, and we are eager to work with anyone 
who is serious about this subject. That is why we strongly 
support the Railway Safety Act and hope that all of those 
leaders who have spoken out on this issue will join us in 
supporting that work.
    Aside from funding good projects, we are also using our 
regulatory authorities to protect the traveling public. In 
aviation, we are getting airlines to honor the tickets they 
sell and compensate passengers fairly when there are issues. 
The cancellation rate has stayed well below 2 percent so far 
this year compared to over 5 percent in January 2022, but there 
is still much more work to do. That is part of why the 
President's budget includes $24.8 billion which will help to 
hire new air traffic controllers, improve airports, and 
modernize critical systems.
    In short, there is a great deal of work underway and a 
great deal yet to be done. Our transportation system is at a 
turning point. We are finally in the process of renewing its 
physical foundations, but we are also grappling with serious 
vulnerabilities that pose real danger to workers, families, and 
communities.
    In 2021, Congress demonstrated that it could deliver the 
transformative Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that had evaded 
our predecessors for decades. Now we need to bring that same 
dedication to sustain those investments in America, and ensure 
that they reach every person and every community.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here again, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Pretty impressive, Mr. Secretary, it is right on 
the button. So, thank you on time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We strive for on-time performance.
    Mr. Cole. So, before we go into questions, let me quickly 
do some housekeeping. As I am sure the Secretary is aware, and 
I know the members are, we are in the midst of votes right now. 
We are going to try and operate the hearing continuously. So, 
you come and go as you need to, but we want to be respectful of 
the Secretary's time. And I don't want us to have to adjourn 
and then come back and stay longer. And I know a lot of you, of 
course, have flights to catch on the final day of the week. So, 
again, we are going to move along as best we can. You decide 
when you come and go and what you need to do. And let us 
accommodate the Secretary, so he can get out of here on time as 
well.
    Mr. Secretary, let me begin. And, you know, one of the 
things that all appropriators, regardless of party and any 
other opinions they have, hate are continuing resolutions. 
Because it essentially sidelines us from doing our job in 
allocating resources, making adjustments, you know, doing the 
things we need to do to deliver for the American people. I know 
this causes a lot of problems for you as well. So, I would like 
you just to educate the committee as to what the consequences 
of a continuing resolution would be for the Department of 
Transportation.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question and 
we certainly share that bipartisan view. A full year continuing 
resolution would have a number of negative impacts on our 
Department's ability to do our work. I will highlight a few.
    One, no additional funding to support increased air traffic 
control hiring, something that we have proposed in the 2024 
budget, which is important in order to have the right level of 
certified controllers and prevent staffing issues from 
contributing to delays. There could be delays in modernizing 
essential technology infrastructure supporting the National 
Airspace System, including systems like the NOTAM system that 
caused trouble earlier this year.
    Over $1.7 billion in authorized surface transportation 
grant funding supporting infrastructure projects and safety 
initiatives would not be available to the states because the 
obligation limitation would be held to those fiscal year 2023 
levels. And we would see, of course, increased pressure on our 
operational and administrative funding across the board because 
we have those inflationary issues and pay increases to go with 
them. So, it is certainly something that would cause a lot of 
concern and would frustrate us in our mission.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. As you know, many of the 
large discretionary grant programs through the Department of 
Transportation are required to submit a benefit-cost analysis, 
or BCA, in their grant applications. BCA can be a valuable 
resource for the Department when evaluating the benefits and 
cost associated with constructing an infrastructure project.
    However, I have heard the BCA calculations 
disproportionately affects Tribal and rural projects and they 
are having difficulty meeting the threshold. From my 
understanding, if an applicant has a benefit ratio cost of less 
than one, the Department will not consider the project.
    Mr. Secretary, are you aware of any concerns from 
stakeholders or grant applicants about the BCA guidance and its 
calculations, particularly from Tribal and rural areas?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is very important to us to 
make sure that the BCA process is one that doesn't unfairly 
disadvantage any community. And where Congress requires that 
there be a benefit-cost ratio in excess of one, it is important 
to us to make sure that that process is one that is fair and 
workable for project sponsors.
    I will say that in some ways this can be beneficial for 
rural and Tribal communities. Often costs are lower in those 
areas compared to urban areas around issues like right-of-way 
acquisition. And often, transportation system users in rural or 
Tribal areas lack existing alternatives, which means the 
benefits loom large, too. But I am very conscious of the ways 
in which there can be unintended consequences of the way that 
BCA computations are done. And we are frequently revisiting 
them to make sure both the process and the substance of it, 
puts no one at an unfair disadvantage.
    Mr. Cole. Well, we would like to work with you on that. I 
can tell you I have certainly had concerns expressed from my 
Department of Transportation in Oklahoma, which, of course, is 
a rural state, that they are having a very difficult time with 
them, and I hear the same things from Tribal governments. And 
as you know, as well as I, the resources they have for these 
kinds of studies vary enormously depending on the size, 
sophistication, and relative wealth of the Tribe. So, a lot of 
the smaller, more remote ones who actually have the greatest 
infrastructure needs are really disadvantaged in this situation 
and, frankly, looking to us and this committee and, honestly, 
to the Department as well, to figure out ways to put them in a 
position to be able to compete more effectively for these 
funds.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we would welcome an opportunity 
to work with you on that. We want to make sure that this 
process is, of course, rigorous, but also user-friendly. And 
the smaller the community or the less resources it has, the 
more daunting that process can be. We want to do everything we 
can to make sure that it is not a barrier to these communities 
accessing funds.
    Mr. Cole. Do you have specific proposals that you have in 
this area right now that you are considering?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, one thing I know is that OMB has 
revised guidance on the BCA process. What we try to do is fit 
any either administrative guidance, administration-wide, and/or 
statutorily required thresholds and fit them to a day-to-day 
process that is more user-friendly.
    It is part of why we have stepped up technical assistance 
to try to make sure that our own resources go to working with 
those communities that can struggle. And there are a handful of 
programs that aren't subject to that BCA requirement. And so 
when we see one that just any way you do it isn't going to make 
the cut, but is still a worthy project, we try to remind 
project sponsors of the opportunity to apply to those programs 
as well.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. And I will now turn to--oh, 
the ranking member of the full--you want to go to vote?
    Ms. DeLauro. Yeah.
    Mr. Cole. Okay, very good. The ranking member of the full 
committee, my good friend, Ms. DeLauro, for her questions.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And in the 
interest of time and the votes, let me just truncate any kind 
of commentary, but focus in, Mr. Secretary, on what has been 
the pronouncements on cutting the budgets of this to at least a 
22 percent if we move to the 2022 levels for the 2024 budget.
    With regard to Amtrak, that would mean a $540 million cut 
to Amtrak. What would be the real-life impact for Amtrak to 
sustain this scale of a cut? I mean, how does the President's 
request support Amtrak? How can the Consolidated Rail 
Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, the CRISI, Program and 
the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail 
Grants Program provide funding, to provide critical lines for 
the Northeast Corridor to sustain and improve performance.
    Let me also add one more to that, which is really alarming 
about the potential to FAA and the Nation's air traffic 
controllers if we move to these areas. So, those are three.
    I will also make an addendum. Heritage Foundation, which a 
number of my colleagues, you know, support, very prestigious 
think tank, has talked about eliminating the Rebuilding Of 
American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity, the 
RAISE program, Federal-State Partnership and Intercity Rail 
grants, Capital Investment Grants, and phasing out the grants 
to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
    So, these cuts or the potential of these cuts is real. It 
is not just speculation. So, if you could just answer these 
questions.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, eliminating a program like RAISE 
would mean that hundreds of communities would miss out on the 
opportunity to make improvements that are benefiting everything 
from supply chains to physical safety of travelers. I could 
point to every part of the country where those projects are 
underway.
    We get dramatically more, even at the robust funding levels 
we have, we get dramatically more demand than we can meet. And 
so we know that communities have a need. It would be a terrible 
loss, I think to not have the opportunity to help meet that 
need.
    With regard to Amtrak, the budget requests $3.1 billion and 
that is to fund base operating capital and debt service 
requirements. This will be in addition to the advanced 
appropriations. Without them, I have to think that that would 
have an impact, both in terms of delaying Amtrak's progress in 
dealing with their maintenance backlog and issues that folks, 
whether they are traveling intercity or whether Amtrak is part 
of their daily commute, as it famously was for the President 
for many years, would see that, feel that, and face the cost 
and the burden of that.
    You mentioned CRISI grants. The S in that acronym, CRISI, 
is for safety. And at a moment when the country is rightly 
focused on the safety of our railroad systems, to put it 
concisely, this is the wrong time to be cutting back on 
railroad safety. And that is important whether we are talking 
about CRISI as a program or whether we are talking about the 
effects that the proposed cuts would have on the ability of the 
Federal Rail Administration to conduct the inspections that are 
such an important part of how they keep our railroads safe.
    Likewise on the aviation side, with everything that the 
aviation sector has been through I cannot imagine why anybody 
would believe that now is a good time to be shutting down air 
traffic control towers. We depend on these facilities and the 
workers in them to make sure that our national aviation system 
is safe. And while the FAA would not allow any unsafe condition 
to arise, regardless of budget constraints, what would 
certainly happen is an effect on the cancellations and delays 
that sometimes happen when you don't have adequate staffing or 
resources to serve them.
    Ms. DeLauro. I appreciate the commentary, Mr. Secretary. 
And I would just say, I think sometimes it is often easy to say 
we are going to cut 22 percent. It is about when you put pen to 
paper and you look at what the implications are, as you laid 
out, I think there is a very big education process here in a 
very short period of time.
    I think, because I do believe that particularly on this 
committee, on a bipartisan basis, people understand the 
direction that we are trying to go. And we talk about a 
historic moment and we are at a turning point, and we have made 
serious, serious investments.
    This is about safety, it is about jobs, it is about our 
economic future, and that is what transportation is. And so, 
but I think with the understanding of what--the devastation of 
what we would inflict on our economy and on the public and in 
the public's best interest, I would work with you to help get 
that information out and to talk through how we may be able to 
really encourage people to say we can't go down this road. Let 
us think about how we can deal with spending, but let us not, 
you know, move in that direction.
    So, thank you very, very much for all your efforts and your 
commitment to the job. So, thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Ms. DeLauro. I am likely not to come back, you know, after 
voting----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Understood.
    Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Because there are others, so I 
appreciate being here with you this morning. Thank you.
    Mr. Zinke [presiding]. Well, Mr. Secretary, welcome. And 
first of all, I want to thank you for your service. As a former 
Secretary, I understand how difficult your task is, and I 
appreciate your service.
    I also understand the responsibility you bear being 
responsible for our transportation system and a secure supply 
chain. And I am sure we both agree that I would say it is in 
our best interest in national security to have a supply chain 
that is controlled by the U.S. or our allies. I also would ask 
you to agree that energy independence certainly would be a 
priority in our national security.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Indeed.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, given that, you also have a record of 
being an advocate for climate change. I do not think that has 
changed. Would you--is that a fair statement?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I wouldn't say I am for climate 
change. I am for fighting it, certainly. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Zinke. So, are you aware then that China is the largest 
emitter of CO2?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. And are you aware that China is responsible for 
90 percent of the plastics, 90 percent of the plastics in the 
oceans come from four rivers in China. Are you aware of that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I didn't know that statistic, but I am 
not surprised by it.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, are you aware also that China's the 
largest violator of fishing regulations and laws?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. And of course, you are also aware of critical 
minerals.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. Are you aware that China controls either 
directly or indirectly more than 62 percent, in many cases the 
preponderance or absolute control, of critical minerals?
    Secretary Buttigieg. A condition we are working hard to 
change in this administration.
    Mr. Zinke. And I am going to ask you further about that. 
But critical minerals, as you know, is also required for EV.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Indeed.
    Mr. Zinke. Seems to be that cobalt, lithium, in some cases, 
germanium is absolutely required for EV. And are you aware that 
to meet the demands today, the U.S. would have to increase 
mining by 2,000 percent for 20 years to reach the demands 
today?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the chemistry of our batteries 
has not completely stabilized in a way that I think can be 
fully predicted for the next decade----
    Mr. Zinke. There may be innovation.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. But there is no question 
that we are going to----
    Mr. Zinke. But right now----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yeah. There is no question that we are 
going to need to----
    Mr. Zinke. No question.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Source more minerals, 
both domestically and from friendly countries.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, and that is the catch is that we all want 
cleaner, better, more efficient. But your stated goal and 
President Biden's stated goal and my stated goal, and certainly 
President Trump's was the same, is that we seek energy 
independence. We seek energy dominance, so we are not held 
hostage by foreign entities.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Indeed.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, how do you get to be energy independent 
when the components of EV today are all controlled by China? 
And have you done an assessment of how much mining we would 
have to do and where the critical minerals are and what we 
would have to do in order to meet the demands of a very 
aggressive program to convert? And have you done an assessment?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. Thanks for the question. While 
some of the finer points related to extraction are probably 
better answered by my colleagues at the Department of the 
Interior, our Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which 
is jointly run by both us and the Department of Energy----
    Mr. Zinke. And what does the assessment say since you have 
completed it?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, what that work is doing is 
identifying different points, not just in the raw material 
extraction itself, but also in the refining, where we see that 
if we were to----
    Mr. Zinke. But have you identified where our sticking 
points is and----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Right, so a lot of the--yeah.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. How to you get there in 10 years? 
Because it seems like on the supply chain, if China controls it 
today and we are putting a moratorium on mines in Minnesota 
that have the largest nickel deposit and critical minerals, and 
we are not moving forward on securing the supply chain, but we 
are moving forward on solar cells.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, the Department of 
Energy----
    Mr. Zinke. And solar cells made in China.
    Secretary Buttigieg. It would be much easier to answer your 
question----
    Mr. Zinke. So, how are you going to figure this out?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Okay. So, part of what you are 
describing is the motivation behind the investments that the 
Department of Energy has been leading in enhancing U.S. 
diversity.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, I agree there is effort, but have you 
identified source? Because there is a difference between 
practical, real, and fiction.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I know that the----
    Mr. Zinke. How are you going to be independent if China 
produces the very components that make up EV?
    Secretary Buttigieg. This is exactly why we are doing the 
work to produce them here in the United States. I wish you----
    Mr. Zinke. What are we doing on cobalt? How much cobalt do 
we produce in this country? In the next 10 years, what do we 
need? And how are we going--I am a military guy. I love plans.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Right.
    Mr. Zinke. You know I do.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, first of all, I would encourage 
you to become familiar with the private investment and the 
public-private partnership investment, real dollars, not just 
plans that are going out through these DOE programs.
    Mr. Zinke. Have you read the Critical Mineral Report, the 
multi-agency report, 2017?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I have not read the 2017 Multi-Agency 
Critical Mineral Report.
    Mr. Zinke. I am very familiar.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am sure you are.
    Mr. Zinke. Absolutely familiar. Have you read the 2017 
Climate Change Report, Multi-Agency?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I believe that has informed some of 
the work that is in our plans----
    Mr. Zinke. Have you read it?
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Through the joint energy, 
but I have not read that document cover to cover, no.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, I would suggest that, Mr. Secretary, that 
you read those two documents.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I can----
    Mr. Zinke. On both cases what they clearly state is the 
U.S. is becoming dependent on China----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Which is----
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. And unless we change the rudder, is 
that we will be more dependent. And unless we figure out the 
supply chain first, our pursuit of EV makes us more dependent 
on China for solar----
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would argue that our action to win 
the EV future cannot wait. I would argue that China is already 
working to win EVs and that they will win if we do not----
    Mr. Zinke. Well, Mr. Secretary, if it requires critical 
minerals and we don't have control of them, and China 
manufactures, produces, processes the very components necessary 
for EV, then how is that achievable to be independent if we 
depend on China more? And the more we press--and I am all for 
the above, all the above. But before we leap blindly, there are 
two concerns.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Zinke. One is that we have clear control of either 
ourselves or our allies of the supply chain to include the 
critical minerals and components.
    Secondly is, what are we going to do when they are end of 
lifecycle? As you know, 90 percent--are you aware that 90 
percent of the solar cells today are dumped in some landfill 
across the country?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Not as familiar with the lifecycle of 
solar cells. But I would emphasize one of the most important 
things to bear in mind when we think about the critical mineral 
sourcing and refining that goes into EV battery components is 
that end-of-life recycling will be a vital part of how we meet 
our marks. Now, of course, that is alongside the onshoring and 
friend-shoring that we need to do, both with regards to the 
extraction and refinement.
    Mr. Zinke. Unfortunately, we are going to take a recess, 
but----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Okay.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. The concerns I know with this is 
the concerns I have are supply chain, from the very beginning 
to the very end, what are we going to do? And does that make us 
more vulnerable to a potential adversary?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Zinke. So with that, since there is only one member and 
promotion by attrition, we will have to take a quick recess. 
And sir, thank you for being here today. I appreciate all you 
do.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Congressman.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Cole. The committee is reconvened.
    Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for your indulgence and 
your patience as we work through getting Members to the floor. 
Sorry we couldn't keep it going as continuously as we hoped we 
would, but at least we limited the disruption.
    If we can now, we will go to my good friend, the ranking 
member, for any questions he cares to offer.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you again, Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, the chairman asked about what happens if we 
have a CR and what impact that has. My friend, the ranking 
member of the full committee, talked about what those cuts 
might mean, if we are at 20 percent, to particularly rail 
safety. I guess what is left is, if we are at 20 percent, what 
does that do to how you prioritize system safety beyond just 
rail, and what it means to transportation as a whole?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We are a safety agency and everything 
we do is prioritized, first and foremost, around safety. And 
that also means when our activities are cut or suspended or 
impacted by some of these issues, that affects our ability to 
meet our safety mission.
    If we think about the aviation side of that, for example, 
we would be looking at a hiring freeze in effect for our whole 
operations and facilities workforce. That includes controllers, 
it includes safety inspectors, and, you know, there is some 
experience of this in the past from moments like the 2013 
sequester. That was just a 5 percent reduction and led to 
furloughs, which, of course, are going to have an impact.
    If we were--you know, we talked about rail. I would point 
to our Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
PHMSA. I don't see how they could conduct the current pace of 
field inspections with those kinds of cuts. In fact, we 
estimate about 2,000 fewer days would be dedicated to 
inspecting hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline facilities 
and LNG export facilities, as well as a diminished ability to 
respond to hazmat incidents, which they often do.
    For example, while I think it is widely known that Federal 
Rail Administration personnel were on the ground within hours 
in East Palestine, I am not sure that everyone was aware that 
PHMSA personnel were there, too. These are the kinds of 
activities that could be impacted.
    There would be a reduced workforce and hiring freeze at 
NHTSA, which, of course, makes sure that our vehicles are safe. 
Transit would be affected. There is no part of our 
transportation system or our safety mission that I don't think 
would be touched in some way by these levels of cuts.
    Mr. Quigley. Delve a little deeper on PHMSA and just what 
resources are necessary. And forget the issue of cuts. You 
know, in a perfect world, what is it that we need? What numbers 
do we need to get to enhanced rail safety to the point where it 
is never going to be foolproof, but we can help overcome the 
numbers that we are facing now?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, for PHMSA, we are requesting 
$387.3 million and 690 positions, and that is spread across 
pipeline safety, hazardous materials safety, emergency 
preparedness, and grants. And that is another area, I would 
say, comes into play often when you have incidents like what 
happened in East Palestine because we found that many of the 
first responders who were involved in that response had been 
trained thanks to federally funded PHMSA programming.
    And then, of course, you have the FRA side of the House, 
which is seeking funding that would allow FRA to continue to 
expand and develop its safety programs.
    Since arriving, this administration established a process 
of doing detailed safety audits on individual railroads to 
check for compliance issues, and that kind of proactive work is 
something we would love to be able to do more of, even within 
the authorities we have, provided we have appropriate staffing.
    Then, as I mentioned in my testimony, of course, we are 
also interested in further authorities that might come by way 
of the bipartisan dialogue right now about rail safety 
legislation.
    Mr. Quigley. And where are our rail partners at with this, 
with what their responsibilities are and what they still need 
to do?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I think they could be doing a 
lot more and I have called on them to do a lot more. I will 
say, after I called on them to participate, for example, in 
Confidential Close Call Reporting System, which enables 
whistleblowers at railroad companies to identify safety issues 
without fear of reprisal. They did respond, and all seven of 
the Class I railroads committed to join that program, so that 
is a step that I do want to recognize. But we would like to see 
a lot more, for example, more proactive work to notify 
communities when hazardous materials are coming into their 
jurisdictions aboard freight trains.
    And while we will continue calling on industry to do the 
right thing, I think, ultimately, rather than merely asking, we 
need to make sure we have the right combination of legislation 
and enforcement activity to compel them to do the right thing.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We will next go to my good 
friend from Florida, Representative Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 
great to see you.
    Sir, I would like to bring up an issue that is very near 
and dear to many people around the country. These frontover 
accidents, I have heard from concerned constituents in my 
district and I am sure every district across America.
    These frontovers are usually accidents that occur at a very 
low speed, usually in parking lots, driveways, and they always 
involve pedestrians. It is my understanding that NHTSA reports 
on nontraffic accidents such as these that occur in driveways, 
parking lots, or private roads. In their nontraffic report from 
2016 to 2020, they noted that 386 pedestrians are killed every 
year by a forward-moving vehicle in a nontraffic setting, and 
that is concerning. I know there are some efforts out there 
that the vehicle manufacturers can take.
    Is the Department of Transportation working with the auto 
industry at all on technology that could reduce the occurrence 
of these frontovers? And would DOT benefit from collecting 
additional information on this, from these nontraffic 
accidents, such as their setting and what causes them?
    You know, you see some of these new trucks, they sit so 
high, a small child sitting in front of that vehicle, they get 
in from the back, the driver gets in from the back, doesn't see 
the child, runs right over them. Can you talk a little bit 
about that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. And thanks for the chance to 
address this safety concern. It is something that is mounting, 
especially as the typical privately owned vehicle gets larger 
across America. We need to make sure that each passing year our 
vehicles are safer than they used to be. I would point to two 
lines of effort that I think are responsive to the concern you 
are raising.
    One has to do with continued data research and rulemaking 
on technologies like automatic emergency braking, and the 
braking that goes with that and just the visibility that can be 
created through sensors, cameras, and other technology. Often 
they first arrive in the fleet as relatively new and sometimes 
even untested technology, but quickly can be demonstrated to be 
something that has got such lifesaving potential that it ought 
to be made a requirement so that whether you have access to it 
doesn't depend on whether you can afford that particular bell 
or whistle because it is standard.
    The second thing I would point to is a shift in how we are 
thinking about the New Car Assessment Program. I think 
traditionally, it was confined to the safety of the occupants 
and, of course, we are very concerned about the safety of the 
occupants of a vehicle and that is why seatbelts, airbags, and 
a whole lot more is evaluated.
    We have reached the point where we also need to be paying 
attention to how the design of a vehicle has implications for 
the safety of those who are outside of it. And that is 
something that you will see more of, I think, in the years to 
come as NHTSA develops its next steps for the NCAP Program.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. 
And I will be interested in following that, having worked the 
backups before we had the backup cameras. Do you remember that?
    And I want to bring up the issue of Buy America. I am 
hearing from many of my constituents back home, if they are 
applying for the grants, the infrastructure grants from the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the challenge that they 
have, like everybody wants to spend our hard-earned tax dollars 
and their money on American made, but some of these 
regulations, I understand, there is lack of clarity surrounding 
the implementation of the Buy America requirements, causing a 
lot of confusion among state departments of transportation, 
local governments, and contractors.
    I have also heard that these new expanded Buy America 
standards could actually stall our infrastructure development 
because a lot of the materials that we need, like aggregates, 
concrete, asphalt, can't meet--the American resources can't 
meet those requirements.
    What is DOT doing to provide information to the various 
stakeholders, first of all? And just as important, can you 
assure this subcommittee that the implementation of the Buy 
America requirements will be done in a way that does not 
increase project cost, and on top of the inflation-related 
costs that we are already seeing, and does not result in these 
projects being delayed? Because you know how quickly we need to 
get them to fruition.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, we are very focused on making sure 
that these projects are delivered on time and affordably and 
recognize that there is a balance between our strong commitment 
that begins with the President to make sure that American 
taxpayer dollars buy American goods and American materials and 
making this a process that our project sponsors find 
manageable. And in some cases, there will be growing pains, as 
well, because we are seeking to stimulate more of a domestic 
industry, but it is not fully there yet.
    Our intention is to be as transparent and clear as possible 
about this guidance. So, my hope is that the new Q&A 
information that the Federal Highway Administration put out a 
few weeks ago, as well as a further push on communication, will 
be responsive to some of the concerns that you are mentioning.
    But this is certainly something we hear about as we talk 
with state DOTs. And without watering down our commitment to 
Buy America, we do want to make sure that this is as user-
friendly a process as we can make it for our project sponsors 
and that there is a commonsense factor applied, as well.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I see my time 
is up. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I recognize my good friend 
from California, Mr. Aguilar, for questions.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you 
again, Mr. Secretary.
    You have consistently highlighted the need to combat 
transportation-related emissions, including those related to 
transit and buses. This is demonstrated in the President's 
budget request which includes 1.1 billion for Low and No 
Emission Vehicle Programs to help transit agencies modernize 
their fleets.
    Reducing transportation-related emissions is important for 
my district, right next door to my colleague here, Ms. Torres, 
as you visited us in the past. We have some of the worst air 
pollution in the Nation, and we want to see this significantly 
change, and we know that Low and No Emission Programs is an 
important part of that.
    Mr. Secretary, how would, first of all, just, I guess, from 
a broader perspective, how would the funding levels, if we were 
to reduce this program to fiscal year 2022 levels in the Low 
and No Emission Program, impact underserved communities, like 
ours, that continue to suffer from air pollution?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we know that an investment in 
low and no emissions buses is an investment in economic 
empowerment for the people who will ride it, clean air for the 
people who live around those routes, and, of course, investment 
toward our national climate goals. I will follow up to get the 
numbers on the impact that would come with that. What I can 
tell you is that we will be well short of what we are asking 
for here. There are advanced appropriations that are part of 
the picture for the Low-No Program, but our total request is 
$1.1 billion, and I can tell you that every penny of that is 
going to be sought after, you know, by project sponsors, based 
on the experience that we had in our first round. We got 530 
eligible project applications in fiscal year 2022 for $7.7 
billion worth of purchases. We were able to fund $1.5 billion 
of that.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    So, we know that there is enormous interest here and 
demand, and any cut to that would just mean we would have to 
turn away that many more worthy and eligible applicants.
    Mr. Aguilar. I also wanted to highlight that San Bernadino 
County, where I live, has experienced positive impacts from 
this program. Our local transit agency has been working toward 
of a goal of 100 percent zero emission fleet, by 2040, and in 
August, received $9 million in funding from the Low and No 
Emission Vehicle Program in order to buy four hydrogen fuel 
cells to add to its fleet, as well as partnering with 
apprenticeship programs at the local community college to make 
sure that we can maintain that. I think it is a worthy endeavor 
and they are making significant progress.
    Also wanted to stay with the West and talk climate in 
California. We know, over the last several years, California 
has experienced extreme weather conditions and most recently 
atmospheric storms and flooding. The administration has 
highlighted the growth in extreme weather- and climate-related 
disasters from the perspective of having more resilient 
transportation infrastructure. Can you talk about the work that 
your agency is doing, the Department is doing, in making 
advanced construction of more resilient transportation 
projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for the question. We are 
within a few days of announcing the notice of funding 
opportunity for the Promoting Resilient Operations for 
Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation 
(PROTECT) Program, which is one of the, I think, most novel and 
timely programs included in the IIJA. It allows us to fund and 
support projects that seek to make infrastructure more 
resilient because, as you noted, these extreme weather events 
are becoming more frequent and more severe. And from wildfires 
to droughts to floods to mudslides, they are impacting our 
infrastructure, certainly in California and every part of the 
country. This is also something, of course, that is not just 
confined to our PROTECT Program, but it is the first of its 
kind in terms of being dedicated to that.
    We also make sure that, where appropriate statutorily, we 
are integrating resilience considerations as we evaluate 
various applications that come in. And just to give one 
example, sometimes a road project will be able to demonstrate 
that it is of particular significance as an evacuation route, 
and that is something that we would want to take account of.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. And on 
behalf of our region, and I also want to thank you for the 
grant opportunities that you have sent our way. We very much 
appreciate it. We work as a region in Southern California. We 
often say that my constituents might work in Norma Torres' 
district and go to church in another district. So, folks, the 
work that the transit agencies do and that we have from a 
mobility perspective is so important in making sure that people 
can get to where they need to be. Thank you for your efforts 
and your leadership and good to see you again.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Likewise.
    Mr. Aguilar. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We will go to another of my 
great friends from California, Mr. Valadao, for questions.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for making the time for us today. We really 
appreciate your time.
    The Central Valley is one of the highest producing 
agriculture regions in the world. Yet, due to ongoing supply 
chain issues, particularly at California's ports, our farmers 
and ranchers are struggling to get their products to foreign 
markets. While it has gotten a little bit better, it still 
continues to be a problem for us. Can you give us any update on 
what the DOT is doing to make these problems a little bit 
easier for us?
    And can you tell me about the coordination between the 
Department of Transportation and USDA as it relates to ag 
products facing those delays? Is there any prioritization for 
perishable goods?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question, and 
the short answer is yes, we are working closely with USDA. I 
would note, for example, that during the most acute periods of 
these backups, we were able to team up with them on helping 
make what are called popup ports or container yards available 
that facilitated a more fluid movement for agricultural 
exports. And we recognize that while most of the supply chain 
stories are covered in the media in terms of electronics coming 
in from Asia, the issue of American goods being exported is a 
very important dimension of this. That is one of the reasons 
why we are investing so much in port infrastructure generally, 
and the President's budget includes a robust request on top of 
the advanced appropriations for the Port Infrastructure 
Development Program (PIDP). And I know that many of the 
applications that come in for that program would benefit the 
agricultural export fluidity in the long run.
    In the shorter run, I also appreciate the chance to mention 
a program of ours called FLOW, Freight Logistics Optimization 
Works. This is a voluntary program where we have brought in a 
number of players from across the sector, retailers, ports, 
anybody who we think has data that if they were just talking to 
each other more, it would make our ports more efficient and our 
supply chains more fluid. And we signed up a number of 
partners, including, largely, from the private sector, dozens 
now, and are working toward being able to have a prototype of 
that model up and running this year. It will be a small dollar 
amount compared to most of our requests, but I think an 
investment well spent for exactly the reasons you raised.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And one of the issues there, 
because of the port situation, also, seems to cause some 
problems with our rail, as well. And is the DOT doing anything 
to help with the rail situation? And obviously, we saw all the 
news with folks--with trains literally parked and people 
stealing all the items off of them. Has there been anything on 
that front?
    And then, on top of that, with the rail issue, I mean, we 
got to the point where we had farmers literally waiting on 
commodities moving across the country. I have got a large ag 
district with a lot of animal agriculture, so chicken, poultry, 
pork, dairy, beef, waiting on corn, soy, and all the different 
products that come from the Midwest. And I had truckers running 
from mill to mill, all across the valley, scrambling to get in 
line to pick up whatever commodity they can find. And it wasn't 
a simple call. It was you had to show up with a truck. And you 
have got empty trucks running back and forth, tearing up roads 
for no purpose, just because we weren't able to get those 
products delivered.
    And so, this rail situation tied with the port just made 
life miserable for us. And it has gotten a little bit better, 
but what can we do more?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yeah, we have been pressing the 
railroad industry on this, but I believe there is also a public 
sector role to play that you will see reflected in the budget 
request, especially around areas like the CRISI Grant Program, 
which we think can contribute to fluidity, both in traditional 
freight rail and in some of these multimodal contexts that 
require specialized equipment and facilities. They could make a 
big difference in the kinds of context that you are describing.
    Also, I would point to the fact that in addition to being 
consumers of rail, agriculture producers are more likely to 
live in communities that are impacted just by quality of life 
issues, like blocked crossings and the safety issues that come 
with a lot of grade crossings. It is why we are very glad there 
is a Rail Crossing Elimination Program included in IIJA and 
have been able to use some of our other programs, as well, to 
help support projects that would just reduce some of the 
occasions for that kind of blockage to happen in the first 
place.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And a quick question. Many cities 
and counties in my district, and it kind of goes along with 
what you were just saying, don't have the resources, a lot of 
smaller communities. I have got some of these communities that 
don't even have city councils. They are just little 
communities, and they struggle to get the resources together to 
apply for some of these grants. They are burdensome. There is a 
lot of regulations. Is there anything that you have done or 
that you have the ability to do to help alleviate some of these 
problems to allow these smaller communities to have the access 
to the same resources as some of the larger communities that 
can afford to have the representation a lot of them have?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. It is something we think 
about a lot and we are trying to make sure that our processes 
are simpler and more straightforward so that you don't have to 
be a community big enough to have a full-time Federal relations 
person on staff to be able to successfully apply for and then 
win in our programs. And I would point to the proportions of 
rural projects that we have been able to fund, I think, as 
evidence of progress here, but I believe there is more that we 
can do, too.
    A couple areas, just briefly, to mention. One, something as 
simple as reducing the page count of our Notice of Funding 
Opportunities, just having it done with fewer words and fewer 
pages, I think, is emblematic of our effort to make sure that 
the process is easier to navigate. We are also doing more 
hands-on technical assistance to help guide communities that 
maybe haven't been through this experience in the first place, 
through these processes, so that they are less opaque and less 
convoluted, and so those communities are more likely to 
succeed. Our ROUTES Council, chaired by the deputy secretary, 
is specifically focused on this, but we are also trying to just 
work it into the day-to-day work of our various programs.
    Mr. Valadao. All right, thank you. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. And I just want to gently 
remind my colleagues try not to give the Secretary a question 
with 10 seconds left, so we can move quickly through and all 
members can ask their questions.
    With that, I recognize my good friend, Mrs. Watson Coleman, 
from New Jersey.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see 
you, sir, and thank you so much for visiting our Mercer-Trenton 
Airport. It was a pleasure hosting you. And I know that you got 
to see exactly what we--what I have been talking to you about, 
about an airport that provides services to so many people, not 
only in 12th Congressional District, my district, even in the 
State of Pennsylvania and in other counties across the State of 
New Jersey.
    I appreciated the fact that you not only saw the desperate 
need for a new terminal, but a new fire station, a new traffic 
control tower to accommodate the growing demand. But in order 
for the airport to achieve these goals, they will need help 
from the Federal Government in the form of grants and formula 
funding.
    Yeah, my airport is an example of the many more small and 
midsized airports across the country that are too in need of 
Federal assistance. And I was hoping to ask what would happen 
to airports like the one in my district if Federal funding was 
set back to the 2022 levels for operations, for infrastructure 
grants to the airports, for the Airport Terminal Program, sir, 
and for the grants and aid for airports? I know that is a bit 
much for one question.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I will do my best to answer it 
all in one go, though. And I appreciate the question because I 
think it is important to make clear that there would be a real 
impact here. The Airport Improvement Program formula funds and 
the allocations of the airport infrastructure grants are based 
on the last--the enplanement data for the last full calendar 
year. So, if that is frozen in place or if the calendar year 
2022 enplanements were abnormally low, which is true for a lot 
of airports and I think may be the case for Trenton-Mercer, 
which sees a lot of growth in the future but wouldn't be able 
to book it if they are frozen into that prior level, the 
consequence is that you would see a reduction, both in the 
entitlements and the allocations.
    Now, there is a best of three provision in the statute for 
the 2022 and 2023 allocation, so it tries to do more of a 
rolling average, but that would expire after fiscal year 2023, 
as well, unless there were an extension. And so that would, 
both for that AIG and AIP programming, potentially have a very 
real impact.
    The better news, I guess, would be that the Airport 
Terminal Program is a competitive discretionary grant program 
that doesn't have that same connection to the enplanement data, 
but those other sources of funding would very much potentially 
be impacted.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman In our tower program, I mean, you were 
able to see the site challenge that we had in our control 
tower.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, and so many towers would be 
impacted by the kinds of cuts that are being described here. 
And unfortunately, it would often be at these smaller airports 
that the cuts would be felt most severely.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, we are really happy to be in what 
we consider to be the post-pandemic period and, hopefully, 
people get to enjoy vacations and things of that nature. And in 
my airport, we go to places we like to go to go on vacation, 
sunny Florida being one of them.
    Mr. Secretary, in February, DOT announced the first round 
investments for the new Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, 
another really exciting and important program. A total of $185 
million in grants were awarded to 45 projects across the 
country to help reconnect these communities that are cut off 
from opportunity and burdened by past transportation 
infrastructure decision. We were able to show you, at least 
through a presentation, what that Route 29 looked like in terms 
of cutting Trenton off from its great resource of the water. I 
know that several communities in my district are excited to 
this program, including some in the 12th District, and are 
working to apply for future opportunities.
    For fiscal year 2024, the request comes at $100 million, 
with $100 million in advance appropriations provided by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And I was hoping if you would 
share some of the projects that are being funded, why they are 
being chosen, and what impact there will be, and what would 
happen if that funding were cut, as well.
    Secretary Buttigieg. One thing that has been striking in 
this first of its kind program is the level of demand. In our 
first year we got tons of applications in, which reflected both 
construction goals and planning projects to just get 
communities through that first stage. We had a round of 
announcements, including, I believe, one in the State of New 
Jersey, one in New York State that I was able to visit in 
Buffalo, where they seek to cap the Kensington Express that 
really is something of a gash through a very important part of 
the community. And the community members have been hoping for 
decades to be able to do something about.
    There is another example in Florida where an interchange 
really has had a negative impact on the community, but can be 
addressed and will be now, thanks to this funding. There are 
places in every part of the country. It is not one region, 
north, south, east, west, where you do have these pieces of 
infrastructure that have served to divide rather than connect. 
And I can tell you that there was more than enough demand for 
all of the funding we are seeking and then some, but cutting 
it, I think, would leave a lot of communities disappointed.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much. I yield back, 
sir.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you, ma'am. We now go to my good friend 
from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for being here.
    I know you are working to address the supply chain 
challenges that are confronting our Nation following the 
pandemic. A lot of it is impacted by aging or limited 
infrastructure. Our highways, our interstate highway system, in 
particular, needs upgrading, updating. I represent the 
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Virginia 6, which stretches from 
the Roanoke Valley up to Shenandoah Valley and has Interstate 
81 which runs along it. I-81 runs from I-40 down in Tennessee 
to the Canadian border in upstate New York, as you know, but it 
is the economic backbone of western Virginia, and it runs over 
300 miles in both Virginia 6 and Virginia 9 in southwest 
Virginia. It is not just a transportation corridor for goods 
and services from points south, Mexico and otherwise, to points 
north, New York and New England, but it is also a major 
corridor for local farmers, for families, for small businesses. 
It really is truly, truly the backbone of the Valley.
    For many years we have all agreed, on both sides of the 
aisle, along with my colleague from Northern Virginia, 
Congresswoman Wexton, and also Senators Warner and Kaine, that 
I-81 does need a third lane, and it was built originally for 15 
percent trucking capacity, but often operates with 30, maybe 
upwards of 50, depending on the time of day, trucking capacity 
or percentage of trucks. It is the most dangerous highway in 
Virginia, with over 2,000 crashes and millions of hours of 
delays yearly.
    So, the Commonwealth has adopted a corridor improvement 
plan. The timeline is challenging. And so I would just ask that 
as you consider resources and allocating those resources 
nationally to address the supply chain issues, congestion 
issues, that you look at the bottleneck that is being created 
by I-81 in the Valley only being two lanes. And hopefully, 
there are opportunities within the Department to make the 
interstate safer and run more efficiently.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I am aware of this 
corridor improvement plan. I believe there are 64 different 
projects that are encompassed within it, and know that that is 
going to be a big lift. I am aware that the State has put 
forward a lot of resources, and we are glad that the increased 
formula dollars that come with the infrastructure law are a 
part of the mix of funding available for that. But certainly, 
we would also note that there are a number of discretionary 
programs that we have that might also come into play for many 
of the projects that are part of that broader vision and it is 
certainly an area that we are very much aware of as we are 
doing our work.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you very much. I would also ask about the 
livestock industry, which is important in the Valley. The 
livestock industry has been exempted from the ELD mandate, 
electronic logging devices, for the last 5 years. Meanwhile, 
statistics through the trucking industry as a whole show that 
ELDs have, in fact, reduced safety on the roads as drivers are 
speeding to beat the clock. How do you respond to the fact that 
the ELD implementation may have led to less safe roadways in 
some areas?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the idea of ELDs is to make sure 
that drivers do not drive longer than they safely can, leading 
to fatigue, which we know is a major cause of crashes. 
Certainly, if there is an attempt to defeat or work around 
that, that could lead to an unsafe condition. I don't believe 
the solution is to abandon our work to reduce fatigue, but I do 
believe that there are a number of steps that we can take that 
are part of the broader safe systems approach that will make a 
difference in conjunction with the work we do around hours of 
service.
    And just one example that I would mention is the 
availability of truck parking. We know one thing that creates a 
lot of pressure on drivers is, as they get close to timing out 
on their hours of service, they are not sure if there is going 
to be a safe, let alone convenient, place to park between now 
and then. It is one of the reasons why we are encouraging 
states to use eligible formula dollars to fund truck parking 
and using some of our own discretionary dollars, most recently 
in projects in Florida and in Tennessee, to directly construct 
more truck parking because that shortage is real and an issue 
we hear a lot about from drivers.
    Mr. Cline. If you have any left over after that third lane 
gets constructed, we will put some more parking in there, too.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Maybe they can go together.
    Mr. Cline. One more question. Truckers and independent 
owners, operators from my district have expressed concern with 
the FMCSA's proposed rule for heavy vehicle speed limiters time 
and again. That would suggest that it is a complicated factor 
about the causation of truck passenger accidents, not to 
mention that the rule could be particularly harmful to small 
business owners. Does DOT think implementing this rule will be 
specifically harmful to independent owner-operators, and how 
did DOT decide on the suggested 60 mile per hour maximum?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well----
    Mr. Cole. I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, to be short. You 
are kind of violating the time----
    Mr. Cline. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Okay.
    Mr. Cole. You didn't give the Secretary the time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the short answer is safety is 
our North Star. We will be guided by the data. And we welcome 
stakeholder and industry input as we are working toward 
finalization of rules.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. I recognize my good friend from 
California, Representative Torres, for questions.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 
Secretary, it is really great to see you. I hope the family is 
doing great.
    On behalf of my constituents, I want to thank you and your 
staff for all of the assistance that you have provided, that 
they have provided to the Inland Empire, the district that I 
represent in the short time that you have been the Secretary of 
Transportation. Thank you for the RAISE grant. You came out 
last September and saw the challenges that we have in our 
district. You know, if we want to talk about the Inland Empire, 
it really encompasses my colleague, Pete, Representative 
Aguilar's district, also.
    I represent the bulk of the freight corridor. We have one 
international airport where UPS has its second largest hub. We 
have three smaller executive airports, for lack of a better 
word. We have three major freeways where trucks, you know, 
compete and dominate on most days. We really need your help. 
And I know that you have given so much and your staff has given 
so much, but I would like to ask of you here to help us figure 
out, maybe there is a pilot program out there that we can work 
through, where we can get technical assistance to deal with 
some of the issues related to the freight corridor that I 
represent.
    While the Port of L.A. and Long Beach are extremely 
important, and I would like to just remind you that 40 percent 
of all containerized imports come through the Port of L.A. and 
Long Beach, and 30 percent of all exports go through those two 
same ports, pretty much all of that comes through my district 
first, by either rail, the Alameda Corridor splits my district 
in half, which causes other problems because we have no over- 
or underpasses. I can't say no; very few overpasses to deal 
with emergency vehicles that need to get from one side to the 
other to help people in need.
    So, we have experienced the worst air pollution. We 
continue to experience that. Even through the COVID period 
where our commuters were grounded, working from home, we still 
had--the worst air pollution in California was centered in my 
district. We had 177 ozone days, so we really need help to 
figure out how do we--we are not looking to shut down any port. 
We are not looking to shut down commerce. We are looking for 
assistance and some relief.
    You saw some of that with children, challenging streets 
where children had to compete with truckers, you know, to walk 
from their home neighborhood to their high school or middle 
school. So, I think that you get some of our challenges. I just 
want to ask you, with the cuts that Republicans are right now, 
you know, trying to reduce our budget, this budget, the 
infrastructure bill, communities like mine, simply cannot do 
without your help. And a 20 percent reduction to your team 
would have, you know, critical negative impacts in my district.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question. And I 
will never forget during my visit to your and Representative 
Aguilar's district seeing that passageway that the students of 
Etiwanda High School have to walk under without a sidewalk, let 
alone--or even a gutter, let alone a sidewalk, on their way to 
school. And of course, we are proud to be supporting changes to 
that corridor.
    The broader issue you are speaking about is one that 
implicates both economic security, because we need those supply 
chains to be strong, and justice, because the people who live 
along those supply chains shouldn't have negative health 
consequences just because so many goods pass through their 
neighborhoods and their area.
    This is a good example, I think, of what it means when we 
talk about how we use taxpayer dollars to make our country 
better off. You know, programs like the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Improvement Formula grant program, we have got 
$2.6 billion programmed for that for fiscal year 2024. The 
Carbon Reduction Program, which was created by the 
Infrastructure Law, which reduces not just carbon, but I think 
also other harmful pollutants often will be reduced, too. And 
strongly believe that we need to be doing more, not less right 
now, especially because one of the challenges of our time is to 
accommodate and encourage a higher volume of throughput in 
terms of our goods without that leading to a higher volume of 
burden and pollution that would come with it.
    Mrs. Torres of California. I know that you have two young 
babies, and I hate to add, you know, more to your travel 
agenda, especially since you already visited our district, but 
I wanted to ask for you to send a team of your staff to work 
with us. I would like to have a roundtable that would include 
the Governor's office because they are looking to pass bills 
for buffer zones. So, if buffer zone areas are created, it is 
going to kill how goods movement, you know, flows through the 
Region, so we need to work together.
    I apologize to the chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We next go to our good 
friend from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, 
Secretary, for being here with us today.
    As you know, in my home state of Arizona, Interstate 10 
connects our main cities of Phoenix and Tucson, and it serves 
as a critical artery for many individuals who frequently travel 
back and forth for work, for pleasure, for tourism. It is also 
key for security and more.
    And as our state has grown exponentially, so has the need 
for an expansion of the I-10. This interstate serves as a major 
corridor for our state and our region, facilitating 
international trade and commerce, as well, but it has become a 
dangerous portion of the highway, with only two lanes in each 
direction and creating a bottleneck. So, every time I go home, 
I hear from my constituents about their growing frustrations 
with the worsening traffic on the highway and the dozens of 
accidents occurring due to a lack of proper infrastructure.
    A few months ago, I was disappointed when this 
administration denied my state's Mega Grant application for an 
expansion of the I-10. And on December 16, 2021, the Federal 
Highway Administration, an agency within the Department of 
Transportation, of course, issued a policy memo encouraging 
states to prioritize using the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act Formula funds for road and bridge repair over capacity 
expansion. This memo has since been rescinded, prioritized the 
implementation of partisan policies and disregarded 
congressional intent.
    So, can you please tell me about how the Department of 
Transportation is prioritizing infrastructure project grants 
and how Arizona can be more competitive moving forward?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, first of all, let me make clear 
that we recognize there is no one-size-fits-all policy. While 
we want to make sure that transportation policy and choices 
reflect things that America has learned over the years, 
including the effects of highway expansion on induced demand 
and the fact that sometimes it is not the solution that it 
seems to be, it is also certainly still the case that there are 
places where expansion is called for. And often the places 
where that is most likely to be called for are in high-growth 
areas, like what we see in Arizona and the West.
    And in any case, as both iterations of our Federal highway 
guidance make clear, with regard to Formula dollars, these 
decisions are up to the states.
    In terms of the application you referenced, I do want to 
make sure it is well understood that we receive far more 
excellent applications for the Mega program than we could fund. 
We were able to say yes to approximately 4 percent of the 
funding, which meant, of course, 96 percent worth of the 
applicants went away disappointed because we had about $20 
billion of applications for about $1 billion of funding. 
However, of course, that was only the first year of the program 
and that is only one of many programs.
    And so you have my commitment that if we haven't already, 
our team will get together with the project sponsors for that 
I-10 application and make sure that they know everything that 
would be useful to them in making their application as strong 
and competitive as possible, both for future rounds of Mega and 
potentially other programs that it might qualify for.
    Mr. Ciscomani. I do have one more question, but before 
that, I want to just say that looking at the fiscal year 2023 
grants, it seems that most of the projects that you are 
referring to that received the Mega grants incorporated 
bicycle, pedestrian, or transit infrastructure. So, I just want 
to ensure that DOT isn't letting a political agenda prevent 
states like mine from receiving much needed grants.
    So, to my question, according to your budget, DOT expects 
to pay about $70 million for rent and utilities in fiscal year 
2024, in addition to expenses for maintenance and repairs of 
its headquarters.
    Given your current telework policy and the 20 percent 
office vacancy rate in D.C., I have concerns that this world-
class space is not being utilized by 5,000 DOT Headquarters 
staff. What is your headquarters building current capacity rate 
and how does that compare to what it was before the pandemic?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, without having the numbers off the 
top of my head, it is certainly the case that there are fewer 
people in the building any given day than there were pre-
pandemic. And while I would note that the majority of our 
workers across USDOT are in work environments from truck 
inspection facilities to air traffic control settings where 
remote work is not an option, for the office jobs, telework has 
become an important dimension of how they work.
    And while I think we still have not seen the final version 
of what the new normal will be like for office work in general, 
and for Federal office work in particular, I believe it is 
likely that there will be substantial taxpayer savings from 
right-sizing our office footprint to reflect some of the gains 
in efficiency that might come from more flexible patterns, 
things like reservation systems for spaces. There is a modest 
but meaningful part of our budget request, about $6 million for 
things like procuring a system to manage that and digitally 
mapping our spaces, so that if we are not just going back to 
the way things were in 2019, we are seeing taxpayer savings 
along the way for more efficient use of the space we do have.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Well, thank you. I have more on this, but I 
will save it for round two. I do not want to get in trouble 
with the chairman. I am already sitting in the unique spot down 
here. I do not want to get into more trouble.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. We could find more unique spots if we need to.
    Mr. Ciscomani. I am okay with this one. I am happy.
    Mr. Cole. You are very wise. Very wise.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Happy to be here.
    Mr. Cole. With that, let me go to my friend from New York, 
Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you, Member.
    Secretary, thank you for your service, your commitment to 
our infrastructure, to transportation. Certainly, our country 
needed much more than just a facelift. It needed a major 
investment, and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act provided $1.2 trillion to do just that. The last time 
such a big investment was made was back in 1956. I do not think 
you were born then, but it was $25 billion that the Eisenhower 
administration provided to increase from 7,000 to 41,000 miles 
of road, crossing the highways across the country. But this 
does so much more. This is really a major investment and I 
think it is going to be a phenomenal job producer and motivator 
for our economy.
    And I also want to thank you for your budget, which 
includes $2.9 billion for Capital Investment Grants. And in 
there, there is an important project with the chairman in my 
district, which is the Second Avenue subway. We could build a 
subway still in our country, and that will address many needs 
in a transportation desert and will connect East Harlem and 
Harlem to the rest of the world.
    My question is, Secretary, your budget requests $59 million 
for cross-cutting research and development to advance new 
technologies and practices to improve railroad safety and 
efficiency. What are some of the new technologies in the works 
to improve railroad safety? Can you complete these necessary 
improvements with nearly a 20 percent cut to having these rail 
safety issues? What will the cut mean regarding that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. And 
whether we are talking about enforcement or whether we are 
talking about research, I believe this is the wrong time to be 
cutting railroad safety investments. The kind of work that we 
propose to do, I think could make a real and lasting difference 
in operating improvements, as well as safety improvements on 
our rails.
    Some of the things that are in view of the FRA's Research 
and Development Program include further refining autonomous 
track geometry systems and rail integrity systems. They use 
ultrasound to help identify rail flaws that might not be 
visible to the naked eye.
    There would be standards and specifications for the next 
generation of positive train control systems. We are hearing a 
lot about development on the surface roadside, but also 
intelligent rail systems that could make grade crossing safer, 
prevent trespass are something that we could do a lot of good 
work on.
    Anything and everything that could be used to prevent a 
crash or derailment, an accident, is something that we want to 
make sure we are investing these R&D dollars to help with. And 
we would like to see more, not less go toward that, especially 
at this time when the country's eyes have been opened through 
the frequency of derailments and other rail accidents in this 
country.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. I think that is critically 
important and I hope that we can avert that crisis.
    Finally, I will make a statement. I always tell my 
colleagues that I have the largest parking lot in the entire 
country. It is called the Cross Bronx Expressway. And gridlock 
there often, every day, turns it into a parking lot. And so we 
are working to cap it, Mr. Secretary. I am working with 
Congressman Ritchie Torres for that. Robert Moses, the infamous 
Robert Moses, so like divided the Bronx in the South Bronx and 
North Bronx with the Cross Bronx Expressway. But that is a 
little stretch and not many people know about that. Connect the 
Cross Bronx Expressway to the George Washington Bridge and that 
is called the Trans Manhattan Expressway.
    I would like perhaps for that be considered, also. It is a 
very small, less than a mile perhaps, stretch, but important as 
well. I would like for that to be considered in the studies and 
the work in capping that infamous parking lot that I have in my 
district there, the Cross Bronx Expressway.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We would welcome a chance to work with 
you on that.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. Just as a housekeeping 
matter, I want to advise the members to make sure everybody 
gets a first question. So, we have two more members to go, but 
we will bring the hearing to a close just for time 
consideration out of respect for the Secretary. And I know a 
lot of us have travel needs as well. So, only two more 
questions and then final statements by the ranking member and 
myself.
    With that, I recognize my very good friend from Arkansas, 
Mr. Womack, for questions.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And prayers for the 
Cole, Oklahoma, region devastated by a tornado last night.
    Mr. Secretary, I, too, want to kind of put my name on the 
same question that came up earlier about the discretionary 
grant applications and the tremendous cost, small communities 
that just do not have the resources that bigger communities 
have. Just no response necessary, but just hear it from us. We 
have the same concerns that was voiced earlier. As much as 
$170,000 or hundreds of manhours engaged in outside consulting 
firms to be able to demonstrate qualification for these 
projects. And we want the Department to be aware of that.
    I have an FTA, Federal Transit Administration, issue 
requesting the ability to use Urbanized Area Formula and 
additional fixed highway trust funds for large transit agency 
operating expense shortfalls, essentially, requesting the 
ability to use Federal funds to cover ridership shortfalls. And 
we know that this happened during the pandemic, but now coming 
out of the pandemic, we need to get away from the pandemic 
mindset as I call it.
    Even as the President acknowledges that the public health 
emergency is over, according to the American Public 
Transportation Association, subway and commuter rail ridership 
was 62 percent of pre-pandemic levels in quarter 4 of 2022. And 
I do not think anybody with a straight face can project that 
ridership is going to reach pre-pandemic levels. And do not 
take it from me, but in November of last year, heads of 15 of 
the largest transit agencies sent a letter to you acknowledging 
that ridership would not return to pre-pandemic levels.
    So, this begs the question, will this temporary assistance 
become another Federal entitlement? Congress didn't intend 
Urbanized Area Formula funds to be used for operating expenses. 
It was not an oversight. It is recognition that a transit 
agency should rely on ridership to fund their operations, which 
I personally think is a reasonable requirement. Frankly, many 
of my constituents in Arkansas think that way too much money 
goes to the big city transit agencies and this proposal would 
only increase that amount.
    So, Mr. Secretary, if Congress granted you this authority, 
how would you ensure that this is a temporary program?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We do want to make sure that cities 
and states recognize that we still expect them to make 
appropriate investments in transit. But we also know that 
transit yields major economic benefits. For every dollar 
invested in transit, there is about $5 of economic growth that 
come with it. And many transit agencies have continued to face 
fiscal issues, which we think are acute and we believe are not 
permanent, but are not resolving just in a year or two as post-
COVID commuting patterns continue to evolve in the country.
    The main thing I would emphasize here is that this is a 
form of flexibility, not a requirement from us. So, we are 
trying to make sure that the transit agencies have what they 
need to head off any kind of fiscal cliff that could leave 
commuters high and dry and, at the same time, are not viewing 
this as a anything short of a measure to help bridge through 
that period. And, of course, with this or anything else we do 
are going to make sure we are staying within the lines of the 
law as written.
    Mr. Womack. Okay. Last question is about the Contract Tower 
Program. I have four airports in my district that use this very 
successful public-private partnership, and I believe it 
enhances aviation safety. I think it is well-documented, it is 
effective, it is cost-effective. Contract Towers handle about 
29 percent of all U.S. tower operations, but about 10 percent 
of the overall budget. So, I think it is a pretty good bang for 
the buck.
    I am concerned about how the changes proposed in the FAA's 
recent market survey announcement for the Contract Tower 
Program will affect aviation safety and program costs. I am 
worried that we are introducing unnecessary risk into this 
successful program at a time when we are seeing historic air 
traffic control staffing shortages.
    So, Mr. Secretary, can you, in the remaining time, 40 
seconds we have, can you help me understand how you will 
evaluate the risk of fundamentally changing the Contract Tower 
Program versus any projected cost savings?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, to be clear, we are calling for 
a budget request that will fully fund all towers participating 
in the program, $194 million, in addition to putting to use of 
the $20 million provided for airport-owned Federal contract 
towers to be able to make improvements or changes that need to 
happen there.
    These are subject to benefit-cost calculations. We also 
recognize the unique situations and distortions that have 
occurred across the aviation sector in recent years. And 
anything that we seek to do moving forward will be in the 
spirit of refining and improving the program, but in a way that 
we want to make sure works for the airports and the communities 
concerned.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your service to our 
country. And as a former mayor, you get a lot of these issues 
that we are broaching with you. Thank you so much.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Indeed. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. We will go do our last question of 
today, my good friend, the gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. 
Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I will 
take particular care that I am the last question of the day, so 
I will try to move it along as best I can. I also want to tell 
you, I kind of like having my own little table down here. It is 
nice to be all alone down here and just have a little room to 
spread out. Very nice, so I don't mind.
    Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you again as well. And 
for the first time since I have joined the subcommittee, I am 
very pleased that I am not going to be inviting you to the 
grand opening of the Silver Line Phase II. We opened in 
November. We were very delighted to have you there. Thank you 
so much for coming. It would have been really embarrassing if I 
invited you twice and you hadn't shown up. So, thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. It was a pleasure to be there. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Wexton. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you a little 
bit about the Leesburg Airport. I am not sure if you are 
familiar with that or not. The Leesburg Airport was one of a 
very few airports that participated in the Remote Tower 
Program, but it was actually a remote tower that was operated--
it was entirely, entirely remote, so it was not--there was no 
tower there at the airport.
    And as you know, earlier this year the decision was made to 
stop pursuing a qualification for the remote tower technology 
that they had been using at Leesburg Airport for several years. 
Also, you won't be surprised to hear that because Leesburg was 
untowered before it got the remote tower, it did pick up an 
awful lot of traffic during that period of time, and it was 
really good for the airport and also for the very region. I was 
very, very concerned about what will happen if we stop the 
entire--suddenly becomes untowered without any other solution.
    I appreciate FAA and understand that Leesburg and FAA are 
having productive talks about the path forward and you know the 
safety risks that would come from making it stop altogether. 
So, I appreciate that they are working together with the 
Contract Tower Program in 2020, construction of a physical 
tower.
    I look forward to discussing this in more detail with 
Administrator Nolan next week. I want to know now--I want to 
ask you now, can we count on the commitment of the Department 
to assure us of the continuity of air traffic control services 
beyond fiscal year 2023 at Leesburg Executive Airport, and the 
transitions from remote tower to a more permanent solution?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I know that FAA has 
been closely coordinating with the city and the airport when it 
comes to the importance of making sure that safe operations 
continue.
    As you noted, and my understanding is the same, that there 
is a plan to build a brick-and-mortar physical tower and 
Leesburg has been accepted into the Federal Contract Tower 
Program. My understanding is there is a discussion right now 
about how it might be possible to use a mobile tower as an 
interim solution to maintain those separation services.
    And you have my commitment that we will continue to be in 
good dialogue and work with the city and the airport to find 
solutions that are going to maintain safety and support 
operations there.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Glad to 
hear that. And it is still going to be nicer than the Tower at 
Manassas Airport, but we can talk about that next time for us.
    Union Station, I would like to talk to you a little bit 
about that. As you know, we are doing a lot of rail expansion 
work in Virginia. One of several key projects which will unlock 
the rail network is the Union Station expansion project. It is 
over a century old and, unfortunately, desperately needs 
safety, security, and accessibility improvements.
    Union Station is right here. It is very close to the 
Capitol. It serves a lot of the folks here in the area. A lot 
of folks took the Metro Station there to come to work every 
day.
    I'm concerned by the slow pace of progress made by DOT and 
FRA on the implementation of the project. It has been nearly a 
decade since the environmental review of this project began, 
over 2 years since FRA released the Environmental Impact 
Statement. Union Station is the only station in the country 
owned by DOT. Is that right?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I believe so, yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah, and it is a beautiful station that needs 
a facelift. The Federal Government has the responsibility to 
ensure that the Union Station is maintained and expanded to 
meet the needs of the public. Do you agree that the completion 
of this project is of significant importance to both of 
regional and national interests?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Union Station is certainly a very 
important facility both for commuters and for intercity travel. 
And we want to--we are pleased to see that there is effective 
leadership with the newly organized Union Station Redevelopment 
Corporation and certainly agree that their success is 
important.
    Ms. Wexton. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what steps the 
Department is taking to ensure that the record of decision will 
be completed within the calendar year?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would have to check on the latest 
status of the environmental process, but certainly something 
that we are watching closely. I visited the site last year and 
our deputy secretary was there recently.
    I think that in addition to the environmental process, it 
will, of course, be necessary to identify appropriate sources 
for funds. And we have been in touch with the mayor and others 
about the visions for how to do that.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good. The record of decision will be 
completed by the end of the year?
    Secretary Buttigieg. That I would have to get back to you 
on.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good. And so I want to talk a little about 
the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. I have had the pleasure of 
recommending four--nominating five students there, and it is a 
great school. It is one of the special service academies that 
is one of best kept secrets among them. People can get out of 
the Merchant Marine Academy, they can join the Navy, they can 
join the Merchant Marine, they can go to university, they can 
make their own ticket.
    But it is made be very sad to see that the individuals from 
the 10th District who are attending there sent us pictures of 
what the facilities there look like. The conditions are well 
beyond anybody would expect from an institution, let alone one 
of our Nation's top five service academies. I'm concerned that 
these conditions would hinder our ability to attract a diverse 
pool of young men and women needed for our American military 
service.
    And it is terrible conditions, I think. Did you ever visit 
the Merchant Marine Academy, have an opportunity to visit 
there?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, twice.
    Ms. Wexton. And did you compare that it needs some love and 
TLC?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yeah. Like you, I share the view that 
it is one of the under appreciated gems of our transportation 
system. And yes, and I will emphasize that our budget request 
includes robust request for physical capital improvements 
because they are very much needed for student quality of life 
and for the durability of the facilities there.
    Ms. Wexton. Can you assure us that this work will be 
overseen by a Federal construction----
    Mr. Cole. We are out of time.
    Ms. Wexton. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I will ask 
the question off the record.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I now go to my very good 
friend, the ranking member, Mr. Quigley, for any closing 
remarks he cares to make.
    Mr. Quigley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for handling a 
complicated hearing during votes and getting everybody home on 
time.
    Mr. Secretary, earlier you were referencing Dickens that 
this is indeed for transportation the best of times and the 
worst of times. Clearly, the problems and challenges are 
extraordinary, but the opportunities are great. The 
Infrastructure Bill is just part of that, but it is up to us to 
continue to move forward because those opportunities are 
essential to compete on a worldwide market and to keep our 
people safe. So, thank you for taking on this job.
    As I referenced when you took it, to the spoils go the 
victor, but we are glad you are doing it. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Mr. Cole. I thank my friend. Mr. Secretary, I want to join 
the ranking member, thank you for being here today. Thank you 
for your testimony, which as usual, was full and forthcoming 
and direct and very much appreciated.
    To my friends on the other side of the aisle who were 
concerned about the cuts, I am going to echo a quote that I 
used in our last secretarial meeting, we don't have our final 
number yet, so it may be better than you think, it may be just 
as bad as you think, or it could be worse than you think. The 
one thing I will guarantee you, you won't be happy with it, 
whatever it is. So, that is fair enough.
    But I also take the opportunity to remind my friends, we 
are in an extraordinary inflationary cycle, the worst in over 
40 years. Most economists agree that was kicked off by the 
American Rescue Plan. I would argue that the Inflation 
Reduction Act was probably the most misnamed piece of 
legislation in history because it was basically a climate 
change bill. You can be for it or against it, but it didn't 
help with inflation. It accelerated that problem.
    And we are dealing with that now you know, partly by 
restraining spending. But the Federal Reserve, obviously, is 
raising interest rates, which I know complicates your life, Mr. 
Secretary. But more important to all of us, it complicates the 
life of every single American. Nothing tougher on families than 
inflation. And the lower your income, the worse problem it is 
for you. So, that it is the consequence we think of 
overspending and we are going to do some things about that.
    But you also have my commitment. We are going to work with 
you, particularly in the safety areas. We share your concerns 
and appreciate your efforts in that regard.
    I do not know any politicians, Republican or Democrat, that 
don't like to build roads and don't think infrastructure is a 
worthy investment. So, we are going to do as much as we can 
within the confines of the number we are finally given, to work 
with you and your Department. Certainly, to work with my 
friends on both sides of the aisle, all of whom have legitimate 
local concerns, and all of whom who care very deeply about the 
national transportation infrastructure and what we can do to 
make it better.
    So, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. Thank 
you for being here. I look forward to working with you in the 
weeks and months ahead. And with that, the hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                         Wednesday, April 26, 2023.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

BILLY NOLEN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
    Mr. Cole. The subcommittee will come to order.
    Today we welcome the testimony from the Honorable Billy 
Nolen, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
    Administrator Nolen, I understand that you will be leaving 
the FFA in the--excuse me, the FAA--I am from Oklahoma, so you 
make that mistake a lot--this summer after serving both as 
FAA's chief safety officer and as head of the agency during a 
critical and dynamic post-pandemic period.
    We have seen air travel come roaring back to life, reaching 
pre-pandemic traffic far more quickly than anyone expected. 
These past several months have also been challenging, from near 
misses on our runways to the January outage of the Notice to 
Air Missions system that led to the first nationwide ground 
stop in more than 20 years.
    By all accounts, your steady hand and safety expertise has 
served our Nation well during this critical period. And I know 
safety is your number one priority. It is also our number one 
priority. We thank you sincerely for your service and wish you 
well in your next chapter. And certainly, I look forward to 
working with you during your final months at the FAA, and I 
trust that our hearing today won't be our last conversation. 
But again, welcome to the committee.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cole. The President's request for the FAA is $19.8 
billion, a $784 million increase above fiscal year 2023.
    Mr. Nolen, as we develop our fiscal year 2024 bill, I 
intend to work with you and your colleagues at the FAA to 
ensure that we continue to support the world's safest, most 
complex aviation system.
    We have witnessed rapid advancements in aviation 
technologies transforming our skies in ways that were once 
unimaginable, from uncrewed aviation systems to electrical 
vertical takeoff and landing vehicles to commercial spacecraft. 
Our airspace is about to become much more crowded and more 
complex. We will work together to ensure that these new 
entrants flourish, while maintaining the highest possible 
standards of safety and efficiency for over 2 million 
commercial air passengers who fly every day.
    The aviation sector is an engine of economic growth. 
Commercial aviation alone contributes more than $1 trillion to 
our economy. New aviation technologies promise to fuel even 
more economic growth and lead to a better quality of life for 
all Americans. I am particularly excited about the promise of 
new air transportation opportunities for rural and Tribal 
areas.
    Administrator Nolen, I look forward to our discussion 
today. I am confident that we can work together to support 
FAA's critical missions, ensuring the continued safety of our 
airways, and paving that way for innovation and economic 
growth.
    I now recognize my very good friend, the distinguished 
ranking member from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    And welcome, Administrator Nolen. After all the work you 
have done, I don't want to say acting. You are administrator.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Mr. Quigley. You have got the responsibilities. But I want 
to thank you for your service, not only your capacity as a 
pilot in commercial, but also your advocacy for aviation 
safety. You have led the FAA during uncertain and difficult 
times, and I appreciate your unrelenting commitment throughout 
that time.
    Today we are here to examine how the fiscal year 2024 
President's budget request advances aviation safety and 
improves our National Airspace System. I have got to tell you, 
it has been tough this year listening to constituents who know 
my role as acting member. During some of the more frustrating 
times, I had someone say, I don't feel like I am buying a 
ticket. I feel like I am buying a chance, all right. It just 
shouldn't be the case under these circumstances.
    Each day the FAA provides service to more than 45,000 
flights, serving 2.9 million travelers daily. Chicago O'Hare, 
located in my district, sees more than 72,000 passengers, on 
the average, with flights operating out of more than 190 gates 
and across eight runways, and I have been on all of them.
    O'Hare is more than a place to connect business and leisure 
travelers to the world; it is an economic hub helping move 
goods around the international marketplace. O'Hare also houses 
220 businesses, which provide food, beverage, and retail 
services to passengers, and more than 40,000 workers.
    Thousands of airports across the National Airspace System, 
including O'Hare, are now starting to feel confident in their 
ongoing recovery from the devastating impacts of COVID. Air 
travel is projected to increase by nearly 10 percent this year, 
which means aviation safety, workforce readiness, and airport 
infrastructure must be state of the art.
    We must not forget the lives that were taken from the 
devastating Boeing MAX accidents, the recent grounding of the 
National Airspace System, and near misses at our airport 
runways. And consumers too often have to bear the burden of 
flight cancellations, delays, and inconveniences of choice 
policies.
    While we have made advancements to our National Airspace 
System through the efforts like NextGen and aircraft 
certification, funding the sustainment and modernization of 
Notice to Airmen System, and investing in navigation aids, more 
can and must be done. Moving the needle on sustainable aviation 
fuel research, noise and emission reduction, and technological 
improvements also require our attention and resources.
    Central to these advancements is the need for a robust 
workforce. Every product and process within the airspace system 
requires a person to certify, navigate, operate, or rapidly 
respond. This is especially true for our air traffic 
controllers, who we rely on to manage our airspace and keep 
travelers safe.
    I support the budget request to hire and train an 
additional 1,800 controllers, which builds on the 1,500 new 
controllers we funded in 2023.
    As the industry rapidly changes, the FAA needs the support 
of Congress to keep pace and set the standards. This requires 
cooperation among many partners across the globe and signal to 
the world that we are willing to invest in our system.
    This subcommittee has increased funding for the FAA over 
the past several years, and in a year where we hope to see an 
FAA reauthorization pass through Congress, it is critical we 
continue to provide critical investments. It is our duty to 
help the FAA modernize its air traffic control system, improve 
efficiency, transition legacy equipment into modern platforms, 
and develop a highly skilled workforce, and I believe the 
budget does just that.
    I look forward to learning more in depth about the proposed 
solutions within the budget request and ways we can support the 
advancement of FAA. Again, thank you for being here today, and 
we look forward to your testimony.
    Mr. Cole. I thank my friend for his typically thoughtful 
testimony.
    Administrator Nolen, your full written statement will be 
included in the record. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nolen. Well, good morning, Chairman Cole, Ranking 
Member Quigley, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to discuss the administration's fiscal year 
2024 budget request for the Federal Aviation Administration.
    The FAA operates the safest, most efficient airspace system 
in the world, but this is not by accident. Simply put, safety 
is not free. The recent close calls remind us that safety 
requires continuous, predictable, and robust funding. The 
President's budget request of $19.8 billion for the next fiscal 
year, combined with $5 billion for the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, provided to reduce the backlog of airport 
and air traffic projects, is critical to maintain our safety 
record. This is especially important in two key areas of the 
FAA's work: operations of the air traffic system and oversight 
of airlines, manufacturers, and crews.
    This budget requests an additional $26.2 million over this 
year's budget to strengthen our safety oversight in several 
areas. This amount includes funding for 53 new positions to 
complete the implementation of the Aircraft Certification, 
Safety, and Accountability Act. It also addresses 
recommendations from recent investigations and independent 
reviews following the Boeing 737 MAX accidents.
    Additional funding for 72 positions will supplement 
existing core safety programs, including efforts to improve 
certification of the small airplanes, safety data analysis, and 
other key aviation activities. The remaining funding will 
strengthen aviation hazardous material safety oversight, a 
critical component of our overall strategy.
    We expect air traffic will meet or exceed pre-pandemic 
levels this year, and we don't see that growth slowing down. To 
deliver the safe services everyone expects, the budget seeks 
$117 million to increase the hiring of air traffic controllers 
and to reduce the air traffic controller training backlog that 
we experienced during COVID.
    As mentioned, we plan to hire 1,800 trainees in fiscal year 
2024, an increase of 300 above the 1,500 that we are on track 
to hire this fiscal year. Funding to hire and train air traffic 
controllers is only part of the equation. They need modern 
equipment and fully maintained buildings to perform their duty. 
One such piece of equipment is the NOTAM system.
    This request includes $19.6 million to retire our aging 
databases and applications and move to a more reliable, modern 
system. The request takes our modernization efforts one step 
further by providing $115 million toward accelerating other 
priority projects. This funding will allow the FAA the 
flexibility to respond to unexpected events and to increase 
capital investments when needed.
    But we cannot modernize for tomorrow if we don't keep pace 
today. Many of our air traffic buildings need urgent attention. 
The budget asks for $510.8 million in the facilities and 
equipment account to improve air traffic control's facilities. 
Our backlog of uncompleted renovations and repairs for 
facilities that directly support operations is $5.3 billion. 
The average en route air traffic center, or combined control 
building, is 61 years old. More than 50 percent of our terminal 
radar control facilities are more than 40 years old.
    Members of the committee, civil aviation makes up more than 
5 percent of the United States' GDP. The funding that you 
provide is a worthwhile investment in our country's future. It 
is not hyperbole. The budget cuts that have been considered by 
some would be wrong, they would be deep, and they would be 
impactful to the flying public. Cuts will slow down 
modernizations of old systems, hobble our efforts to train more 
controllers, and jeopardize our work to usher in the next era 
of aviation.
    I can guarantee you that the FAA will be good stewards of 
the funding you provide. We look forward to your support, and I 
am happy to take your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Administrator. I appreciate 
your statement and certainly staying within time limits, so 
thank you.
    Let me begin, if I may, and I ask this question of 
everybody, because I think it is really important for us to 
think about in Congress, and that is the consequences of a 
continuing resolution should something like that occur. Every 
appropriator up here on both sides of the aisle does not want 
to see that result, and I am quite sure that you at the FAA 
don't want to see that either.
    So could you enlighten the committee on what the 
consequences would be if we failed to reach an agreement and 
resorted to a continuing resolution to fund the FAA?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thank you, Chairman Cole. Let me just 
say--and I appreciate the bipartisan support that we are 
hearing this morning--a full-year CR would really cause harm at 
the FAA across multiple areas. It would likely lead to flight 
delays and cancellations. We would be forced to implement a 
hiring freeze. We would be unable to increase hiring of air 
traffic controllers to meet our standards.
    We would also be unable to deliver on accelerating the pace 
of modernization that has been talked so much about, including 
our NOTAM system, as well as our telecommunication 
infrastructure that will help us keep pace with what is called 
the modern Info-Centric NAS. It also could entail, you know, 
again, the number of furloughs, possible reduction in force as 
well, so just some of the more draconian things we think could 
result from that.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We all know and we sometimes 
get, you know, taken up in technology, but at the end of the 
day, all these organizations are based on workforce and people, 
and we have got some challenges in that regard. So could you 
enlighten us a little bit on the long-term strategy that you 
have to appropriately staff our air traffic control facilities 
so that we don't suffer from slowdowns? And in a related sense, 
what kind of new skills and, you know, staffing needs are 
associated with some of the new entrants into our airspace?
    Mr. Nolen. It is an excellent question, Chairman Cole. So 
let me just say that we really appreciate the support that we 
had, not only in fiscal year 2023, and we recognize that this 
$117 million that the President is requesting will help us 
accelerate. We recognize the impacts of the pandemic. What that 
meant was we wound up closing Oklahoma City. We closed the 
training academy there for almost a year. And then we once we 
got restarted--we all recognize how hard it is to stop, start, 
restart. But we are on pace.
    To date, we have hired 979, who are either in training or 
have been issued notice to head to training for the 1,500 
controllers that we will hire this year. We are also adding 
resources in our--Aviation Safety services. We are adding 
resources to our office of Commercial Space Transportation. We 
are adding resources to our office of Airports. And all of 
this, to your point, sir, is not only keeping pace with where 
we are but then projecting into the future.
    So as we see these new entrants, eVTOLs, drones beyond 
visual lines of sight, I am sure we will talk about more over 
the course of this morning, but all of that is what we are 
looking for. And our goal is to make sure that we have got an 
FAA workforce that is qualified, that is technically that level 
of technical expertise, and that level of experience that will 
help us keep pace with where we are and where we need to go and 
maintain our global leadership throughout the world.
    Mr. Cole. Administrator, I understand the FFA [sic], the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and MITRE are 
collaborating to update the controller staffing targets for 
each FAA facility. Could you give us an update on the status of 
that collaboration, and are you comfortable committing to 
keeping the committee informed of the outcome of any new 
staffing targets as a result of the effort?
    Mr. Nolen. Yes, sir, you do have my absolute commitment 
that we will keep the committee informed.
    So to talk a little bit about where we are, in the past, 
our staffing standards were based on staffing ranges, and so 
you will be seeing in the coming weeks our updated controller 
workforce plan.
    One of the things we did different this year was we stood 
up a collaborative workforce resource working group, and that 
effort, working in concert with MITRE, was a facility-by-
facility look at staffing targets that says what is the level 
of traffic, what are the busiest days to ensure that we have 
adequate levels of staffing that meets the demands of the NAS. 
So that is this exercise. You will see part of that included in 
the controller workforce plan when it comes to you here in the 
coming weeks. And we will certainly be happy to follow up with 
you, sir, on that.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We now go to my good friend, the ranking member, for any 
questions he cares to pose.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you again, Chair.
    Administrator, the chairman is right. He asked the initial 
same question, which makes sense, of what would happen if there 
is a continuing resolution. And that is altogether fitting and 
proper because we are all too good at doing continuing 
resolutions. But I consider continuing resolutions purgatory 
and 20 percent cuts hell. So if it isn't purgatory and it is 
hell, you know, what is the difference in your answer to that 
same question? What does a 20 percent cut or more mean?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thank you. Let me start, I do have a 
couple of props today, and I am happy to leave them with the 
committee. When we think about our pathway to modernization, I 
will, show you this chart. It looks pretty busy, and it is. It 
just goes to show that within the FAA we manage thousands of 
systems of which right here in red the NOTAMs is just one.
    So if you look at this body of work that we need to do, 
anytime we start and stop, then it just takes that much longer 
to get the work done. So when we think about the kind of cuts 
that might be either anticipated or put forth, we are talking 
about having to furlough all FAA employees for up to 22 days. 
We are talking about the potential reduction in force of up to 
10 percent, which is in excess of 4,000 FAA employees.
    It means immediate cuts in all of these critical systems. 
It would mean suspending training at our FAA academy, so this 
path we are on to getting more controllers out there to meet 
the demand that is back faster than ever. It would mean 
closing, shutting down service to 125 low-activity towers and 
over 250 Federal contract towers, which means that two-thirds 
of the NAS will be without air traffic control services.
    So those are just the things that we see. We are on a 
mission, and I just want to make sure we go forward.
    Mr. Quigley. So to be--I am sorry, but to those who don't 
know what that means, does that just mean delays? Does it mean 
theoretically less safe? Or does it mean that perhaps smaller 
regional airports aren't going to get service?
    Mr. Nolen. It means that smaller regional and some of the 
airports with contract towers would not have controller service 
at those airports. That means those two-thirds that I am 
speaking to would not have ATC control there at those 250 
contract towers in those 125 low-activity airports.
    Mr. Quigley. I interrupted your flow. Please----
    Mr. Nolen. That is all right. I was finished, sir.
    Mr. Quigley. Okay. So how do you make those decisions? In 
the end when it is like this, how would you prioritize, and who 
makes those decisions? Obviously with this, there is a lot of 
ox getting gored. Who do you--who makes those decisions? Is 
this based primarily on getting the most people where they can 
go or keeping the system--even if you, in someone's mind, were 
to try to help the most, is it primarily just trying to get the 
most people where they are going and to try to keep the safety 
as high as possible?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, safety is always our north star. So the 
one thing we absolutely will do is to ensure that the system is 
safe. But that also means it comes with the possibility that 
you have--roughly two-thirds of the country is without air 
traffic control services. It also means, to your point, we 
would be, you know, looking at it, you know, sort of as an 
enterprise risk management, which now includes the entire NAS, 
you are talking about how do we make decisions that we can 
ensure we can move the maximum amount of the flying public with 
the resources we have and the constraints that we would be 
operating under.
    Mr. Quigley. If there is no tower, you can't have service 
there, correct? I mean, is that----
    Mr. Nolen. You could. There are, today, areas, you know, 
some areas that have what is called uncontrolled airspace, 
where pilots have procedures to be able to operate into and out 
of airports without an air traffic control tower. I have done 
those--I have done some of that kind of flying early in my 
career. That is not the most efficient way to go, and when you 
are talking about disrupting two-thirds of it, that is quite an 
impact.
    Mr. Quigley. There is a reason the towers are there.
    Mr. Nolen. Absolutely.
    Mr. Quigley. You made those flights. You feel safer because 
there is somebody else watching. There is no way in the world, 
right, you can watch those space all around you?
    Mr. Nolen. It is an absolutely safer condition to be in, to 
have a level of air traffic control and to have those--to your 
point, the eyes out there in areas where you might have radar, 
et cetera. So there is a--there is a lessening of safety, if 
you will, without those towers being controlled.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    My good friend from Arkansas, distinguished Mr. Womack, is 
recognized for his questions.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
    Thank you, Administrator Nolen, for your work, and best 
wishes for whatever the next chapter is in your life.
    I am glad we are having the conversation up here today 
about the prospects of a continuing resolution, because you can 
probably count me as pessimistic about this committee's 
ability, for a lot of reasons, to get responsible legislation 
across the floor of the House and the Senate signed into law 
and certainly by October 1.
    And it is important, I think, for everybody. And, oh, by 
the way, let me just say, everybody up here would probably 
agree that we need to do our work and we need to do it in a 
timely fashion, and we need to give these agencies time to 
respond accordingly.
    But the fits and starts you talk about on a continuing 
resolution are real, are they not? I mean, you have got to do 
contingency planning----
    Mr. Nolen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Womack [continuing]. And it is problematic because you 
don't know what the end result is going to be. But is there any 
way to put a cost on it in terms of how much it costs the 
agency to do all of the preplanning and all of the contingency 
planning and not knowing what the end result is going to look 
like?
    Mr. Nolen. I don't have those numbers with me today, but we 
can certainly get those to you.
    Mr. Womack. Is it substantial?
    Mr. Nolen. It would absolutely be substantial. If you just 
think about what it means that you have lost sort of two-thirds 
of towers, all of your contract towers, and another 125 of 
those low-activity ones. You think about the work we are doing 
on certification, we are hearing, you know, that level of 
concern from industry. I can tell you we are moving at speed to 
be able to enable what comes--what we say, what comes beyond 
the jet age. But all that requires a steady level of momentum 
in that work.
    So to have to stop all of that would put a pause and could 
most likely result in us losing our place as the global 
leaders, as the world is moving at pace here.
    Mr. Womack. Like most agencies of the Federal Government, 
you have a lot of contracts in place, and then there are plans 
to start new things----
    Mr. Nolen. Exactly.
    Mr. Womack [continuing]. Whatever it is. What happens to 
those?
    Mr. Nolen. We have to put those on pause. So contracts 
would be put on pause. We are in the middle of, again, NOTAM 
modernization. We are in the middle of changing our outdated 
telecommunications system and modernizing that. As I said, we 
have thousands upon thousands of systems, of which NOTAM is 
just one, when we think about other things that contribute. So 
all of those are things that we would have to stop, pause, and, 
you know, conserve while we operate as safely as we can given 
the constraints.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you. I am not a fan of CRs. I am not a 
fan of government shutdowns. I think the appropriators need to 
do their work to the best of our ability, and I think we need 
to do it on time, and I will leave it for that moment.
    I am a strong proponent of the FAA contract tower program. 
As you know, contract towers handle about 29 percent of all 
U.S. tower operations, but account for about 10 percent of the 
budget. Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the 
FAA's plan to realign the Federal contract tower service areas 
at a time when we are facing severe controller shortages, as 
you have already addressed.
    In your response to a letter sent by me and some of my 
colleagues on this issue, you indicated that a safety risk 
assessment for this proposed service--this service area isn't 
necessary as FAA considers this an administrative change. I 
would like to urge you to reconsider the position. My 
understanding is that the realignment will introduce new tower 
vendors to the program and prescribe that at least one tower in 
every service area shift to a new operator.
    So the question is pretty simple. Can I get your commitment 
that you will take another look at the potential unintended 
consequences of the proposed realignment and conduct a proper 
safety risk assessment?
    Mr. Nolen. You can have my commitment, sir, that I will 
take that back to the team. We will look and see what is 
possible there, and we will come back to you.
    Mr. Womack. I appreciate that. It is pretty important to my 
district and certainly to a lot of others that rely on these 
contract towers. And I have less than a minute left, and my 
next question is probably a little more detailed, so perhaps we 
will have to submit that for the record.
    But, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the available time I 
have.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now turn to my good friend, distinguished lady from 
California, Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I absolutely agree with my colleague on the other side 
about CRs and the cost to the Federal Government and all our 
agencies that are doing such critical work and important work 
for us in our communities.
    Welcome, Administrator. Thank you for being here with us.
    I represent the 35th Congressional District, southern 
California, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside 
counties, which includes the Ontario International Airport and 
three other executive airports that have flight schools and all 
of that. We must invest in technology and resources to combat 
air pollution in disadvantaged communities, which causes 
devastating health consequences, such as asthma.
    The Inland Empire is ranked as having the worst air 
pollution in the U.S. San Bernardino and Riverside counties 
rank first and second, respectively, for the worst ozone 
pollution in the U.S. The two counties also rank in the top ten 
for the worst annual particle pollution nationally.
    As stated by the National Institutes of Health, studies 
have shown that ultra-fine particle matter is elevated in and 
around airports. I am not proposing shutting down any of the 
airports. I am encouraging you and your staff, the agency, to 
focus on this issue.
    Administrator Nolen, what ways has the FAA worked to 
address air pollution near airports, and what more can we do?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman 
Torres. So we have done quite a bit in this area, and we have 
still quite a bit more to go. As part of our CLEEN, or the 
Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise Program, we are 
working on three streams. And when we think about what is 
happening, how the elimination of AVGAS for general aviation, 
that body of work is ongoing. We obviously need feedstock. As 
we transition, our goal is to be completely away from leaded 
fuel by 2030, so we have given ourself that goal.
    We continue to work with our community, with the general 
aviation industry in terms of how can, you know--number one, 
where is the stock, having a strong transition period, having 
incentives there. So that is a part of the work we are doing 
around clean energy.
    With respect to noise, we are doing similar things. 
Technology, as manufacturers are making airplanes that have a 
lower noise profile, that is a good thing.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Bigger.
    Mr. Nolen. And they are bigger. But at the same time, we 
are doing things--in some air space we are doing optimized 
profile descents. We have that at 64 of the Nation's airports. 
What does that mean? You know, having been a pilot for 42 years 
myself, where years past, you do a step--stair-step approach, 
you know, you descend, level off, power comes up, that is 
noise. Descend again, power comes up, that is noise. Now you 
come out of altitude on a continuous profile descent, you bring 
the power back to idle, and you are descending through most 
flight levels till you are into the airport traffic area.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Not all pilots are equal. Some 
of them are Navy pilots that, you know, love to do this 
[indicating].
    Mr. Nolen. I understand that. And there is differences in 
and around training schools, as one can imagine. But we are 
very much engaged. And the third part of what we are doing is 
having a strong level of engagement with communities on noise.
    Mrs. Torres of California. If I may add too, I would like 
to know if--you know, what consideration, you know, is taken 
about these communities when we reroute flight paths. Often 
flights are sent over the same communities that are mostly 
impacted. I will give you an example. In 2015, my office wasn't 
even notified of the changes, and just about a year ago there 
was another proposal to push flight paths to LAX further east, 
which comes into my community over our district.
    Mr. Nolen. Well, let me just say, having flown into and out 
of all of those airports many times across the course of my 
career in private industry, I can remember the early days. And 
what I will say where, again, I mentioned the stairstep, and 
now you come out of altitude over Palm Springs, over Banning, 
coming out of Arizona, and you are almost on a continuous 
profile descent, which greatly minimize the noise signature of 
the past.
    One of the other things that we have done, of course, 
things we call Metroplex. So we are trying to find ways to have 
more efficient patterns that eliminates noise--that reduce--I 
am sorry, that reduce noise. I would love to say it could all 
be eliminated. And we continue to work. And the other thing, of 
course, we want to make sure that we are fully engaged with 
communities, that they are part of the solution.
    Mrs. Torres of California. My time is up. I appreciate your 
response, and I yield back.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now go to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, 
for any questions he may have.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Administrator Nolen, for being here.
    I want to go back to the air traffic control staffing 
issue. Northeast Florida is actually under the Jacksonville Air 
Route Traffic Control Center, which as you know, is one of the 
busiest in the country. And as I spoke to those controllers 
during the pandemic and since, they are very concerned about 
the amount of overtime that they are being required to work. 
And I see some very aggressive hiring numbers. You mentioned 
that you had just hired 979. Now we are looking at 1,800 next 
year.
    My question though is, is that doable? Even with the $117 
million plus up, is that doable? Can we hire 1,800 air traffic 
controllers in that time span? What is the throughput of your 
training?
    Mr. Nolen. It is a good question, and thank you for it. So 
we do believe, we have sort of moved heaven and Earth, if you 
will, and I have given that challenge to our team both in air 
traffic organization, in our finance department, in our folks 
who operate the academy at Oklahoma City. We feel like we have 
got a strong pathway to get there. So that is just a part of 
the equation.
    To mint a fully certified controller, he or she goes 
through the academy, they get through that training, they get 
out to the facility, they have to be fully certified on a 
facility-by-facility basis, and that is really what takes us 
the bulk of the time. So we are looking to see how can we 
decrease the throughput from the time I start, get accepted to 
the FAA as a controller, to the time I come out the other side 
as a fully certified controller.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. I am glad you brought that 
certification up, because that 3-year certification, you know, 
we are only graduating 60 percent through that process. So my 
question is, to stop from having 10 percent fewer flights this 
summer, as some have predicted because of the staffing, with 
that 1,800, are you taking that 60 percent graduation rate--or 
certification rate, I should say--after the 3 years; are you 
taking that into account in these numbers so that we are 
meeting the requirements of the aviation?
    Mr. Nolen. We are. So if you recall some of our earlier 
statements and earlier activities we did, so last year, what we 
saw last summer was post-pandemic a fundamental shift. Suddenly 
everybody wanted to be in Florida, right. So we saw the traffic 
was between 105 and 137 percent at certain airports across 
Florida. We addressed that last year. If you recall, we did a 
stakeholder summit specifically for south Florida.
    Now, south Florida is constrained by several things. Not 
only have you got air traffic, but we also have space traffic, 
we have military operations area, that at times the level of 
taking all of those three things together can impose some 
pretty good restrictions on Florida. So we have worked with the 
community, whether we go above, whether we go with what we call 
capping and tunneling.
    So our team has pulled every lever that they can, and 
working with the industry, working with DOD, working with NASA, 
and our own Office of Space Transportation, we think we have 
got a pretty good model, and we have solved most of the 
challenges that we had in Florida last summer, to include 
putting more controllers back in there.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. So in the certification process, are 
you looking at opportunities there to increase that 60 percent? 
Because, you know, you have got that investment in them 
already. It seems like we should be focusing as much as we can 
on how do we get more of those folks over the line. Can you 
talk a little bit about that?
    Mr. Nolen. Absolutely, sir. That is absolutely one of our 
priorities to see how do we set young people up for success. 
And so we want to make sure that we are getting the best of the 
best and as they get through what is a rigorous process by 
design. Just take a look at these 10 incidents that we talked 
about earlier this year.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Mr. Nolen. We are very intolerant. We have got to the point 
that our tolerance for accidents is zero.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Mr. Nolen. We are getting to the point, I want us to be at 
the point where our tolerance for near misses is zero, and 
especially serious near misses.
    So as part of this controller workforce, I want every 
qualified young man and young woman who wants to come and work 
for the FAA as a controller to do so, but the process is always 
going to be rigorous. But we are looking to say what are the 
steps we can take to get through there.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. And on behalf of all of us up here who fly 
a lot, thank you for that standard.
    Mr. Nolen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. I now turn to my good friend from California, Mr. 
Aguilar, for any questions he may have.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Administrator, good to see you again. Thank you for 
your tenure and your service.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Mr. Aguilar. Last Congress, we were able to pass the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was a generational 
investment in infrastructure and transportation systems. The 
law provided $15 billion in airport infrastructure funding. And 
in speaking with our local airports, they have experienced 
delays on receiving approvals for their projects due to FAA 
staffing shortages.
    Can you talk to us a little bit about the staffing needs to 
implement specifically the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
improve airport projects in a timely manner?
    Mr. Nolen. So, two things in that area. So, you know, as 
part of the budget, the President's budget for next year, we 
are adding additional head count to the Office of Airports, so 
we have more folks in airports. And certainly, I have spoken to 
the controller piece. We will continue to work there. But I am 
looking across all of our five lines of business in our eight 
staff offices to make sure that we have the staff that is 
necessary to keep up with the demands of the NAS, and 
especially as we move into the new entrants that we see coming 
into the marketplace. So we feel like we are very aggressive. 
We appreciate the support, the bipartisan support from Congress 
to help us get there.
    Mr. Aguilar. How difficult--you have heard conversations 
about the continuing resolutions or about 20 percent, you know, 
potential cuts. How are those discussions impacting those 
staffing needs, your recruitment, your retention? What is the 
morale of the agency if we also are coming on the heels--again, 
thank you for your service, but we don't have an identified 
next administrator. What is the morale of the agency? What do 
we need to know?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, I can tell you that what you have in the 
agency is 44,000-plus professionals who come to work every day 
and wanting to make sure that they deliver for the American 
people and the flying public, and I am very pleased with that.
    We are getting back to a more full-time cadence as we come 
out--as we sunset the pandemic. It goes without saying, the 
specter of either a long-term CR or some pretty draconian cuts 
has an impact, you know. We have not started to have that 
conversation, but if you think of the conversations that you 
may have to go furlough every FAA-er for up to 22 days, that 
you may have to do a 10 percent reduction in force, that you 
will stop all training, that you will close two-thirds--all of 
the contract towers and then another 125 low-activity towers, 
that is significant--when I say raw, deep, and wide, that is 
what it means if we are into that space.
    Mr. Aguilar. Can you talk a little bit more about the 
contract tower program? On both sides of the aisle here, you 
have heard support for it. Where in the queue of cuts does that 
line up? What is the timing and notification? What would that 
look like?
    Mr. Nolen. You know, as we think about that, I don't have 
that number right in front of me today. So with your 
permission, I would love to come back to you and say what would 
be the number, when we would have to make--you are saying when 
we would have to make notifications, right? I can certainly 
come back to you with that answer.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Aguilar. Sure. But I guess broadly, if you are asked to 
make 20 percent in cuts, and you just identify it in the answer 
to the previous question that those would be the low-activity 
towers and the contract towers would be gone, you know, what 
does that look like?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, that means that two-thirds--you know, 
there are 247 contract towers, another 125 low-activity towers. 
So you look to see at our top--let's just take, you know, 5,000 
airports in the United States of which, you know, you have got 
500 that have some significant levels of traffic, right. Of 
that you have probably got another 50 that are major, major 
airports.
    So as you start to think about these outliers in 
communities that made their support as a contract tower, you 
have immediately lost that. So is that a lessening of safety? I 
would argue that it is. Am I more safe with or without a tower? 
The answer to that is probably I am with a tower, even though 
our pilots are professionally trained and they have procedures. 
But these impacts are real and they would be very meaningful.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I was pleased in the President's 
budget request that he included $10 million to replace legacy 
precision approach path indicator systems with new LED systems 
to reduce the carbon footprint.
    Can you talk with us about the agency's, you know, ability 
to work with small businesses to modernize, you know, 
technologies and replacing systems like this?
    Mr. Nolen. This is, well, something that really excites me, 
again, as a pilot who has flown for 42 years, including as an 
international captain. Having modernized systems, you know, 
precision-approach indicators, we have got, you know, 
satellite-based navigation and all of that, that means we are 
more efficient, that we can get in there, that the level of 
safety has certainly been enhanced. And so we work. We have got 
our William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, New 
Jersey, where we do an incredible amount of testing, so we 
really appreciate the funds that have been allocated to that.
    Everything that you can think of, when we think about 
contract towers, when we think about remote towers, we have the 
ability there to take virtually any technology that someone can 
envision and put it into a test environment and pressure test 
it to say, is it really fit for purpose, or if it is just 
another whiz, bang, you know, wow, sounds pretty cool but 
doesn't really work. That is our ability to sort of put it 
through its paces.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much. My time is up. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now go to my very good friend from Florida, Mr. Diaz-
Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much.
    Administrator, again, thanks for your service.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me get a little bit parochial here for 
a second, parochial. So the Naples Airport, which, as you know, 
started in the forties as a training ground, and obviously 
because of the growth is now a pretty active place. So 
operations by jet aircraft in Naples Airport have more than 
tripled since just 2010, which means that even on peak days, 
and whether you are--if you are looking at Thanksgiving, 
actually Thanksgiving through Easter, it is more than 70 
takeoffs and landings per hour.
    And so I want to talk to you about something that I know 
the ranking member has been very, very involved with, which is 
noise. In that airport, by the way, the FAA had originally had 
Naples Airport as part of the Florida's metroplex project. The 
airport obviously invested time and money, but then it was 
excluded.
    And so here is my question: What support is the FAA 
providing to airports that are conducting noise studies? Number 
one. The community that obviously is now impacted rather 
severely by the noise, what else can be done to make sure that 
the community's voices are heard and that their concerns are 
heard? Because it is a growing concern, and, you know, when you 
look at Naples area, this is not going to just get better. It 
is going to get worse. And so what can we do to be a little bit 
more proactive and maybe a little bit more aggressive to help 
the constituents out there?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thank you. Let me just say there, going 
back to some of my earlier comments, right, you know, sort of 
the three prongs of trying to address noise and emissions is, 
number one, technology itself. Airplanes are demonstrably 
quieter than they were, but we can use, again, optimized 
profile descents where we can. As I said, we have those at 64 
airports. It may or may not be--I am not sure if it is at 
Naples, but that is something I can take away and come back to 
you with.
    But lastly, to your point, the most meaningful one is that 
continuous engagement. We do that at the airport itself, and 
that is something we are very much committed to. So to the 
extent that there is something we can continue to do to address 
it with a particular community at the airport, you have our 
commitment that we will continue to do that.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I appreciate that, and we will follow 
up with my team to your folks.
    Switching gears now. Am I wrong, has there been an increase 
in near misses or at least, you know, whatever the term is for 
the----
    Mr. Quigley. Near hits.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. What is it? Near hits. The ranking member 
says near hits. Has there been an increase? If not, is it just 
that we are hearing more about it? And, if so, why? And talk to 
us a little bit about that, if you would.
    Mr. Nolen. Yeah. So maybe I will go to the analogy, in the 
absence of news, all news is news, right. So if I were to do a 
whiteboard here and throw a couple of dots, it would be 
immediately apparent. On a year on year, went back and looked 
at it and did a 10-year look back in terms of what we would 
call near misses, you know. If you think runway incursions, or 
near misses, on an airport, we classify those A, B, C, or D. 
The As and Bs, we consider As quite serious, Bs a little less 
so, Cs--further down. We have had about 10 of those year to 
date.
    Now, let me put that into perspective. On any given day, we 
are flying between 45,000 and 50,000 flights in the NAS. So 
that is a lot of flying. So when you look at the numbers on an 
absolute basis, that it is not a big number.
    But coming into the year, when we saw this sort of all come 
together, we believe, again, as I stated, there is zero 
tolerance for an accident. And so to provide an additional 
level of safety, I want to say there is zero tolerance for a 
close call. So that is why I issued an administrative call to 
action, and brought 200-plus members of the aviation leadership 
together to discuss what we can do. We immediately issued a 
safety alert for operators to say let's make sure we aren't 
missing on a blocking and tackling.
    So we will continue to do those things, and there are other 
steps that we can take, and we would be happy to share those 
with you, sir.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great, Administrator, and I have little 
time, but I appreciate your statements. You know, Mr. Quigley 
has obviously been dealing with the noise, has been leading on 
that effort for a long time. He obviously represents a very, 
very large airport, and the folks that I am dealing with are 
dealing with a much smaller airport. But for the people that 
live around it, as you know, it is just as problematic. So I 
appreciate your willingness to work with my team and my staff 
and myself, and we will be following up with you.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now recognize my good friend from New York, Mr. 
Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, thank you for being here. In your testimony, 
you highlighted your commitment to fostering a strong and 
diverse workforce. Currently, the FAA workforce is 60 percent 
White, 65 percent men, and just 35 percent women.
    What are some of the provisions that you feel could change 
that scenario within your diversity and inclusion plan and that 
will help create a more inclusive workforce?
    And I know that in my district, a very iconic district that 
has Harlem and Barrio, Washington Heights, the Bronx, dozens of 
languages are spoken there. There are many young people that 
want to enter that workforce, but there seems to be a lack of 
access to it. So what are you proposing that will help change 
that?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, let me give you, first, a good example of 
how we approach the next generation of air traffic controllers. 
We realized that we really wanted to reach out and broaden both 
our aperture and the net in terms of how we attract and retrain 
controllers. So last year, we met up with gamers, because we 
think they have got skill sets that we could use as 
controllers. We went to social media influencers to help us get 
the messaging out. We wound up getting over 800,000 unique hits 
to the site. We were expecting around 10,000 applications. We 
wound up getting 57,000 applications. That was one of the most 
diverse talent pools ever.
    I think you have to do more than just attract. You have got 
to both attract and then you have got to train, you have got to 
mentor, and you have to establish those pathways. Those are the 
things that the agency is doing and is committed to. First and 
foremost, we want an agency that is talented, that is 
qualified, that is diverse, and represents America at large. 
And so that is the work that we are undertaking.
    Mr. Espaillat. Yes. Administrator, this past weekend I 
traveled. And at the airport I saw about over a dozen cots and 
people sleeping there at the airport, little kids and moms, and 
delays, and there is also chronic cancellations. And it seems 
that the airline industry has gone to, to use Star Trek, where 
it has never been before. And I often feel that the travelers, 
customers are not justly compensated for delays and 
cancellations, and it pretty much has become a norm. And I 
often hear that--perhaps that the lack of air traffic 
controllers may unfortunately contribute to that.
    But what is your assessment of where we are? I mean, you 
are asking for--how will your $117 million request help hire 
additional traffic controllers? How do we get out of this 
situation? Now, I know we all travel weekly, and I am sure that 
we have seen, you know--we know this.
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thank you. Thank you, Congressman. I will 
say, having--again, having spent 33-plus years in that 
ecosystem of traveling and having had my fair share of delays, 
I also have had my fair share of getting the flying public to 
where they need to be.
    What we have heard--and you have heard from the Secretary, 
who was here last week, is absolute commitment from the 
Department. What we expect is that airlines will deliver on 
their commitment to their customers. And our goal is to ensure 
from all sides that we are meeting our commitment.
    So, again, we are very thankful for the $117 million. It 
will help us continue the path of hiring. We are on track to 
hire 3,300 controllers between this year and next fiscal year, 
which would, given attrition, a net increase of about 500. But 
we are taking steps.
    In your district, you know, as we know, we held a New York 
summit. We talked about what are the things we can do. We 
recognize the summer is on track to be a busy one, so we want 
to use every tool we have in our toolbox to make sure that we 
can meet the expectations of the traveling public. So we will 
continue to hold airlines accountable, and we will also hold 
ourselves as an agency accountable as well.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Administrator.
    Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think that the 
airlines need to be held accountable, that there is rampant 
delays and cancellations, and travelers are just not getting 
compensated justly for that. There is really a different 
standard right now for how travelers could get back the money 
that they are investing for traveling, which is in many cases 
very, very high.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. I appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. I think 
his sentiments are widely shared.
    With that, I would go to my very good friend from 
California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Administrator Nolen, for testifying today. 
Appreciate the time.
    I know it has been touched on a little bit, but due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, many pilots took early retirement when air 
travel collapsed. Estimates show about 18,000 openings per year 
for airline and commercial pilots this decade. However, the FAA 
issued an average only half the number of pilot licenses from 
2017 to 2021.
    What is the FAA doing to try to help this situation?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thanks for the question. We continue to 
work very hard. As you know, what the industry is doing, that 
is principally in this industry role to see what it is doing to 
produce tomorrow's generation of pilots with the number of 
retirements we saw through the pandemic. Most are on track to 
meet the demands of what they need. We recognize that there is 
some pain points among some of the regionals out there.
    Our goal as the FAA is how do we incentive. So we have got 
some workforce development grants, and we are able to go to 
institutions and say how do we find ways to attract more 
people. That level of competition is high, so the level of 
attraction is there, but we have still got work to do. We want 
every, you know, qualified pilot that we can get.
    Mr. Valadao. I mean, a lot of those bonuses I assume come 
from the private sector, and I assume the FAA is going to play 
a role in approving those licenses. I mean, is the process 
getting easier or more difficult?
    Mr. Nolen. Yeah. When we think of licensing registration, 
there was a point where we were like 200 days. We have gotten 
that down to 75 days, and our goal is to get it down even lower 
than that. So certainly every license has my signature on it. 
Our team is committed to reducing the backlog and just make 
sure, whether it be an aircraft registration, whether it be a 
license, whether it be medical, we have streamlined all of 
those systems. And this is just one more of those things, when 
I talk about modernization and having something that is fit for 
purpose is critically important for us to stay on pace.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. And I understand the 
importance of safety, because as my colleague from Florida 
mentioned, some of the near--I think he used the inappropriate 
term, but ``near hits'' is something that we should obviously 
be concerned about. We want to make sure we have got properly 
trained pilots, but we need enough of them.
    One quick issue that I wanted to bring up. It has come to 
my attention that a German company, HeliService International, 
has won a contract to transport passengers between two U.S. 
points, one in Rhode Island and U.S.-based offshore wind 
platform. My understanding, it is illegal for a foreign-owned 
company to transport passengers between two points in the 
United States.
    What is the FAA doing to review the Part 135 of the air 
carrier certification for this company to determine whether the 
company is owned by United States citizens or whether it is 
lawfully bid, if the lawfully bid was awarded correctly?
    Mr. Nolen. So I can't speak to this particular event, but 
you have my commitment that I will have the team research that 
and we will come back to you, sir.
    [The Department responded for the record:]

 APPLICATION FOR FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS (HELISERVICE) FLYING UNDER PART 
                                  135

     Foreign air carriers are limited on the carriage 
of cargo and passengers within the U.S., with few exceptions 
(i.e., ICAO Freedoms of the Air).
     Regarding HeliService specifically, it is an 
existing Part 135 air carrier and is owned by a holding company 
(HeliService Holding U.S. Inc.) that operates under various 
trade names (d.b.a. s) whose majority ownership (51%) is U.S. 
The 49% ownership share is foreign (German).
     The FAA reviews Part 135 application and works 
directly with the applicant based upon the specifics outlined 
in their application.

    Mr. Valadao. And I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Back to the aviation safety deal. Runway safety incidents 
have been headline news, and I think you mentioned that it is 
on the horizon a little bit, and I think it is pretty well 
recorded. What is the FAA doing to ensure that these things 
don't happen in the future and keep people safe? I mean, as has 
been mentioned, we all fly a lot, but we obviously want to keep 
these as safe as possible.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir. We use a multiprong approach 
here. We started out, first and foremost, with an 
administrative call to action. One of the first things we did 
was to issue what is called a SAFO, a safety alert for 
operators, and in which we said to airlines, pilots, to the 
community, let's ensure that we are safe, let's ensure that we 
are vigilant, and make sure we have got the basic blocking and 
tackling.
    We reiterated the need for--in maintaining the sterile 
period discipline between both the flight deck and the cabin. 
We then brought together 200 stakeholders to a summit that we 
did just about a month ago, and we went through what we are 
seeing. We looked through what the data was showing us and 
steps we can take.
    Out of that came--the request was the need for data, more 
of it in near real time. So we are working with MITRE and other 
stakeholders, with our Office of Accident Investigation, and 
say how can we accelerate getting the data so that we can sift 
through it faster and get it out to the global community 
quicker.
    Additionally, we have asked our other team to see what are 
the other data sources that we can use. We have made this one 
of our top priorities to move from, not just zero fatal 
accidents but zero serious near misses as well, so that is part 
of our process.
    Mr. Valadao. And my time is just about up, but I appreciate 
you bringing up the safety summit. I know that these things 
were talked about. Hopefully something came of that and you can 
share with us in the future, and we can help try to implement 
some of those to resolve this situation.
    Mr. Nolen. We would be more than happy to. Thank you.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you. And my time is expired, 
Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We now go to my good friend from Virginia, Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Administrator Nolen, for being with us here 
today. You know, listening to all my colleagues talk about 
their experiences at airports and flying, it makes me feel a 
little bit left out because I only have to get in my car and 
drive about an hour to get here. I also feel, more than 
anything, I feel lucky at the moment as well.
    So I want to talk to you a little bit about what you are 
doing for recruiting. I just want to say that that is really 
cool, because you have got to meet people where they are. And I 
think it is really great the way you guys are doing that, and I 
think it will really hopefully pay dividends to you. And I look 
forward to hearing how that works out for you guys.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Ms. Wexton. So the sheer number of applications you got is 
astounding, so I think that is a really good start. Hopefully 
you guys will have adequate training, and you won't have to cut 
these classes off earlier or anything.
    Mr. Nolen. Yeah.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much.
    And, you know, last week, I spoke with Secretary Buttigieg 
about a situation at Leesburg Executive Airport. I know your 
staff have talked a little bit about this. I would like to 
continue that conversation with you today.
    Leesburg participated in FAA's remote tower program. Since 
then, the operations have increased by 47 percent ever since 
they started continuous ATC at the Leesburg Executive Airport. 
That started in 2018.
    Has Leesburg's participation in the pilot program given FAA 
valuable information about the remote tower program and what 
the drawbacks and benefits of it could be?
    Mr. Nolen. Yes, it has, indeed. And one of the key lessons 
learned for us is that, as we have new technology, novel 
technology, let's just make sure we are putting it in a good 
test environment. So what we will do going forward is we can 
take things like someone has got a new remote tower technology, 
et cetera, we can put that into operation at our technical 
center, make sure it is absolutely fit for purpose. We 
recognize where we are, and we have been having ongoing 
conversations with all of the stakeholders in Leesburg, and we 
are working to see what next steps might be.
    Ms. Wexton. We are kind of the FAA's guinea pig on that, 
right. I mean, we kind of were, you know. And I am glad that we 
were able to give you some valuable information, but as you 
know, Leesburg was also accepted into FAA's contract tower 
program in 2015, but they decided to forego that so they could 
participate in the remote tower program.
    So, you know, would you agree that if they had participated 
in the contract tower program, they would have an operating 
contract tower by now in all likelihood?
    Mr. Nolen. It would be my expectation that they would have.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And now they don't because they 
participated in the remote tower program, though, right?
    Mr. Nolen [nonverbal response].
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And thank you, I know you were 
disappointed by the outcome of the Leesburg remote tower 
certification process. I want to focus on the safety of 
Leesburg's airspace. And more importantly, I am glad to hear 
that the FAA and Leesburg have had productive conversations on 
the path forward. But there is an agreement to fund a remote 
tower until, I guess, the end of September. Is that correct?
    Mr. Nolen. That is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Is that depending on what happens here today in 
our hearing or what happens in the appropriations process, or 
why is it end of September?
    Mr. Nolen. We are committed to working with Leesburg on, 
say, how do we get them into the Federal contract tower 
program. As we said, if we were to see cuts, that would pause 
that program. But our goal is to work with them to make sure 
they have got a solution, whether it be starting with the 
mobile tower and then ultimately having a remote--a Federal 
contract tower.
    Ms. Wexton. Even if they do decide to construct a physical 
tower, it would take 5 to 7 years for them to do that. You know 
that, right?
    Mr. Nolen. My understanding is that timeline is a little 
shorter than that, but I am happy to follow up with you with 
some specifics.
    Ms. Wexton. And Leesburg was untowered prior to entering 
the remote tower program. But, you know, has the FAA assessed 
the impact of ATC operations stopping at Leesburg without any 
alternative that would do safety there? Have you assessed that?
    Mr. Nolen. We continue to work with Leesburg, and we are 
looking to say how do we find a mutually beneficial solution 
there.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you. You know, it seems to me that 
Leesburg was kind of the guinea pig for this program. We helped 
you guys out by participating in it. You kind of took it away 
really, really quickly, and it leaves Leesburg in a big lurch. 
You know, the travel there has increased 47 percent since they 
started the program, and now they are going to be left with 
nothing, possibly.
    So I hope that you guys will help them out and help them 
with the efforts to ensure the continuity of ATC during the 
entirety of the transition. Will you commit to me that you will 
go back and talk to them about committing to that?
    Mr. Nolen. We can give you a commitment that we will 
certainly stay fully engaged with them and look to ways that we 
can move things as quickly as we can.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much.
    And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We now go to my good friend from Montana, Mr. Zinke.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for serving. You have an impressive career, 
and certainly you are very impressive in committee.
    So a couple questions. I have seen your organizational 
chart. I look forward to your efforts how to streamline it, 
because chain of command is important.
    Mr. Nolen. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. And as a former secretary, I have seen some 
awful organizational charts that just don't provide. So I look 
forward to your efforts on that.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Mr. Zinke. So I noticed in your testimony you talked about 
how to attract pilots.
    Mr. Nolen. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. I want to talk a little about how to retain. 
While I am not a pilot myself, I know many, and I hear the same 
thing. They are concerned. They are concerned about the new 
pilots coming in. And I didn't realize, if you are in the right 
seat, the first time you have passengers is the first day of 
work, because you are doing simulators, so you have never 
actually flown passengers before. So you have got the right 
seat first day.
    But there is a concern about experience and then age. We 
are probably about the same age on there. There has been 
several bills and discussions about moving the age from 65 to 
67 to retain our experienced pilots. Do you have a position on 
that?
    Mr. Nolen. I don't have a position on it. What I will say 
is that decision would rest with Congress, and we will 
certainly execute on whatever decision that Congress makes in 
this area.
    Mr. Zinke. It seems to me that there are--you know, people 
live longer, healthier, certainly we do. And to capture what I 
would consider reserve pilots that have a lot of experience but 
still want to fly, I think is probably good policy, and I would 
think that issue is bipartisan.
    So shifting gears, UAVs. So as a former Navy SEAL, I have 
flown UAVs. And when I got out in 2008, I talked about 
integrating the NAS with UAVs. We are no further along 
integrating the NAS with UAVs than we were. Some of it, the 
ground has changed, technology has changed, the threat has 
changed, and I get that.
    But where my concern is, our foreign competitors are moving 
rapidly forward, and very few companies will invest in the 
sensor heads for precision agriculture or wildlife management 
without having some certainty that they are going to be able to 
develop the products and have a reasonable return on 
investment.
    I look at Montana. At one time there was a Hays MOA, which 
was the size of Florida, relatively little if any air traffic 
in it, a lot. It seems to me that in such areas are prime at 
least for prototypes to go out and train and make sure that the 
industry is in a position when we do enter the NAS that we 
perform and are competitive.
    Mr. Nolen. Right.
    Mr. Zinke. My ask is, if you consider looking at the Hays 
MOA, or other areas that have relatively little if any air 
traffic in it, and then going forward with a reasonable 
delineation in altitude----
    Mr. Nolen. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke [continuing]. Maybe 500 feet or 400 feet, put it 
on the NOTAM so you have it, and reasonable control so you can 
test and operate those systems. Do I have your--do you look at 
it, if you would?
    Mr. Nolen. You do have my commitment that we will take a 
look at that.
    Mr. Zinke. And lastly, I am a little concerned about the 
rural airports out there. You know, Montana, by the way, is the 
same size from here to Chicago plus 2 miles. A pretty big 
State. We have a lot of rural, you know, smaller airlines that 
run around, but all of them are being challenged because they 
seem to be--they do it for a short amount of time and then they 
get recruited all the way up.
    Mr. Nolen. Yes.
    Mr. Zinke. So I would ask that, as you look at pilot 
retention, though, also consider how to make sure our rural 
pilots are at the beginning of the feeders that are also viewed 
in your efforts going forward.
    Mr. Nolen. They are, indeed. And we certainly look at it as 
an entire ecosystem. Like you, I started my career in the 
military, got all of my pilot training in the military. But we 
are just looking across, and our goal is to be able to have 
pathways for pilots wherever they are starting their career.
    And, you know, we have universities that are pushing as 
many out as they can. I have driven across Montana, and it is a 
beautiful State. As we think about Advanced Air Mobility, as we 
think about what the future will entail, there is some real 
opportunities in terms of how we connect rural areas to larger 
cities and intra-cities.
    So this is one that really excites me between UAS and 
drones is to make sure we get it right, and to make sure that 
we are matching the pace, at least the energy--we say safety 
will dictate the tempo, but we want to make sure that our level 
of energy is high in getting this done. And I can tell you from 
our executives who are in charge of it, it is.
    Mr. Zinke. Well, thank you, and I look forward to you 
coming out to Montana.
    Mr. Nolen. I will be back out there.
    Mr. Zinke. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now turn to my good friend, Mr. Ciscomani of Arizona, for 
any questions.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thank you, Administrator, for being here, and thank you 
for spending time with us and answering questions.
    Mine is going to focus a little bit on the homefront there 
for me in Pinal County, one of the counties that I represent. 
Are you by any chance familiar with the Pinal Airpark in my 
district in southern Arizona?
    Mr. Nolen. I am not specifically. You know, I have flown 
over Arizona many times and----
    Mr. Ciscomani. No problem. Let me--allow me to give you a 
little background on that, and then I will pose a quick 
question there at the end.
    You know, the overview here is of this important FAA 
classified facility. It was built in 1942. Pinal Airpark has 
played a vital role in our national defense and commercial 
aviation industry for more than 80 years now. And located 
approximately 32 miles northwest of Tucson, Arizona, which is 
where I reside, the general aviation and military airpark was 
originally known as Marana Army Airfield, where it was an Army 
Corps--Army Air Corps training base that graduated 10,000 
pilots during World War II. So it has got a strong history 
there.
    Today, the airpark sits in the heart of what we call the 
Sun Corridor Megapolitan and one of the fastest growing regions 
in our country. It serves a diverse and growing military and 
commercial aviation community with a $2 billion dollar economic 
impact and approximately 130,000 annual commercial and military 
flight operations, making it one of the busiest multiuse 
airports in the country without an air traffic control tower.
    So in order to ensure airpark safety and support military 
readiness, Pinal County will soon apply for a new air traffic 
control tower under the FAA's air traffic control contract 
tower program. I would like to ask for your full and prompt 
consideration upon receiving such an application.
    Mr. Nolen. We will certainly give it all due attention, 
sir, once we have that application.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you. 
And in the meantime, I would like to also invite you to 
Arizona, and your team, to join me at Pinal Airpark for a site 
visit at your earliest convenience. I promise you, you will 
have fun, and we will get you some really good Mexican food 
that is close by.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you for the offer. I will certainly do 
everything I can to either get myself there or some of our 
executives there as well.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Excellent.
    Mr. Cole. The chair advises my friend, that is borderline 
bribery.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Then let's scratch that one off the table, 
but, you know, the invite still stands. And you are invited 
too, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cole. In that case, it is a perfectly appropriate 
invitation.
    Mr. Ciscomani. I figured. I actually yield back, Mr. Chair. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I will now go to my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Cline, 
for any questions he may have.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I want to talk to you about 
drones and the special authority provided to the Secretary of 
Transportation under 49 U.S.C. Section 44807, to take a risk-
based approach to authorize certain drone operations on a case-
by-case basis. It is a critical authority to enable operations 
such as drone package delivery that are otherwise unachievable 
under current regulations and must remain in place until FAA 
publishes a regulatory framework that enables routine, 
expanded, and more complex operations.
    What we have seen, though, in the meantime is that the FAA 
has issued only one certificate, durability and reliability 
process, specific to type certification of drones, but the 
actual implementation of the process has been inconsistent and 
lacks clear communication and expectations. Since the FAA has 
not provided specific 44807 criteria and guidance for 
applicants, we are at a loss.
    So as the FAA steers commercial drone applicants away from 
type certification to section 44807, what is the process the 
agency is using to grant exemptions under 44807, and what 
objective criteria are you using to determine the scope and 
scale of an applicant's operation?
    Mr. Nolen. So let me say a couple of things there. Look, 
this is just one where we have just got to do better, and we 
have got to do better than what we have done, and I will just 
own that on the part of the agency. I think, you know, when we 
think about what BVLOS, beyond visual line of sight, has the 
potential to offer, we are committed to getting there.
    I have got a strong new executive director in the Office of 
UAS, our associate administrator in aviation safety services, 
and you have our commitment that we are working through this as 
quickly as we can. We are working to use consensus industry, 
consensus standards. We are looking for ways and we think about 
how do we scale up, how do we get it right.
    We received the BVLOS ARC, Aviation Rulemaking Committee, 
all of their comments. We are adjudicating those, and then we, 
of course, have to turn that into rulemaking. While we wait for 
the rulemaking process, to your point, we are using waivers and 
exemptions, and our team is working to make sure that we can 
assess those and process those as quickly as we can.
    So you have our commitment that we will unstick that part 
of the pipeline, and we will work to get this BVLOS, you know, 
rulemaking out there as soon as we can.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. So we understand that instead of working 
through current regs, you are going to look to a new rulemaking 
and a timeline then as quick as you can. But do you have 
objective criteria that you are using right now to determine 
the scope and scale of an applicant's operation?
    Mr. Nolen. We do have objective criteria that our team is 
using. I don't have all that in front of me, but I would be 
happy to have our team follow up with you on that one.
    [The Department responded for the record:]

        OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR UAS EXEMPTIONS UNDER 49 USC 44807

     The FAA uses a risk-based approach to determine if 
44807 petitioners can operate safely. The FAA conducts a Safety 
Risk Assessment, as outlined in FAA Order 8040.4, Safety Risk 
Management Policy, and FAA Order 8040.6, UAS Safety Risk 
Management Policy.
     When evaluating an exemption, the FAA must 
consider the impact on safety, and whether granting the request 
is in the public interest. The FAA is considering how to enable 
certain BVLOS operations, such as infrastructure inspection and 
package delivery. The public benefit of expanding these drone 
operations is clear, and the FAA is evaluating use scenarios 
for infrastructure and package delivery in certain 
circumstances, with an eye toward more general applicability.

    Mr. Cline. Okay. And how are you communicating those 
criteria to applicants?
    Mr. Nolen. So our communication process, we are working 
very close--in fact, I just yesterday met with the Commercial 
Drone Alliance, so we are in constant communication between the 
Commercial Drone Alliance, and the General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association. We have AUVSI, which is leading 
proponent, who actually sits on our management advisory 
committee. So I would say that we are well connected to the 
drone industry, we have just got to get better at delivering.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. And my understanding is that the 
timeframe, you are working to make sure that that communication 
is done in as efficient and as speedy of a timeframe as 
possible?
    Mr. Nolen. I agree.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Mr. Chairman, with that, I am going to 
yield back the balance of my time. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman very much.
    We will now start a second round of questions.
    Mr. Administrator, actually, I am going to build on what my 
friend from Virginia just raised. I mentioned in my opening 
remarks my interest in uncrewed aircraft and vertical takeoff 
landings and new technologies coming into the marketplace, 
obviously pose great challenges to you at the FAA as to how and 
the speed with which we regulate, but great opportunity for us 
as a country as well to take the lead.
    So how is the FFA--actually the FAA adapting certification 
processes to ensure the safe and efficient integration of these 
novel technologies into our national airspace?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, sir, for me, and I do believe we are at 
this inflection point in history. Never have I been more 
excited, you know, certainly as acting administrator, and I can 
tell you the level of excitement extends throughout our 
certification service, our flight centers' inspectors.
    We have restructured part of the certification process on 
the aircraft side itself to make sure that it is aligned, that 
it is efficient, so that piece is already in play. I have given 
direction to our associate administrator for Aviation Safety to 
ensure that their process is as transparent as we can make it. 
We want to be transparent, we want to be communicative, and we 
want to be moving forward, and we are.
    If I take, you know, eVTOLs, Advanced Air Mobility for the 
moment, right, three things: certify the vehicle; number two, 
you know, set operational standards for how the pilots will 
operate them; and number three, integrate them into the 
airspace. We are working through all of those. Our SFAR, our 
Special Federal Aviation Regulation, for how the pilots will 
operate, it is currently at the Office of Management and 
Budget. We expect to have that published by the time the first 
eVTOL takes flight, either late next year or early 2025.
    The certification of the aircraft itself is pretty 
straightforward, and our team is working diligently there. I 
can tell you we match, EOF calls it special conditions and we 
call it power lift, but essentially we have got the same thing, 
something that takes off, like a helicopter flies, like an 
airplane lands, like a helicopter. I have got thousands of 
hours in helicopters and even more thousands of hours in 
airplanes, so I understand that. And our goal is to make sure 
that we don't lose--and we have no intent of losing our global 
leadership in this space.
    Mr. Cole. That leads me to my next question on this. And I 
am not suggesting we are in any kind of a race, but I know you 
are in communication with comparable authorities in other 
countries. How would you rate where we are at and how we are 
sort of doing in this situation compared to comparable systems?
    Mr. Nolen. A good question. So I traveled the world last 
year--I started in Singapore, Brazil, Paris--I am sorry, 
Farnborough, London, Dubai. The world is moving, but they look 
principally to the U.S. and they look to EASA as the two sort 
of preeminent regulatory authorities. During Farnborough last 
year, we stood up something called the National Aviations 
Authority with ourselves, Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New 
Zealand, to see how do we continue to do that.
    We have established strong partnerships with Japan, with 
South Korea, with Singapore, and with EASA itself. Our goal is 
to make that playing field as level as we can internationally, 
and that we are working at speed so that if an American OEM 
manufacturer of an eVTOL, that they can take that anywhere in 
the world and have a sense that it can be operated, and vice 
versa.
    We are moving at speed. Remember, we have the most complex 
system in the airspace. So you might be able to go put 
something that is a one-off. We want to make sure that we can 
do it at scale in our very complex NAS. But I can tell you, 
that is our priority, and we are really--it is something that 
really excites the agency.
    Mr. Cole. Yeah. I think these technologies offer, honestly, 
some of the most isolated parts of our country the greatest 
opportunity. And I represent some very rural spaces in America. 
Very interested in your thoughts about will we be able to build 
a system, particularly in remote Tribal areas or rural areas, 
they could have access and maybe jump-start where they have 
been in terms of air travel.
    Mr. Nolen. Absolutely. And, in fact, there--you know, I 
won't call out any particular operator, but there are those who 
are already starting to think about how this works in rural 
areas. For example, we are working with the Choctaw Nation. We 
have done a lot of work in this area to say--and they have been 
a strong partner for us. And so as we look across, that is 
exactly one of the use cases we think of is that ability to 
connect smaller communities to larger communities in cities. So 
we are on the cusp of this, and we are going to make it happen.
    Mr. Cole. Well, Mr. Administrator, I was going to try and 
drag you into mentioning the Choctaw Nation because I represent 
part of them, so thank you for anticipating me, and it is even 
better when it is done that way.
    So, with that, I will turn to my good friend, the ranking 
member, for any questions he has.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, we touched in our previous phone call on the 
issue that my colleagues have brought up, the noise issue. And 
I appreciate that we are talking about technology changes, and 
I appreciate those pilots that respect neighborhoods, and I 
want to talk later about how we can get more of them to do this 
and encourage that.
    But I think it is important to fundamentally get back to 
where we start with this, and that is--I am the vice chair of 
the Quiet Skies Caucus. I have been doing this 14 years. In all 
that time I have heard that the FAA has indicated it is 
revisiting its noise policy and reviewing day-night average 
sound level, DNL.
    I don't think anyone argues that that number, 65 DNL, 
wasn't at the time it was put in place just pulled out 
literally of the air, that it wasn't necessarily a rational 
figure based on science or facts. Where are we? I have heard 
for years now there were studies, it was going to change that.
    And part of--what a cynical person could determine is that 
we didn't want to touch it because, if we determine that lower 
levels would impact people, oh, we would have to pay for more 
soundproofing. And I just think it is fair that we treat the 
reality of the situation in that interim time.
    Harvard and Boston University study found that seniors 
exposed to aircraft noise faced increased risk of 
hospitalization for cardiovascular issues in ZIP Codes where 
aircraft noise is higher, the admission rate in hospitals is 
higher for these diseases. So I just want us to deal with what 
the reality is. And if it requires more, then at least we have 
an honest problem to address.
    Mr. Nolen. Well, let me just say, Chairman Quigley--I am 
sorry, Ranking Member Quigley, that our team, we are committed 
to updating that study. We are committed to updating the study, 
and so I would be happy to follow up with your staff on that.
    We recognize that there is at times a relativity to noise. 
We have tried using Metroplex and other tools in our toolkit to 
see how do we maintain the level of efficiency, how do we move 
into--again, CLEEN is one of our top initiatives, as this 
continues to lower emissions and noise. So it is one that we 
are indeed committed to, and we are committed to that level of 
engagement. So I think it is one that requires continuous 
engagement, and you will see that from us.
    Mr. Quigley. When do we think we will get some whiff that 
the study is complete and some conclusions as to what is an 
appropriate DNL or at least some analysis of what different 
levels on that spectrum do to people of different ages and 
health and so forth? When are we finally going to get some 
sense of what the science and health are telling us?
    Mr. Nolen. If you will allow me, I will take that as an 
IOU, and we will certainly come back to you and your staff.
    Mr. Quigley. Okay. And I greatly appreciate that, but 
knowing that your intentions are to do something else, I truly 
and really don't want to talk to your successor next year and 
have the same question answered the same way.
    Mr. Nolen. We will come back to you with some timelines, 
sir.
    [The Department responded for the record:]

  INFORMATION ON THE 65 DAY-NIGHT NOISE LEVEL STUDY AND NOISE POLICY 
                                 REVIEW

     On May 1, 2023, the FAA issued in the Federal 
Register a request for comment on its review of the FAA's civil 
aviation noise policy, with a particular focus on noise metrics 
and noise thresholds. The comment window will close on July 31, 
2023.
     The FAA also announced four virtual public 
webinars between May 16-28, 2023.
     For more information, please visit www.faa.gov/
NoisePolicyReview.

    Mr. Quigley. I appreciate that. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now go to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, 
for questions.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, we have heard a lot about 5G in the last few 
years and the agreement with telecom industries to delay the 5G 
around certain airports. But those deals were cut through July 
1 2023.
    Mr. Nolen. That is correct.
    Mr. Rutherford. So my question is--I am also hearing from 
the industry that they don't think that the altimeters are 
going to be available in the numbers that are going to be 
required. I would like to know, have you heard that and, if so, 
are we going to have to go back to the telecom companies and 
ask for an extension of this restriction?
    Mr. Nolen. Let me say too that we are not planning to ask 
for an extension of this commitment. We have communicated very 
strongly on this issue. I have met with the CEOs of all three 
of the radio altimeter manufacturers, that being Thales, 
Rockwell Collins, and Honeywell. We have talked to industry. 
There is something to be said here.
    We have said all along that we believe that spectrum, that 
5G and commercial aviation can safely coexist. And so we set 
out a pathway, some that started with voluntary mitigations. We 
have allowed the telecos to turn on nearly 121,000 radio 
altimeters--I mean antennas, I am sorry, for their networks. 
But that is just two.
    We have voluntary agreements with Verizon and AT&T. We have 
19 others who are coming on to the spectrum there. So we are 
working across government. We are working with the Federal 
Communications Commission, with the NTIA, to say what we need 
to do. But at the same time, what we said to the industry, this 
is one we have identified a risk and an ask and that requires a 
mitigation, and then we have given them until July of this year 
to retrofit.
    Now, when we get to July 1, if they haven't retrofitted, it 
means they will not be able to take advantage of lower 
visibility approaches. That may result in a divert. If by the 
time we get to next year they haven't retrofitted, they will 
not be able to operate in the NAS.
    So when we look at the effort that it will take, we believe 
that this is the right path to be on to address the risk, all 
the while where we are working off of voluntary mitigations. 
And we have got some of those that go out there farther in 
time. So it is one we are working together, but it takes 
commitment on all sides.
    Mr. Rutherford. So, I mean, condition two and three, that 
is a lot of approaches. Are we really going to do all those 
diverts?
    Mr. Nolen. I don't know what the body of diverts will be. 
If you think of when you have mostly low-weather situations--
and certainly I have flown thousands and thousands and 
thousands of hours and lots of approaches, and I can tell you, 
the number of times that I personally have diverted or had to 
do low-visibility approaches I can count on two hands, and that 
is in 30-plus years.
    Mr. Rutherford. So let me ask this: The number of 
altimeters that are going to be available, do we know what that 
is exactly yet?
    Mr. Nolen. We do. We do know--we know what the global----
    Mr. Rutherford. What percentage?
    Mr. Nolen. So the global fleet populations, if you think 
about 7,000 airplanes that need to be retrofitted and you look 
at that, we are talking commercial. That doesn't----
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Mr. Nolen. We are not talking business aviation or general 
aviation, right----
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Mr. Nolen [continuing]. And helicopters, though all of that 
is in work.
    Mr. Rutherford. Now, when you say commercial, you are 
talking cargo as well, right?
    Mr. Nolen. Absolutely, yes, sir. Indeed.
    Mr. Rutherford. And so what is that percentage?
    Mr. Nolen. So if you look at where we are, there is a level 
of uptake. There are three--I will just do a quick--there are 
three--or four groupings. You have got Group 1 and Group 2. 
Most of those have already been retrofitted because they were 
the most susceptible to 5G interference. Group 3 constitutes 
the bulk of the airplanes that need to be retrofitted, and so 
the radio altimeter manufacturers are working very hard. They 
have upped their level of production in terms of what they 
need. And Group 4 is a little bit further out there.
    Will there be some? You know, it is incumbent upon 
operators to make sure that they are indeed talking with their 
radio altimeter manufacturer. I am talking with them, and I 
have ongoing dialogue with them on a frequent basis, but we are 
holding to our timelines.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And if you can give me a 10-second 
answer to--because I am running out of time--to the Federal 
Flight Deck Officers program. I know that doesn't fall under 
FAA. That is TSA.
    Mr. Nolen. Yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. But they are trying to expand that program. 
It has proven to be very successful.
    Is FAA, are you all committed to making that 100 percent, 
if possible?
    Mr. Nolen. To your point, it is a TSA program. So we don't 
own it, TSA does, but we are happy to, you know, see how that 
all plays out.
    Mr. Rutherford. You like the program? You are pushing the 
program?
    Mr. Nolen. What I can say is, I am not pushing one way or 
another. I have been in that space myself as a captain.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, we would like you to push. Thank you.
    I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman.
    Now we go to my good friend from California, Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, there are just two last things that I wanted 
to address with you. In 2022, there were over 2,450 unruly 
passengers, 831 investigations, and over $8.4 million in fines 
levied. Also, surveys have shown that 70 percent of flight 
attendants have been sexually harassed at work. This is 
incredible and unacceptable. And there are other safety issues.
    For example, I myself have been sitting next to passengers 
sitting in an emergency row. They had had so many drinks, that 
if there was truly an emergency, I don't believe--I am not 
confident that they would be able to open the door or even get 
out of the way.
    So what plans does the FAA have to improve the ways FAA 
protects crews and passengers from physical abuse and 
harassment?
    Mr. Nolen. What I can tell you is that we have an absolute 
zero tolerance for bad behavior. The industry, they are working 
it from their end. We don't own a no-fly list. That rests with 
TSA. But if someone chooses to act up, my message to them is to 
stay home, because if you act out, we are going to come after 
you with everything that we have. And if it is warranted, we 
will refer you to the Justice Department for prosecution.
    There is no tolerance for this, and we are working with 
everything we are doing. I know the industry is working to 
ensure that their crews are well trained, that ability to 
assess whether someone might be under the influence. So it is a 
collective effort on all of our parts, you have seen us go out 
with some prosecutions that we have done and substantial fines, 
that we will continue to do that. And especially as we see 
travel come roaring back, we are going to lean in even more.
    Mrs. Torres of California. I just think that we need to 
increase the public awareness, maybe through PSAs, about what 
is acceptable and unacceptable, including, you know, grooming 
habits. No one wants to sit next to someone who hasn't taken a 
bath in 2 weeks, you know, 6 hours in flight. It is really 
tough, from a personal experience.
    I want to now talk about the AIP grants, which have been 
vital to increasing aviation safety. I want to raise one 
example of a safety issue that could be solved by the AIP in my 
district. The Ontario International Airport has a number of 
former DOD buildings that have been abandoned in the middle of 
the airport. These World War II-era buildings have become a 
place where, at one point, we had homeless individuals, you 
know, trespass, and they had to be removed not just for their 
safety, but there was a big risk that they could enter the 
airfield. These old buildings are in such disrepair that they 
are not safe to enter due to structural and asbestos hazards.
    I understand that Ontario leadership has attempted to work 
with the regional FAA office numerous times to address how to 
best handle these buildings, but there has been a number of 
delays during this process. And I would like to get your 
commitment that this relationship and communication will 
improve. You know, and if I need to be a part of this 
conversation in order for it to be improved, then, please, add 
me to the list.
    Mr. Nolen. Well, thank you. You do have our commitment. I 
will certainly have my team take a look at that and see where 
we are, particularly in Ontario, and we will certainly come 
back to you with an update.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you. I appreciate that, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We now go to my good friend from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani, 
our future host.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Everyone is invited. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Administrator, as you know, the Tucson International 
Airport is located in southern Arizona. That is where I 
mentioned just a second ago. And it is an essential 
transportation facility for thousands of commercial, military, 
and general aviation users. It is also significant for homeland 
defense. It is the largest F-16 training base in the country, 
training many of our allied nation soldiers.
    Now, in response to the safety requirements put in place by 
the FAA, the airport is undergoing a more than $400 million 
airfield safety project, which took around 10 years to plan. 
This project will expand the runway, decreasing the number of 
near misses and runway incursions.
    About 2 years ago, construction finally began enabling the 
project, and about $100 million of work has been accomplished 
to date so far. The next phase is the largest phase of the 
project, and the Tucson Airport Authority has yet to receive a 
solid timeline for funding rollout from the FAA, creating a bit 
of uncertainty there about the future of this project.
    Can I get a commitment from the FAA to support the Tucson 
Airport in completing this project in a timely manner?
    Mr. Nolen. Well, sir, let me say, you have my commitment. 
Let me go back and check with the team, see what the status is 
and we promise to follow up with the status update.
    [The Department responded for the record:]

   UPDATE ON TUCSON AIRPORT AIP FUNDING SUPPORTING RUNWAY EXPANSION 
                                PROJECT

     The engineering design phase of this complex 
program was completed in FY-2021 and construction is underway. 
Future construction phases are anticipated to occur over the 
next 5-7 years.
     The FAA is actively engaged in supporting this 
important safety initiative, including a broad range of 
technical and financial support. The FAA is currently working 
to consider the airport's FY-2023 AIP funding needs, including 
requests for discretionary funding to bolster the airport's 
available AIP entitlement funds.
     Over the last 15 years (since 2008), the FAA has 
awarded more than $263 million in AIP grants to Tucson 
International Airport, including more than $105 million in AIP 
discretionary funds. In addition, since 2020, the airport has 
received more than $28 million in COVID funds.

    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you. I look forward to that. And thank 
you for your attention on this issue. Thank you for being here 
again.
    The airport has been diligent in keeping up with the FAA 
safety regulations, so I want to ensure they are being 
supported in their important safety efforts as well.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you so much for your time.
    Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thanks very much.
    We now go for our last questions from my good friend from 
Virginia, Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you again, Administrator Nolen, for being here today. 
I am really, really sorry that you are not going to be staying 
with the FAA permanently. I think I speak for many people on 
the committee when I say that.
    So I appreciate the chairman and Mr. Rutherford's questions 
about strengthening controller hiring, and I want to go a 
little bit further and do a deeper dive into that, because it 
is my understanding that current FAA staffing targets include 
both certified controllers and noncertified, those we are 
training, right?
    Mr. Nolen [nonverbal response].
    Ms. Wexton. So we know that, currently, only about 50 
percent of trainees are certified and the trainees also can't 
control air traffic while they are in training. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Nolen. That is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. So my concern is that we may have a facility or 
a tower that looks like it is fully staffed on paper, but 
meanwhile there is somebody there who is a trainee and the 
actual certified controllers have to work overtime and 6-day a 
week shifts in order to be able to have coverage there. But it 
will show up on your stats and everything as being completely 
certified and fully staffed. Is that happening now?
    Mr. Nolen. Let me just make a clarification there. So we do 
have--when we think of what--remember, we were previously 
looking at staffing ranges.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Mr. Nolen. We are taking a body of work to look at specific 
targets by facility. But I can tell you, on the 300-plus--the 
22 en-route centers, the 300-plus facilities we have across the 
NAS, we have looked at all of those. Our goal is to ensure that 
we have the level of staffing that meets the demands of the 
NAS, the total NAS plus whatever is within that particular 
sector or that facility.
    So that work is ongoing. We know we have some work to do. 
We are working--which is why we have aggressive training 
targets for both this year and for next year. We are also 
looking at our highest demand areas, be it an en-route center, 
be it a facility, and we have done a lot of work in ensuring 
that they are staffed with the support that they need.
    You do have--to your point, because a controller has to be 
certified by facility, that takes a piece of work. But all of 
that we take into account in terms of what our modeling is.
    Ms. Wexton. So are you saying that there is no situations 
where on paper a facility or a tower could be completely fully 
staffed but, in fact, there is not the required number of fully 
certified ATCs on board?
    Mr. Nolen. There could be. At any particular facility, of 
their number, their required number, some of those could be 
controllers in training, you are absolutely correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So I was glad to see that the working 
group with NATCA and MITRE and those folks working together and 
coming up with targets for fully certified ATCs, so hopefully 
you will continue to work with them. Will you commit to 
continue working with them----
    Mr. Nolen. We will, absolutely. We consider NATCA a strong 
partner. It takes all sides coming together where you have our 
full commitment that we will continue that.
    Ms. Wexton. You will continue to work with them to make 
sure that you have actual certified controllers as the basis of 
your targets----
    Mr. Nolen. We will absolutely commit to working to ensure 
that our controller workforce meets the demand of the NAS and 
by facility.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much.
    With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. That concludes our 
questions.
    I will now go to my good friend, the ranking member, for 
any final comments he cares to offer.
    Mr. Quigley. Mr. Administrator, I want to finish where I 
started, and that is thanking you for your service. And we are 
not through with you yet, so we appreciate what you will do in 
your final days working with us, but we appreciate your 
service. We appreciate your following up. And we know there is 
several issues hanging with members on both sides, and we will 
follow up with you as well. Thank you again.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I want to associate myself with my good friend's remarks 
about your service. We appreciate it very much. As he said, we 
are going to drain every last drop out of you we can possibly 
get, and, frankly, hope to keep in touch with you after that. 
You are really a global leader in air safety and a great asset 
to the traveling public, and this committee would enjoy 
continuing to have your expertise available to go. So we wish 
you well.
    I think as you notice from the tone of the hearing, this is 
not a particularly partisan issue. We all fly. We all have the 
same concerns. Our constituents do. We appreciate the terrific 
job you and your colleagues at the FAA have done for the flying 
public over the years, and certainly want to commit to continue 
to work with you and provide you with the resources you need to 
usher us into the next age.
    Mr. Nolen. Thank you, Chairman Cole.
    Mr. Cole. You are most welcome.
    So with that, the hearing is closed.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the Record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  

                                            Friday, April 28, 2023.

           TRIBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

                               WITNESSES

GARY BOHNEE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE 
    AFFAIRS, SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
BARBARA LITTLE OWL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STANDING ROCK HOUSING AUTHORITY
TONYA PLUMMER, DIRECTOR OF NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING PROGRAMS, ENTERPRISE
LEO SISCO, CHAIRMAN, SANTA ROSA INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE SANTA ROSA 
    RANCHERIA TACHI-YOKUT TRIBE
RUSSELL SOSSAMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMANCHE NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY
ALEX WESAW, TREASURER, POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
    Mr. Cole. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we 
welcome Tribal leaders from across the Nation to discuss the 
unique challenges and opportunities in Tribal housing and 
transportation. And I want to thank the witnesses who are here 
today for taking the time to join us.
    I also want to note--and my witnesses won't be aware of 
this--in some ways, this is sort of a historic hearing. At 
least we look back as far as we can, and even though HUD and 
DOT have a long and important relationship with us, with 
Tribes, we have never had a hearing here over that portion of 
our budget. So I really appreciate you coming.
    And it is very unusual--I think we issued six invitations; 
we never get six acceptances. So I think that tells you how 
important it is, from a Native American standpoint, to be here 
and listen to what our friends and witnesses have to say.
    As a member of the Chickasaw Nation and co-chair of the 
Congressional Native American Caucus, Tribal issues are a top 
priority of mine for this bill. Both the Department of 
Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
have key roles to play in fulfilling the trust obligations of 
the United States Government to Tribes.
    The U.S. Government has a unique Nation-to-Nation 
relationship with Tribes, as our witnesses know very well. We 
assumed certain responsibilities to Tribes over many years of 
negotiation. Part of that responsibility sits with this 
subcommittee as we annually fund DOT and HUD programs that meet 
transportation and housing needs for Tribes.
    At the beginning of this Congress, we had the pleasure of 
learning about Federal funding programs for Tribes from Mr. 
Arlando Teller, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal 
Affairs at DOT, and Ms. Heidi Frechette, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Native Programs at HUD.
    As a matter of fact, I think Ms. Frechette is actually here 
today in the audience, and we want to thank both her and Mr. 
Teller for educating us about their agencies' Tribal programs, 
and we are very excited to build on that knowledge and as we 
learn from Tribal organizations about their needs and 
experiences.
    We know that funds for Tribes and DOT and HUD have not kept 
pace with the growth of overall Federal spending. When housing 
programs under Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act, known as NAHASDA, were first funded in 1998, 
they made up 2.6 percent of HUD's total appropriations.
    For fiscal year 2023, NAHASDA programs made up only 1.4 
percent of appropriations. For transportation, Tribal fundings 
make up less than 1 percent of DOT's appropriations for fiscal 
year 2023.
    And, when I make these points, I want to make it very 
clear: I do not make them in a partisan sense. This has been 
true whether it is a Republican administrations or Democratic 
administrations. And I don't think it is deliberate, but I 
think sometimes out of sight is out of mind. And that is one of 
the reasons for this hearing today and to let our members know 
that we need to think seriously about having lost a lot of 
ground over a long period of time.
    This is all the while Native Americans have continued--this 
is, you know, still, all the while Native Americans have 
continued to contribute to economic development as well as 
serve this country admirably in the Armed Services. Native 
Americans serve in the U.S. Armed Forces at five times the 
national average.
    We have a duty entrusted to us over decades to keep our 
promises to these communities while respecting Tribal 
sovereignty.
    We are very grateful for the witnesses who have traveled 
from across the country to provide their perspectives on 
housing and transportation.
    Joining us here today--and if I mispronounce the name, 
correct me--Mr. Russell Sossamon, is that--
    Mr. Sossamon. That is correct.
    Mr. Cole. Okay, good. I have Comanches in my district, so I 
do not want to mispronounce a Comanche name--and the executive 
director of the Comanche Nation Housing Authority in my home 
State of Oklahoma.
    Director Tonya Plummer, director of Native American housing 
programs at Enterprise Community Partners, a key nonprofit 
housing partner for several HUD programs.
    Mr. Gary Bohnee, special assistant for the Office of 
Congressional and Legislative Affairs for the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona.
    Chairman Leo Sisco, from the Santa Rosa Indian Community of 
Santa Rosa Rancheria--is it Tachi-Yokut?
    Mr. Sisco. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Okay, got lucky--Tribe in Oklahoma.
    Ms. Barbara Little Owl, director of Standing Rock Housing 
Authority in North and South Dakota.
    And Dr. Alex Wesaw--correct?
    Mr. Wesaw. Yes.
    Mr. Cole. Okay--the Treasurer of the Pokagon band of 
Potawatomi Indians in Michigan and Indiana.
    And I want to thank each of you for joining us this 
morning, and I look forward to your testimony.
    With that, let me recognize my good friend, the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for any opening remarks he cares to 
make.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by 
reminding ourselves of what Jack Benny said, 39 again, so we 
are wishing you a happy birthday.
    And, Mr. Chairman, before I really begin my prepared 
statement, I will also say this. I think you used the word 
``responsibility'' in talking about our country and Tribal 
communities.
    I think that responsibility stems from the extraordinarily 
tragic history that we have to address to this day, and I would 
love to be part of what we do moving forward. And I want to 
extend my appreciation to you for convening this diverse panel.
    I also want to say how impressed I am by your commitment to 
Tribal issues and how it relates to our bill. Communities are 
fortunate to have such a strong advocate in you ensuring that 
Congress focuses on the challenges faced.
    It has been educational for me so far, and I look forward 
to learning more. And there is much to learn from our Tribal 
communities, not only related to basic housing and 
infrastructure but how the lack of modern and resilient housing 
and transportation impacts the lives of Native Americans.
    According to a 2017 HUD report, between 42,000 and 85,000 
Native Americans live with family or friends out of necessity, 
are unhoused, or live places not meant for long-term shelter.
    At that time, it was also estimated that 68,000 units of 
new affordable housing were needed to replace substandard or 
overcrowded housing, a need that has likely increased in these 
last 6 years.
    I can only imagine the compounding effects this has had on 
the daily lives of children, the elderly, and the disabled.
    According to the DOT, Tribes have faced prolonged 
disinvestment in transportation infrastructure. Sixty percent 
of the roads on Tribal lands are unpaved, and there are a 
disproportionate number of roadway fatalities.
    To know that a Native American child is less likely to 
return home from school because of a roadway accident compared 
to non-Native counterparts is unacceptable. More can and must 
be done to improve the safety and livelihood of these 
communities.
    We are here today to understand how this subcommittee can 
better address the existing and emerging needs of Tribal 
communities.
    We also hope to hear lessons learned that we can apply to 
programs at HUD and DOT. Your experiences and knowledge are 
invaluable to this understanding.
    Thank you all again for being here today, and special thank 
you again to Dr. Wesaw for traveling from the Midwest to share 
your perspective, which will be influential to my understanding 
of these issues in and around my district. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Cole. I thank my friend for his, as usual, thoughtful 
remarks.
    And let's begin. Actually, we will recognize you first, Mr. 
Sossamon. Your full written testimony will be included in the 
record. You are recognized for 3 minutes. If you run a little 
long, don't worry about it. But we had to cut down the normal 5 
because we have a lot more witnesses than normal, and we want 
to make sure you all have a chance to give us your point of 
view.
    So, with that, the gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Sossamon. Thank you, Chairman Cole and Ranking Member 
Quigley, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    What I would like to focus on today is the formula Indian 
Housing Block Grant and the competitive Indian Housing Block 
Grant and the Indian Community Development Block Grant. Those 
are the three programs that are most utilized by Comanche 
Nation.
    Now, when we look at these, as you mentioned, relative to 
HUD's overall budget, the portion that Native Americans receive 
actually has been shrinking over the years.
    In 2021, it was approximately 2.5 percent, and now it is 
right at 1 percent. It is 1.08 percent. So, when we look at the 
appropriations for 2023, the amount that was appropriated is, 
let's see, was $772 million. Okay.
    Now, when we look at from the beginning of NAHASDA through 
2023 and we take into account inflation, the actual amount of 
772, is $311 million less than what it should be just to keep 
up with inflation since its inception.
    And a lot of that is due to, for over two decades, the 
funding was flatlined. Okay? The 2024 amount, $820 million for 
the competitive block grant is actually $296 million less than 
the overall funding should be, just to keep up with inflation, 
because the dollars from the beginning of NAHASDA until now 
have--the buying power has been reduced to about 72 percent. 
Okay? And the same is true when we look at the competitive.
    And, if we take even the competitive block grant and the 
formula block grant and put them together, it still is about 
$161 million less than the total amount that would be needed 
just to keep up with the inflation.
    Now, not only is inflation high, but we have to look at the 
Indian population and the need has grown over that period as 
well.
    Community Development Block Grant has been level funding, 
and currently it is $75 million annually, and that really needs 
to be around $100 million, based on the demand and the need for 
it.
    So I thank you for this opportunity and hope to visit with 
you more in the future. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. And, again, if I recall correctly, just to note 
for the record, you are actually Choctaw, not Comanche, so how 
a Choctaw pulls off working with the Comanche is a big deal.
    Mr. Sossamon. Yes, actually, I am a member of the Comanche 
Nation, and I try to pronounce the Comanche names correctly as 
well.
    Mr. Cole. And I understand you ran the Choctaw Housing 
Agency for a number of years.
    Mr. Sossamon. Yes, sir, for 19 years.
    Mr. Cole. Very good.
    Mr. Sossamon. I am been a Comanche for 6.
    Mr. Cole. We now recognize Director Plummer for your 
opening statement. Again, your full written testimony will be 
included in the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes.
    Ms. Plummer. Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, members 
of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to share 
Tribal perspectives on housing.
    I am an enrolled citizen of the Sisseton Wahpeton, and I 
carry Dakota Sioux, Assiniboine, and Cree heritage. I am also 
the director of Native American housing programs for Enterprise 
Community Partners.
    There is a concept that I have learned from our traditional 
homes that I want to share with you today. When our traditional 
lodges are set up, they are set up to face the east where the 
sun rises. The tepee itself is a symbol of the womb of birth, 
and stepping out of the tepee at sunrise is the dawn of a new 
day and a rebirth.
    When we apply this to the business world, it is a concept 
that we have come to know as sunrise thinking, the belief that 
there is always a fresh new way of thinking about solutions and 
better ways forward.
    So today I am asking you, we are asking you, our lawmakers, 
to step into the night of our experience and better understand 
it and to practice sunrise thinking as you look at new 
solutions.
    Our Tribal structure is focused around the family, which is 
built around the home. A stable home is the cornerstone of 
social, emotional, spiritual, and economic stability.
    Housing is economic development. Without it, an imbalance 
remains, and we do not have the bootstraps by which we can pull 
up our own boots.
    Simply put, there is no way for Tribes and Tribal members 
to improve their socioeconomic status, as NAHASDA intended, 
without homes. We all want new small businesses and jobs on 
Tribal land, but for that to happen, there must be homes.
    I understand that this committee and the entirety of 
Congress face challenging discussions and decisions about the 
debt limit and questions about the appropriate level of 
discretionary funding.
    However, upholding the Federal trust responsibility and 
keeping the promises made to Tribes is not discretionary. The 
track record of a long line of broken treaties does not justify 
continued disregard for these promises, regardless of the 
political negotiating of the day.
    Indians were never intended to be a line item on a budget. 
We have always been, and always will be, the most elemental 
part of the fabric of this great Nation.
    The most recent data from 2017 shows 34 percent of 
households living on Tribal land lack plumbing, electricity or 
heat. Sixteen percent are in grossly overcrowded homes, and to 
remedy the overcrowding, 68,000 new homes are needed on 
reservations and Tribal lands. And the problem is worse today 
in 2023.
    Within my written testimony, I expand upon the legal 
support that establishes the Federal trust responsibility the 
government holds to Tribes as a moral obligation of the highest 
responsibility and trust.
    I further expand on the ways that trust responsibility 
extends to housing and also the way that NAHASDA and the HEARTH 
Act provide a framework for HUD to fulfill the government 
treaty obligations. And yet the promise of these bills have 
never been truly met.
    Also, within the body of my testimony, there is background 
on three key bills coming before you soon, all that will 
improve processes and capital flow--oh, gosh, I am so short on 
time, so I am hoping a lot of this comes out in some of the 
questions.
    Mr. Cole. Take a little bit of time. Go ahead.
    Ms. Plummer. I have just to say, it is a travesty that as a 
direct endorsement underwriter, I could do multiple deals, 
several deals on any given day on fee simple land with multiple 
financing options for each of those deals.
    And yet when I step into that work in Indian Country, on 
trust land, I have got maybe one or two. It is just a travesty 
that there are no other options for mortgage finance for Native 
Americans to meet a number of credit profiles.
    The result is that Indian Country is effectively redlined 
in that. It is time for those barriers to be removed, and I 
urge you to look at both the Tribal Trust Land Home Ownership 
Act of 2023, the Native American Rural Home Ownership 
Improvement Act, and the Native American Direct Loan 
Improvement Act of 2023, all key partners along with HUD to 
provide solutions on a full spectrum.
    I just want to acknowledge too that there has been a trend 
in collaborations seen in the HUD Tribal Intergovernmental 
Advisory Committee, in USDA's Rural Partners Network. We 
applaud these efforts.
    Enterprise, ourselves, have signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the U.S. Department of the Interior to lean 
into looking for solutions for better affordable housing 
solutions and bringing philanthropy to the picture.
    We celebrate all of these. However, the Federal trust 
responsibility remains, and these efforts must complement, but 
never replace, deep Tribal consultation and also focused 
working groups with practitioners on the ground who understand 
how these programs are and aren't working and can really get 
into the weeds of the execution.
    Sometimes we talk very high level, but I think a call for 
working groups to get into the weeds of things is necessary.
    So, again, thank you for your time, thank you for allowing 
me to speak today.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you for traveling such a long way and being 
here.
    Mr. Bohnee, we will go to you next, and you are recognized 
for 3 minutes, but if it takes a little longer, don't worry 
about it.
    Mr. Bohnee [speaking in native language]. Good morning, 
Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, and members of the 
subcommittee. On behalf of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
Community, I am happy to share views on Tribal transportation 
programming. Specifically, we seek your support for greater 
funding for Tribal transportation programs.
    Our community, which is located in the East Valley of the 
Phoenix metropolitan area, there are more than 650,000 vehicles 
that travel through our community each day. And while our 
connectivity with other jurisdictions encourages economic 
development, it also creates many unique and negative impacts.
    For example, a significant number of vehicles use community 
roadways as an alternative to regional arteries. This cut-
through traffic increases wear and tear on roads and creates 
the potential for safety issues in and around our residential 
areas.
    The community does work very closely with the neighboring 
jurisdiction to address safety issues that include reducing 
severe and fatal crashes, reducing cut-through traffic, speed 
reduction, and increasing lighting on secondary roads.
    But, as you can imagine, this puts a tremendous strain on 
the community's public safety and public works agencies. As 
such, we believe Federal Tribal transportation programs are 
significantly underfunded.
    For example, on an annual basis, our community receives 
only $92,000 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for road 
maintenance. This represents 6.5 percent of the total need. As 
a result, the community supplements Federal funding each year 
to the tune of $1.4 million.
    For the community's 5-year new construction plan, BIA 
funding will only provide 3 percent of the overall budget.
    Our reservation holds over 190 miles of roadways, included 
in the National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory, about 
25 percent of which are unpaved. At current funding levels, it 
will take approximately 50 years for us to complete these 
projects.
    Clearly there is not enough funding to meet basic 
maintenance needs of our current roads. As a result, we believe 
an increase in funds for Tribal transportation will 
significantly help Tribes establish and maintain 
transportation--excuse me--transportation programs.
    We appreciate the work that has been done to increase set-
asides in Federal appropriations, highway safety and related 
programs, as well as reducing local mass requirements for 
competitive grants.
    Fortunately, the community has been uniquely successful in 
applying for competitive DOT grants. In 2019, the community was 
awarded a $49 million U.S. DOT Nationally Significant Federal 
Lands and Tribal Project program grant.
    The grant will support Pima road--the Pima road 
redevelopment between the community and the city of Scottsdale.
    When complete, it will improve safety, decrease cut-through 
traffic, and expand opportunities for economic development 
along one of our major thoroughfares. This is the definition of 
a major product that will have a regional impact.
    It is worth noting, however, this grant at the time was the 
only project awarded that primarily funded work within Indian 
Country.
    We hope the committee will support policy for these kinds 
of projects that have a transformative impact in Tribal 
communities.
    Thank you, members of the subcommittee. I am happy to 
answer any questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Chairman Sisco, you are recognized next for 3 minutes. If 
it takes a little longer, that is fine, and certainly your 
written statement will be included in the record.
    Mr. Sisco. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cole, and 
members of the subcommittee. My name is Leo Sisco. I serve as 
the chairman of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe. I 
would like to thank Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, and 
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify 
today.
    Our Tribal Rancheria is located south of Fresno, 
California, in Kings County, just a few miles from the naval 
air station in Lemoore.
    The people of the Santa Rosa Indian Community have worked 
tirelessly to rise to the challenge of re-establishing our 
cultural identity and building our economic self-sufficiency.
    Over the last nine decades, through efforts of the Tribe to 
restore its historical homelands, where we have lived since 
time in memorial, the Tribe's Rancheria has grown to 
approximately 3,200 acres of land.
    Our Tribe has about 1,200 enrolled members, many of whom 
who live on or near the Rancheria. We pride ourselves with 
having a strong and productive relationship with our local 
governmental agency, our partner, Kings County.
    The roads that run through our Tribal lands are county 
roads. Therefore, we must coordinate with Kings County in order 
to address our road repair needs. We need Federal funds to be 
made accessible for this purpose.
    Our Tribe has long been concerned about the poor road 
conditions on and around the Rancheria, especially as we 
continue to expand the Tribe's economic base, which will 
attract more vehicle traffic to the area.
    The area around the Rancheria is primarily rural, 
residential, and agricultural, and Central Union Elementary 
School is nearby. As you can imagine, this results in 
significant traffic on the roads in the area, including heavy 
farm vehicles as well as school buses.
    In concert with our Compact negotiations with the State of 
California, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with 
Kings County in 2020, to address public safety issues related 
to our planned development.
    This includes traffic and road improvements as well as 
building a new fire station and training facility located on 
the Rancheria, all at the sole expense of the Tribe.
    The Tribe has been administering some transportation 
resources through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is working 
with the Department of Transportation and other available 
resources to address our increasing transportation 
infrastructure needs.
    We have also been working consistently with the county to 
achieve the goals set forth in our MOU. Under the terms of the 
MOU, the county depends on the Tribe to finance public safety 
initiatives on and around the Rancheria, and the Tribe depends 
on the county to provide an experienced workforce and the 
necessary equipment.
    Any funding the Tribe receives through the Department of 
Transportation should permit the Tribe to pass those funds 
through to the county, which not only has the capacity to 
complete the necessary repairs but also has exclusive 
jurisdiction over many of the roads around the Rancheria.
    Improving the transportation infrastructure within Indian 
Country has a direct impact on Tribal self-sufficiency.
    Specifically, allowing Tribal recipients to exercise their 
self-governance to pass Federal resources through the local 
governments for infrastructure improvements and on shared roads 
is the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to achieve 
safer roads across this country.
    Again, we thank the subcommittee for this consideration of 
these issues that are vitally important to the Tachi-Yokut 
Tribe and all of Indian Country. I am happy to answer any 
questions that the subcommittee members may have. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Little Owl, you are recognized next for 3 minutes. Your 
written testimony will be placed in the record. I have had the 
privilege--actually, I have had the privilege of visiting about 
three or four of these reservations, but yours is certainly 
among them, and, again, it is good to see you here, welcome.
    Ms. Little Owl. Thank you. So I may take a little longer 
than the 3 minutes.
    Mr. Cole. Don't worry. We are not very brutal with the 
gavel around, so you will be fine.
    Ms. Little Owl. Good morning. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on the funding priorities of Standing Rock Housing 
Authority.
    My name is Barbara Little Owl, also known as Wawi Umni Maka 
O'tomn Win, or Universal Whirlwind Woman. I am a member of the 
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and executive director of the housing 
authority.
    Tribal housing is a critical treaty and trust 
responsibility of the United States. Tribal housing was bought 
and paid for by the treaties and agreements we made with the 
United States, ceding vast lands and resources.
    NAHASDA block grants have been funded the same level since 
they were created in 1998. It is impossible for us to provide 
safe and secure housing on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation 
using 1998 dollars.
    The United States is not living up to its end of the deal.
    Standing Rock is a large land-based Tribe with 2 million 
acres in the reservation and about 16,000 members. We have 810 
homes that can only serve about 12 percent of the population.
    We have almost 300 people waiting on our list for housing. 
Many of our members are homeless or living in overcrowded and 
unsafe conditions.
    We get $5.7 million annual funding from NAHASDA block 
grant. We have an unmet need of $4 million each year. We need 
$4 million more each year just to maintain the basic services. 
We would need double or triple this amount to construct new 
homes and make investments in housing infrastructure.
    At current funding levels, starting in March, each year we 
are forced to slow operations, cut overtime, avoid expenses so 
that we can keep up with the minimum repairs and keep our staff 
employed throughout the year.
    Additional funding received under ARPA and ERAP helped, but 
restrictions on funding made it difficult to spend quickly. 
Like a lot of Tribes, we had to return ERAP funds to Treasury. 
States did not have to return their ERAP funds.
    We need the Tribal ERAP funds to be reprogrammed so that we 
can use them to maintain and repair our existing homes.
    The increase proposed by the President for fiscal year 2024 
is appreciated, but we need double or triple the current 
funding levels to keep up with the inflation and meet basic 
needs.
    We are getting the same dollars that we got in 1998 and 
being asked to stretch that dollar further and further. I must 
decide whether I am going to use that dollar to make repairs, 
pay my staff, pick up trash, et cetera, et cetera.
    The chronic underfunding of Tribal housing was well 
documented in the 2018 Broken Promises report. We ask the 
subcommittee to take long overdue action to fulfill treaty 
obligations and provide the funding needed.
    Safe and secure housing is the foundation for every other 
aspect of life. A safe and secure home is needed for our youth 
to succeed in school, our members to be productive at work, our 
elders to live long lives, and for us to maintain healthy 
communities.
    When our members are forced to live under duress and 
uncertainty caused by homelessness, overcrowding, unsafe 
housing, it impacts every part of their lives.
    In addition to substantial funding increases, we ask that 
the subcommittee make NAHASDA block grant funding mandatory to 
provide advanced--or provide advanced appropriations.
    Tribal housing is as important as Indian healthcare, 
contract support costs, and other programs that get advanced or 
mandatory funding. Treaty obligations like housing should not 
be subject to discretionary appropriations.
    We get funding, our first priority is to repair our housing 
stock before we can even think about new home construction. We 
need to make our existing homes safe and secure. We need base 
funding for this to work.
    Funding for grants is competitive, takes staff time, and is 
not reliable from year to year.
    For our units to be--a lot of our units are old and in need 
of repairs. About 40 percent of our housing is substandard or 
lacks basic utilities. For example, water service lines are 
damaged from vegetation breaking lines and causing sewers to 
back up into the homes.
    The average cost per unit, from $50- to $90,000. The cost 
of repair for all of our units would range from $5 million to 
$72 million.
    We also have to deal with home contamination by meth. Meth 
use and production can completely contaminate a home. We have 
to gut these homes, take them down to the studs, and often 
replace HVAC units and ductwork.
    The lack of funding of repairs results in a vicious cycle. 
When we have vacant and boarded-up homes, they get vandalized 
and become hotspots for criminal activity.
    Part of the problem is a lack of law enforcement. We have 
six patrol officers and only one or two of them per shift for a 
reservation bigger--or as large as the State of Delaware.
    We ask that the subcommittee recognize the direct 
connection between law enforcement and safe housing.
    Finally, we need more funding to operate our housing 
program. Our employees can make more per hour working at 
McDonald's, and we are able to pay them amounts that aren't 
even close to that.
    We have a number of staff vacancies we cannot fill. We have 
plans to provide homeowner education and training, but this 
also requires time and funding.
    We spend a lot of time trying to get by, and we can never 
get ahead. This has a direct impact on our members and creates 
a cycle of despair and housing insecurity. This is not what we 
negotiated in our treaties with the United States.
    It is time for the subcommittee to fulfill these treaty 
obligations and provide the housing that was bought and paid 
for when we ceded vast lands and resources to the United 
States.
    We respectfully request the mandatory funding needed to 
provide housing on our reservation. Please take action to 
double or triple the NAHASDA block grant funding. This would 
also allow us to meet basic housing needs.
    Once we catch up from the past 20 years, we can start to 
take action, provide housing that our members truly deserve. 
Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Wesaw, your opening statement, you are recognized 
for 3 minutes. If you need a little longer, don't worry about 
that. Your written remarks will be placed in the record. You 
are recognized.
    Mr. Wesaw. Thank you [speaking in native language].
    So greetings and good morning. Alex Wesaw is my name. I am 
part of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. I am a part of 
the Turtle Clan, and actually I live in Columbus, Ohio, where I 
recently finished my Ph.D. in city and regional planning. So it 
is a real honor to be here with you this morning.
    Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Quigley, members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on our 
Tribe's experience with HUD, NAHASDA, and the technical support 
we have received over the years.
    The Pokagon Band is unique in that we have got reservations 
in two States--southwestern Michigan and northern Indiana. 
Actually, our service area spans five congressional districts, 
and when you think about where all of our citizens are, it is a 
whole lot more than that.
    So we have got citizens all over the place, and they are in 
need of quality housing. So the Federal funds that we receive 
is critical to that, to being able to provide that for our 
citizens to get them to come back to our homeland.
    We receive the bulk of our housing funds from HUD, between 
Indian Housing Block Grants and the Indian Community 
Development Block Grants. And over the years, our Tribe has 
used the ICDBG funds to pay for sewer and water lines and other 
infrastructure for our housing developments.
    We have often leveraged those funds with BIA road funds to 
build out our housing infrastructure, which is really, really 
helpful.
    In the last few years, HUD has also awarded us CARES and 
ARPA funds, and we are particularly grateful for the ARPA funds 
that had very few restrictions on them so the Tribe could make 
decisions for itself.
    We recently used some of those funds to acquire 104 
apartment units, and we have renovated a 10-room temporary 
lodging facility. This has put a big dent in filling our 
housing needs.
    And the additional HUD funds--additional HUD funds are also 
being spent to renovate these properties to make them the 
quality housing that we expect for our citizens.
    The investment is fueling the local economy. We believe in 
being good neighbors, and when the region does well, we do well 
too, so we are really happy about that.
    We also operate a mix of low-income housing and non-HUD-
funded housing because, when we are able to provide mixed-
income housing, it is truly a community. When you are not 
focusing on what folks make, you are just focused on a 
community being together. That is part of our philosophy.
    Like other regions in the country, we are facing high 
inflation, skyrocketing rents, and housing shortages. When you 
couple that with construction costs almost doubling in the past 
few years and the labor shortages in our region that we are 
facing, it is extremely difficult to meet our housing demands 
for our citizens.
    We currently have a waiting list of 150 citizen families 
who are eager to move back to our Tribal homelands, but they 
can't because we are not able to provide the housing or assist 
them with providing housing yet. But it is essentially that--
the apartment complex we bought is going to make a big dent as 
well.
    NAHASDA has been--is vital to maintaining Tribal 
sovereignty, and it is an important distinction between Tribal 
housing organizations and non-Tribal housing organizations.
    However, we do have a number of concerns we would like to 
share with the subcommittee. With recent staff turnover at 
regional ONAP offices, we have seen an influx of new HUD staff 
members who sometimes don't always remember that Tribes are 
allowed self-determination in housing matters. And I hope that 
a training priority for ONAP offices and other Federal 
employees can be considered.
    Self-determination is a hallmark of Tribal sovereignty, and 
we are concerned with the lack of knowledge at HUD. Tribes are 
being--in our experience, we have been treated like public 
housing authorities, not sovereign Nations, and I sincerely 
hope this can be addressed.
    Ever-changing direction from HUD and other Federal entities 
makes it challenging to remain in compliance. Our primary goal 
at the end of the day is to make sure those that need housing, 
we are able to connect them with it.
    We shouldn't be spending all of our time completing Federal 
reports to various offices. The bureaucratic nightmare that 
this creates I hope can be streamlined moving forward.
    Given the labor and supply chain difficulties in the past 
few years, the HUD grant timelines to utilize Federal funds 
have been challenging, and procurement policies are sometimes 
cumbersome and delays our progress forward.
    We often have to submit housing renovation and development 
projects out to bid and obtain more than one competitive bid 
from contractors, and some of the contractors in our region 
actually cite that as a reason for not bidding on the work that 
we are trying to get done. And they choose not to work with us 
because of that, when we are using Federal funds, and it has 
created a real problem for our Tribe.
    Now, I know one thing that is not in my testimony but I 
would like to comment on is cannabis is a topic that is in our 
community. There are a number of States that are legalizing it.
    I fully recognize that it is still federally illegal, but 
it is creating a lot of tension that exists when States, like 
Michigan and Illinois around us, are legalizing it for adult 
use, but the Federal guidelines say, no, and we have actually 
had to evict people from our housing because of that. And I 
hope that is something that you all could address at some point 
because it would help our community out quite a bit.
    [Speaking in native language.] for your time, Mr. Chairman, 
and members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing. I am 
excited for your questions, and happy birthday, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cole. Very smart way to end your testimony. First of 
all, No. 1, thank all of you for your testimony.
    I advise the members I will be stricter with you on time 
than I was with our guests, and please recognize that if one of 
us--and I will open actually with a question that is relevant 
to all of you, and all of you can comment on it if you choose 
to, but we will have to stay within our 5 minutes.
    So, if you can do that, if you can shorten your answer, 
that just helps everybody else on the--and all the other 
witnesses have an opportunity to make their point.
    Let me start with a very general question if I may, and I 
will posit right up front a point that all of you made. The 
resources here have simply not kept pace with the needs, let 
alone the obligations of the Federal Government toward Tribal 
Nations.
    Having said that, can you talk about or tell us how your 
working relationship with the Federal agency has been, whether 
it is HUD or DOT, in your respective area of expertise or 
administration?
    I will start with you, Mr. Sossamon and just work right 
down the line.
    Mr. Sossamon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, our 
relationship in the Southern Plains region with the ONAP office 
is really very good. We are able to communicate. They are 
really responsive to us and what our needs are, seem to care, 
and listen to what we have to say.
    Of course, there is always room for improvement in any 
relationship when you are trying to communicate, but overall it 
is a good relationship.
    Mr. Cole. Good.
    Ms. Plummer.
    Ms. Plummer. I would concur overall, I think, a 
collaborative relationship. We endeavor to have an increasingly 
collaborative relationship, setting a tenor for sort of an 
iterative process around improving programs and being able to 
advocate for what is really happening on the ground when you 
are implementing those programs.
    It is not all working. I guess two perspectives. I worked 
closely with HUD from a Tribal perspective, as a Native CDFI 
director working on Tribal economic development with a Tribe 
who was adopting the HEARTH Act and trying to streamline those 
residential leasing processes with some of the leasing 
documents within HEARTH so that we could see it all the way 
through to fruition. And so develop those relationships there.
    Now I have the opportunity to work with Tribes all across 
the country and in Alaska and those in Hawaii as well, and the 
needs are different in every area. The economies are different. 
The relationship to land is different. The populations are 
different.
    And so there is no cookie-cutter approach that is going to 
work across the board, and we find ourselves needing to tailor 
answers to that specific Tribal economy. So it is difficult to 
have those conversations with the Federal agency.
    And largely I would say really, really trying to increase 
cross-agency collaboration with USDA, HUD, the Interior 
Department, VA, and all of those is a big part of the full 
solution.
    Mr. Cole. Running short of time here, so let me move on if 
I may.
    Ms. Plummer. That is it.
    Mr. Cole. Mr. Bohnee.
    Mr. Bohnee. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the 
quick answer is we have a good relationship with the Department 
of Transportation. We had staff on the negotiated rulemaking 
committee for implementation of the newly FAST Act, to make it 
more user friendly for Tribes.
    I would say that, with all the new laws that have been 
enacted, part of the issue comes back to the Tribes in the way 
of capacity, in the way of staff having to identify, understand 
the pots of funding that are there, and have the capacity to 
apply and spend large amounts of time on formulating proposals 
for a wide variety of projects.
    And I think, as I mentioned in my testimony, lastly, the 
Tribal transportation funds through DOT have a cap on what can 
be used for road maintenance. And, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, road maintenance is an annual cost that we absorb.
    So, perhaps, if the cap could be lifted, you know, Tribes 
would have more flexibility in identifying maintenance versus 
new construction. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    Chairman Sisco.
    Mr. Sisco. Our Tribe's interaction with the Department of 
Transportation hasn't been extensive to date, but we hope that 
our experience going forward will be positive. But we are 
encouraged about the recent discussions with the Department of 
Transportation regarding the many funding opportunities that 
could be utilized to the Tribe's road and infrastructure needs. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    Ms. Little Owl.
    Ms. Little Owl. Thank you. Our relationship with HUD has 
been pretty solid. It really has. It has been positive. There 
is always opportunities to grow, collaboration, having the 
right people at the right table. This is not about pointing 
fingers. This is about working towards a better future for 
everybody within our communities as well as trying to produce 
some economic stability and development.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    Dr. Wesaw.
    Mr. Wesaw. Yeah. In the past, we have had really great 
relationships. I think just, whenever there is turnover, it 
would be great for folks to have more training and to simply 
get out and talk with us, come and see what we are doing in our 
communities. That would help out a lot.
    Mr. Cole. Well, thank you all very much. I just say this to 
make the point: I am kind of encouraged broadly by what I hear, 
just in the sense of, if they had more resources, you know, 
that we don't have as many problems as we might have had with 
people working with one another. They just don't have enough to 
bring to the table, some cases.
    With that, let me go to my friend, the ranking member, Mr. 
Quigley, for any questions he may have.
    Mr. Quigley. Thanks again, Chairman.
    Dr. Wesaw, you were referencing the challenges working 
across multiple sources of funding to support sometimes simple 
projects. If you could do a deeper dive on that and what 
those--you know, trying to put those streams together and what 
we can do.
    You were talking about how we would streamline this and 
give you a chance to tell us exactly how that would work and 
what some of the suggestions are.
    Mr. Wesaw. Yeah, I think the more flexible the funding can 
be, with the least amount of restrictions, is the way to go. 
With ARPA funds particularly, we have been able to provide more 
services to our community and citizens directly, whether they 
are in the Tribal area or whether they are not living in our 
recognized service area. That would go a long way. I know our 
citizens really, really appreciated that.
    It is just the reporting requirements that our housing 
staff is having to do, it actually takes away from being able 
to do the projects and get to build housing, and we are focused 
on compliance. So that can become so cumbersome at times that, 
if we did not have to do that, I think it would go a long way.
    Mr. Quigley. To the staff you have, anyone else, I mean, 
how much training does it take to understand all that and how 
it flows and the timing that goes with it?
    Mr. Wesaw. Well, we have been lucky that we have had staff 
that have been there probably in the decade since we have been 
reaffirmed. A lot of our housing staff have been there for a 
while, but certainly anytime there is something new, we have 
got to send folks to train. That takes time away from getting 
the work done for our community.
    Mr. Quigley. Anyone else? Ms. Little Owl, you want to 
comment on that?
    Ms. Little Owl. Thank you. I would completely agree being 
that we also reside within two States: North Dakota as well as 
South Dakota. We have a lot of restrictions that we have trying 
to get contractors to come to the reservation boundaries.
    It is easier for them to stay within the major cities that 
they are in, to be able to do the work there than to have to 
come to the reservation and spend the extra costs, with the 
lack of places for them to stay, the extra cost of fuel, the 
extra cost of their wages.
    We also struggle with restrictions that we have especially 
with, like, our TERO. A lot of them do not want to run through 
TERO. My staff, also similar situation, is the compliances. We 
have to focus between compliances. We have to focus on getting 
training. So we are trying to spread our very, very limited 
staff very, very thin. But we also have to have a quick 
turnaround and make sure that we are complying with IRS 
regulations as well as HUD.
    Mr. Quigley. So how far do most of those contractors have 
to go, and what----
    Ms. Little Owl. Well over an hour.
    Mr. Quigley. So they don't stay; they have to commute an 
hour each way?
    Ms. Little Owl. Correct. So either they are going to be 
staying in someplace in Mobridge, South Dakota, or they are 
going to be staying in Bismarck-Mandan, North Dakota. So their 
travels--we do have casinos that they can stay in, but, again, 
if we have other things happening, they are going to have to 
take that cost.
    I know that we have had contractors that kind of was able 
to stay in their own--like, they brought campers and stuff down 
at some point in time, but that is not really sufficient for 
them to be doing that as well. There is always a cost to stuff.
    Mr. Quigley. And I assume at some point in time they just 
tell you it is not worth it?
    Ms. Little Owl. A lot of contractors--me coming into this 
position, we had contractors prior to, and it wasn't worth 
their time to be trying to consider or trying to do 
construction work or contract work for our housing.
    Mr. Quigley. Does the government understand when you are 
doing those contracts you have to build in higher costs?
    Ms. Little Owl. [Nonverbal response.]
    Mr. Quigley. They do understand?
    Ms. Little Owl. I am sorry. Could you repeat----
    Mr. Quigley. Does the government understand when you have 
to build in higher costs because of transportation?
    Ms. Little Owl. Well, I am not going to say they don't 
understand, and I just don't see that in my budget, sir.
    Mr. Quigley. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back for now.
    Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman.
    We now got to our distinguished former chair of the 
committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also 
want to echo wishing you a happy birthday. We are not going to 
ask how many, however. We are not going to do that.
    Mr. Cole. Even better.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
    Mr. Wesaw, I was struck by what you were talking about, how 
just kind of turnover, right, I guess in HUD, has created this 
recurring problem of having to, in essence, reeducate folks, 
right, about, you know, sometimes from pretty--I am assuming 
sometimes some pretty basic things. But I can also see that 
that can create serious problems as you are dealing with more 
complex issues, right?
    So has that--is this a relatively common problem, number 
one. And number two is, if it is a problem, it is kind of 
reoccurring, which I kind of detect that it is, is there at 
least realization within HUD that this is a problem that they 
need to deal with?
    So you would think that they would then have--kind of 
create a system where they can kind of start that training 
without having to first run into the problems.
    So I just kind of wanted to give you a little bit of time 
to just, let me understand how bad this issue is and if it is 
getting better.
    Mr. Wesaw. Yeah, thank you. I would say, the issue goes 
well beyond just HUD. There is always training that is needed 
across the Federal Government, but I am really inspired by the 
Secretary of HUD is putting together the first Tribal Advisory 
Committee. So I expect that it will get better, but I would--
you know, we just don't have time to keep waiting for folks to 
get the understanding that they just need to get out and do 
just do the baseline work.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah, no, I can see that problem.
    Mr. Chairman, I have obviously a lot of questions, but I do 
want to, however, thank you not only for bringing this frankly 
very impressive group of people together here to testify in 
front of us, but your passion, your passion for Indians in this 
House and this Congress.
    You know, I represent two Tribes, as you know very well, 
the Seminoles and the Miccosukees, and obviously I have gone to 
you a million times for issues. And I think all of us are so 
grateful that you have that passion and you have that 
knowledge. And, again, I thank you for bringing this 
distinguished group. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We now go to my very good 
friend from California, Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Well, happy birthday. I am very 
happy that I get to share my birthday month with you.
    Thank you all for being here today. I really appreciate 
listening to your comments, and in reading your testimony, I 
know that time is short.
    And, Chairman, congratulations on having the first 
hearing--actual hearing, not a roundtable. I know that we have 
had roundtables in the past, but having an official hearing 
really makes it--takes it up a notch and brings about the 
seriousness of what you are facing.
    I represent the 35th Congressional District in southern 
California. I do not have a Tribe in my district. However, 
since my days as a State legislator, I have been, you know, 
very interested and attended every meeting that I could to 
learn about the issues that impact Native Americans.
    Chairman Sisco, since you are the Californian here, I am 
going to direct my questions and concerns to you.
    As you know, California has experienced over 13 atmospheric 
rivers in the last few months, just as we begin to recover our 
economy from the COVID pandemic. Chairman Sisco, did these 
storms impact your Tribe and cause substantial flooding, and 
also how have previous storms impacted the infrastructure 
around the Tribe and what kind of help have you received?
    Mr. Sisco. In light of the recent flooding with the Tulare 
Lake coming back and our ancestors, that was their way of life, 
so it was--at that point, it wasn't an issue.
    But with the recent flooding and the increased--along with 
the increased traffic in the area, it has damaged the roads. 
The roads are generally poor, and with the increased traffic 
through, you know, we have local schools in the area, farms and 
dairies. It is not just cars that frequent these roads.
    But the flooding, we haven't received any assistance, and 
it hasn't directly affected our Tribe yet, but in light of the 
heat coming up really soon and the snowpack going to be 
melting, we are anticipating extreme flooding that is basically 
going to be uncontrollable at this point.
    Mrs. Torres of California. I would like to know if it is 
possible to get a little more information from you or from your 
folks about what are your needs assessment. I think it is 
important for us to recognize that you are the employer of 
1,300 people in that region, not just Tribal members either.
    Mr. Sisco. Yes.
    Mrs. Torres of California. So we have to make sure that you 
are able to continue to be that good employer that you are and 
continue to be able to receive the assistance that you need.
    And thank you for the help that you also--I know that you 
donate a lot of, not just funds but a lot of other goods, to 
the local communities in that area. Just keep that in mind.
    There are proposed cuts to the budgets. One of you 
mentioned that you had to pay back some funds that States did 
not have to pay back. We are looking at not being able to 
reverse any of those--what I see as cuts since you had to give 
that money back.
    How would, you know, a 20-percent cut across the board 
impact all of you? We can start with you.
    Mr. Sisco. A 20-percent cut would affect us tremendously 
considering that, you know, we have--the funds that we did 
receive, we utilized in a way that we assisted Tribal and non-
Tribal employees.
    But the cuts also, we live in the most underserved county 
in the State----
    Mrs. Torres of California. In the State, yes.
    Mr. Sisco [continuing]. And they make it very clear, so we 
are very good neighbors, and we tried to assist as much as we 
possibly can. We have a very good relationship with the board 
of supervisors, with the local authorities, the fire 
department. So we want to ensure safety.
    And we have a good relationship with Governor Newsom, and 
we assure him that, you know, we are very supportive in what he 
does.
    But we also need the extra funding because the cuts are 
going to affect the people that live in our county, and it is 
going to--because many of our Tribal members live off the 
Rancheria. We currently have 231 homes, and we have almost 
1,200 members, so, you know, they can do the math with that. So 
we have a lot of our many Tribal members that it is going to 
affect as well.
    Mrs. Torres of California. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I now go to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to begin with Director Plummer. In your 
written testimony, you mentioned the low number of loans made 
under the Department of Veterans Affairs Native American Direct 
Loan program, and you noted that between 2012 and 2021 only 180 
loans were applied for.
    From your experience, what are some of the issues causing 
the underutilization of this program, and can you go into more 
detail about how the Native community development financial 
institution relending concept could be a good answer?
    Ms. Plummer. Thank you for the question. I think the 
problem is multi----
    Mr. Cole. Is the gentlelady's mike on?
    Ms. Plummer. Can you hear me better?
    Mr. Cole. That is better, thank you.
    Ms. Plummer. Okay. I will lean in a little bit.
    I think the problem is multifold. It is a retreat of 
lenders even doing those loans. It is not a profitable product 
for lenders, and that is the HUD 184, USDA guarantee--502 
guarantees, or the VA NADL loan, partly because of the length 
of time it takes to get a certified TSR with that mortgage 
recorded on the TSR.
    Sometimes that happens very quickly. Sometimes it can take 
up to 2 years so that you are having to completely re-
underwrite the file.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, why would that be? Two years?
    Ms. Plummer. I don't know the answer to that question. I 
think--it is within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And it could 
be a recording issue. It could be just a lack of staff to 
prioritize mortgages as they go through the process. It could 
be title issues. It could be--I mean, we just don't know.
    And the transparency is almost nonexistent. You know, on 
fee simple land, you can pull a prelim title report and have it 
in 3 minutes and have a chain of title for 2 years and a survey 
and everything on that property. You don't have to access to 
TAAMS. We don't see those physical surveys. We can't see the 
issues on the inside of TAAMS. So----
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, look, I would look forward to working 
with you on that to find out how we can make that move more 
quickly, because that is just unacceptable.
    Ms. Plummer. Senate bill 3381 should be introduced very 
soon. It is asking for a realty ombudsman within the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs to keep a pulse point on everything mortgage-
related in that system and asking for increased transparency 
and accountability for the timelines in which they produce 
those TSRs. So I would ask that you look for that to come 
forward, that we could continue conversation.
    The relending concept is beautiful. It began in the State 
of South Dakota. Elsie Meeks said: If USDA cannot spend the $2 
million that they are allocated annually in our persistent 
poverty communities, give it to the CDFIs and let them try it.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Plummer. So they turned that $2 million into two loans 
to two Native CDFIs, who then turned that to 19 single family 
home mortgages that are still performing today. It was very, 
very successful.
    And so there is that home ownership act that I referenced, 
is coming forth asking for that to be permanent and national, 
and so we have worked with several Native CDFIs on preparing 
them for accessing that product.
    The VA NADL that was introduced, Senate bill 185--I don't 
think it has a House number yet--is modeled after that same 
type of----
    Mr. Rutherford. Same concept.
    Ms. Plummer. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you very much. And let us know 
about that TSR, and what, you know, any ideas that you think we 
should be looking at from that. We will get with you offline 
and talk to you more about that.
    Ms. Plummer. Sounds good.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
    Ms. Little Owl, could I ask you very quickly, you mentioned 
in your testimony about the need for funding for law 
enforcement, and I know, when you don't have good law 
enforcement presence, you wind up with a lot of destruction of 
property and those kind of things that go on.
    Do you know if they have utilized any of the Federal 
support programs like the COPS Hiring Program? And I will tell 
you, we are about to set aside--hopefully if we can get this 
passed--we are going to set aside a certain amount for agencies 
under 125 officers, to help bring them on. And so I would tell 
you to look for that as well in the future, and, you know, we 
will reach out to you. But can you talk about the impact of 
that, which is why this bill, I think, is going to be so 
important?
    Ms. Little Owl. So I will pass that information on to 
Chairlady Elkhardt, let her know about that program. As far as 
my understanding, and I just want to clarify, I am an entity of 
the Tribe. So I don't work specifically with the programs of 
the Tribe, but I was in the grants management program as a 
grants management specialist. And while we were in that 
program, coming into the position, we had a lot of 
complications with the COPS program. A lot of regulations. A 
lot of restrictions. A lot of reporting, much like we are 
dealing with our housing situations.
    It is a lot of red tape that we are having to make sure 
that we have in place even though we have sovereignty. There is 
a lot of discussions in my opinion that should happen before we 
try to initiate that again, sir.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And I am going to try to cut 
through some of that red tape for you.
    Ms. Little Owl. Thank you.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. The chair will gently remind 
the Members don't push the questions to the last 10 seconds. It 
is not fair to the next----
    Mr. Rutherford. It was a quick answer.
    Mr. Cole. It was a very quick answer. It was a very late 
question. Nothing wrong with the answer. I will now go to my 
very good friend from California, Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy birthday, 
happy birthday to you.
    Chairman Sisco, my colleague, Representative Torres, asked 
you a little bit about the atmospheric storms. I wanted to kind 
follow up on that a little bit more and ask what your level of 
coordination has been with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
Department of Transportation with respect to some of the 
disaster declarations and storm events.
    What have they done? What more do they need to do to help 
Indian Country?
    Mr. Sisco. Our experience with the Department of 
Transportation has not been extensive to date. It is fairly 
new, but we have been speaking with local officials, the 
chairman of the board of supervisors, which we value as well, 
and he has reached out to Governor Newsom to declare a state of 
emergency. We haven't worked at all with the Department of 
Transportation again. We have not reached out to BIA, but that 
will be next on the list.
    But in working with concert with the county, we have--we 
need to address the--when it warms up, the ongoing 
uncontrollable waters that are going to be coming and will be 
working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the near future 
for this, along county officials so they can address their 
needs to us. Also, the flooding of the fields, so kind of 
relieve that pressure because we have the acreage of land that 
we can allow them to use to actually flood in to replenish the 
aquifers as well.
    Mr. Aguilar. Great point. Thank you.
    Mr. Bohnee, the bipartisan infrastructure law provided the 
largest investment in the Tribal transportation program by 
increasing the authorization from $2.4 billion to $3 billion. 
It is a program that helps Tribes increase the safety and 
mobility of their transportation infrastructure.
    What resources--how have the additional resources from that 
Tribal transportation program under this bill helped your 
community? What do you anticipate that it will mean to some of 
the issues that you referenced within your testimony?
    Mr. Bohnee. Yeah. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Specifically, under the infrastructure law, the--through the 
Tribal Transportation Construction Program, there was a bump. 
We had previously received approximately $1.4 million annually 
through the TTP. When the law was passed, that number was 
bumped to--we received in the last year about 1.6 million. So 
not much of a difference, but of course, every little thing 
helps.
    I know that our staff is looking through the variety of 
programs that are available, specifically, the bridges program. 
And so, again, as I mentioned, kind of the capacity issues are 
an issue, I think, for our community just in terms of 
identifying the resources internally to put together grants. 
And then, I think, one of the key elements to all of this is 
the activity of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have been 
utilizing intergovernmental fund transfer agreements, which 
essentially is a tool to allow Federal funds to pass through, 
in many cases, through our Arizona Department of Transportation 
to go directly to the Tribes.
    And so, the--unfortunately, we haven't had a lot of good 
feedback from them. We have 10 IFTAs pending at the Bureau, 
just need sign off, and that is to the tune of $20 million. So 
to your question, we continue to review the elements there in 
the infrastructure program, but we have seen a little bit of a 
bump in the TTP construction funding.
    Mr. Aguilar. Can you talk with us about some of the 
benefits that your community is seeing from the TTP program? 
What are some of the uses? I am not asking you what the 
additional 1.4 to 1.6 would mean, but within that category, 
what are some of the uses?
    Mr. Bohnee. Yeah. So again, as I mentioned, part of it kind 
of deciding on the maintenance needs, the regular maintenance 
needs in the community, and the community keeps an inventory of 
road projects that it has prioritized. As I mentioned earlier, 
the community has about 650,000 vehicles that come through our 
community every day, so it is--we have--for example, we have a 
new healthcare facility come online, so there was kind of 
infrastructure going in to make sure that there is access to 
the facility.
    So that is one example of where new construction was needed 
for roadways in and around the facility. And then as 
development continues to occur, there is always, kind of, a 
planned inventory of construction needs. And as I mentioned 
previously, we--there is a cap on the amount of TTP that can be 
used for maintenance. So that is always a challenge as well.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you for your answers. I 
appreciate it. Thank you all for being here.
    Yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We now go to another one of 
my good friends from California, Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy birthday.
    Chairman Sisco, good to see you again today, and I 
appreciate you taking the time to travel across the country to 
testify today. Can you describe how the Tachi Tribe works with 
the local government to improve transportation? Does DoT have a 
role in facilitating partnerships between Tribal and local 
governments, and who use the DoT funds?
    Mr. Sisco. Like I testified before, we are very new to 
working with Department of Transportation. That hasn't been 
extensive as of yet. However, just to touch on what Mr. Aguilar 
had said earlier, we have utilized BIA funds for transportation 
grants within the boundaries of the rancheria, but with the 
relationship that we have had with the county officials, and 
you know--basically the road conditions around our rancheria 
are very poor. They are not--they not only provide access to, 
you know, just our Tribal enterprises, but nearby schools, 
farms, and dairies.
    But this additional strain--it puts an additional strain to 
the roads. But moreover, the Tribe is building the fire 
station. And the roads--it was explained to us with the county 
officials, the roads aren't due to be worked until 2027, 2028. 
And when we build this fire station, we want to ensure that 
there are safe roads for the fire personnel, for the equipment 
and response in emergencies, and also, the improved 
infrastructure resiliency to--in face of the recent flooding 
and the increased traffic.
    Mr. Valadao. Well--and you brought up the recent flooding. 
And obviously that is an issue that has been brought up a few 
times with the atmospheric rivers, the amount of rain and 
rainfall. The Tribe, obviously, is farming now just like a lot 
of other neighbors in the area. Had the Federal Government 
invested in infrastructure like we have been asking for in 
Congress for a number of years with reservoirs, better canals, 
how would the situation look today if we had done those things?
    Mr. Sisco. I think with the lack of preparation--because 
from my understanding, it happened back in 1983--a viable plan 
would not have to force people in our community to flood their 
farms. And, in essence, the lack of preparation, we would be 
able to move water in a way that we would not be able in the 
past, possibly out of the area, possible water banking is an 
option that we could better prepare for.
    We also, you know, the area that we live in, yes it is 
considered a drought-ridden area, but at one point, there were 
wetlands. So it is--I think the lack of preparation--more 
preparation now between Congress and the local authorities to 
be more prepared for this, because right now, there is really 
no answer by our local municipalities.
    Mr. Valadao. That is one of the things I felt was pretty 
frustrating over the past few years from the groups that I have 
talked to, like self-help enterprises, I think there is, like, 
2,000 homes or communities around the valley who have had to 
rely on tanks being installed and water trucks for their 
facilities because they don't have access or their wells are no 
longer producing water.
    I know that your Tribe helped the local school when their 
wells dried up, and you actually connected your water system 
with them to help them get by. But it is such a frustrating 
thing. And we are all in this together, and it is something we 
talked about quite a bit.
    Mr. Sisco. It was--the pot of water that we served, the 
water was potable in use and touch on our sister Tribe, Tule 
River, during the storms, the roads went out. So we sent water 
up there. The roads were severely damaged. But we did what we 
felt was right from a humanitarian standpoint. It was human 
kindness.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, thank you for your time, and I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. We now go to my good friend 
from Virginia, Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Happy 
birthday.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Wexton. I don't know the chairman very well, but I 
expect that if you can't be at home with your constituents you 
would much rather be here on the Hill leading a bipartisan 
committee identifying and solving problems with our native 
communities. So I appreciate what you are doing here today.
    To all of the witnesses, thank you for being with us today. 
As the chairman pointed out, I am from Virginia. Virginia's 
Tribes were federally recognized in 2015 and 2017, so very 
recently. They have not received decades of Federal funding 
like other Indian Tribes have.
    I have heard from these Tribes that they often struggle to 
exercise their jurisdiction over basic Tribal Government in 
matters such as responding to ICWA cases, environmental 
incidents, family services, suicide, domestic abuse prevention, 
and drug abuse education and training, among other programs. In 
addition, the BIA's new Tribes baseline funding that they have 
received annually since achieving Federal recognition is an 
amount that was authorized nearly three decades ago, it has not 
kept pace with inflation. This means that our Tribes are not 
only--unable to hire administrative staff, but they also missed 
out on Federal grant funding opportunities.
    We all have spoken to the need for additional resources 
across the board, and I understand that strained funding is an 
issue many Tribes face--many Tribes face in Indian Country. 
Perhaps all Tribes face in Indian Country.
    That being said, I am curious to know if any of you can 
speak to what we can do through the appropriations process to 
ensure the BIA is sensitive to the unique needs of federally--
recently federally recognized Tribes, like those here in 
Virginia. I know that most of you are from western Tribes that 
have been recognized for many, many years. So I am just curious 
if you have any thoughts on what we can do in Virginia for our 
newly recognized Tribes? Any thoughts on that?
    Mr. Bohnee. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I 
would just say that as I mentioned, the Bureau is challenged to 
operate programs generally speaking. I referenced this at these 
intergovernmental fund transfer agreements. It is just an 
example I think of where the Bureau is challenged to execute 
every important task. And so, I guess my contribution would be 
to somehow, I guess, improve the administrative activity and 
priorities of the Bureau.
    Mr. Cole. Would the Gentlelady yield for a second just to 
make a comment on your question?
    Ms. Wexton. Sure.
    Mr. Cole. I happen to be in the Natural Resources Committee 
when those Virginia recognitions came through. And I am not--I 
don't want to stick my nose in Virginia politics, let alone 
Virginia Indian politics, but one of the big struggles to get 
the recognition, which I supported, you know, and the Tribes 
were not happy about this, but they had to give up their right 
to game.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Mr. Cole. And I think most, or many of these people, a lot 
of their resources are not Federal resources, even when they 
should be, but they--it helps. I know the Choctaw Nation, for 
instance, very well and has a very robust economy. And they 
reinvest a lot of their own money in their own infrastructure 
and things like that.
    So if you limit the ability of the Tribe to do business 
that is lawful, then you are limiting their ability--because 
they don't have the power to tax. So their resources really 
depend in addition to what we do on how economically viable 
they are.
    Ms. Wexton. Chairman, I absolutely agree with you. You 
won't be surprised to hear that gaming became legal in Virginia 
soon thereafter, and it was a very lucrative business for a lot 
of people, but not for our Tribes unfortunately. So yeah, I 
understand where you are coming from.
    That being the case, I am also interested to know if you 
all have any recommendations on how competitive Federal grants 
can become more accessible to smaller Tribes? You know, that is 
one of the things that we heard. The Chairman held a roundtable 
with some Tribes just asking what the issues were they had, and 
some of them would put in for these Federal grants year after 
year after year, and have gotten recognition, have not gotten 
the grants, and it has been--they are losing out on the 
technical assistance.
    Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Little Owl. Thank you. I am Barb Little Owl. I am from 
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Housing Authority. So in my 
statement earlier, I just wanted to also comment a little bit 
and kind of hopefully encourage some Tribes to kind of work a 
little closer together. I know your Tribe is pretty new into 
some of the things that, as you stated, that our Tribes have 
been dealing with for many, many years.
    We are still dealing with about 20 years of lack in 
funding. Some of the--to your previous question, my suggestion 
is to create a mandatory funding for our Tribes due to the fact 
that we do have those treaties and agreements in place. Some of 
the other things that we could consider is to be treated more 
similar to that of the his as well as the contract support 
costs that we have for the mandatory funding or to have 
advanced funding to be able to assist us in addressing our 
housing issues on a yearly basis and the struggles that we 
have.
    As far as competitive grants, I know that there is a lot of 
consideration and a lot of effort to be putting money into a 
competitive grant. But we also have to consider the impact that 
we have on the grants, funding that we have now, and the growth 
of our Indian Nations across the United States. So we are 
looking at going from 500 to 574 Tribes now, including your 
Tribe entering the circle and arena that we are all facing and 
struggling on a consistent basis in our Tribes. So it is taking 
a dollar and making it stretch as far as we possibly can, 
adding more Tribes into it, and but not including the money. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Appreciate it. With that, I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    We now go to my good friend, Mr. Cline from Virginia.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join my colleague 
from Virginia in applauding the Federal recognition of the 
Tribes in Virginia. Not too long ago, one of those Tribes was 
in my district, the Monacan Tribe, and we are glad to see that 
negotiated result that gave them recognition.
    But I am an Oklahoman by birth. So let me go to Mr. 
Sossamon, who--and talk to you about what is happening in 
Oklahoma. From your work at the National America Indian Housing 
Council, you saw multiple innovative solutions to meet the 
housing needs in Tribal communities. And what you have seen may 
help those Tribes that are just getting recognition in 
Virginia.
    Can you describe some of the innovative solutions that you 
have seen succeed in Comanche Nation or elsewhere that may be 
applicable in Virginia?
    Mr. Sossamon. Yes, sir. I would be happy to.
    One of the things that we experienced over the years was in 
leveraging funds and looking at financing and partnering with 
outside financiers and looking at the 184 Program. And through 
the Indian Housing Competitive Block Grant, Comanche received a 
reward of $5 million, and then we matched it with $1.6 million, 
okay? And what we have done is we, for a $250,000 home, we 
subsidized $50,000 in principal and charged 0 interest over 30 
years. That makes a $555-a-month payment, okay?
    If you go outside and you look at 30 years at $250,000, 
even if we subsidize 50,000 of it, they are still going to pay 
$1,199 a month, almost twice as much. To achieve the same 
affordability, we would have to buy down $157,000 of that 
principal. So the cost of money is something that is really 
prohibitive because remember, we are talking about low-income 
people, okay? And that is less than 80 percent of the national 
median income. And of that group, you are really looking at 
from 48 to just below 80 percent of the national median income 
that can really be successful homeowners. And we don't want to 
set them up to fail we want them to be successful, and part of 
doing that is making it affordable.
    Now, I go back to--and that kind of answers the question 
that Mr. Rutherford had about why are the applications so low 
for this outside financing. Well, it is that cost of money. If 
we can do these direct loans through the block grant, then we 
can really make it affordable, and that money comes back in 
over that 30-year period back to us, and we can use it to 
maintain and operate that stock. And maintenance and operation 
of the stock is expensive.
    Ms. Torres said, what would happen if you cut 20 percent. 
Well, I can tell you for Comanche, we may not be able to 
maintain and operate our stock that we currently have. So in 
actuality, the funding for the competitive and the formula 
really needs to increase about 74 percent, not be cut 20 
percent because our average amount annually is about $2.5 
million. You cut it 20 percent, now we are looking at $2 
million, and I don't believe, as I said, that would cover our 
costs just to maintain what we have, nothing new.
    So I hope that answers your question about what we have 
seen as innovative, but also addresses some of the concerns in 
the questions that were asked by other Members.
    Mr. Cline. It does. Thank you very much. Thank you for 
holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. Happy birthday. I note you 
have the same birthday as James Monroe, our great President, 
and other luminaries from Harper Lee to Ann-Margaret to 
Penelope Cruz to Jay Leno to John Daley. So with that 
illustrious company, happy birthday, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Well, that was a lot better than my Saddam 
Hussein example. So I appreciate that. Monroe is great. Thank 
you very much.
    Now, we will go to our second round of questions. So let me 
start, Mr. Sossamon, with you, and then, Ms. Plummer, with you 
as well. But I want to focus on the housing issue. The 
situation in Oklahoma is vastly different in some ways because 
we don't have quite the same problems with trust land and 
fractionated lands a lot of our friends in other parts of 
Indian country have because of the own history of our State.
    So I would ask you, Mr. Sossamon, would you focus on 
specifically Oklahoma? You have such vast experience because of 
having worked in Choctaw and Comanche having two different 
sized States, two very different Tribal histories, two, you 
know, quite different situations. But what are the biggest 
problems we got? And Ms. Plummer, when we get to you, I will 
ask you the same thing, sort of, across Indian country as you 
see it, if you are looking at the unique legal status in 
particular that Tribal lands have, and how that poses issues to 
the construction of the additional housing.
    Mr. Sossamon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes. We do have a little bit different situation in 
Oklahoma. We do have some trust land. It is owned by the 
Tribes. We have trust land that is owned by individuals. We 
have restricted property, which is similar to trust. It is 
managed by the BIA that is owned by individuals, and a lot of 
fee simple land. We operate on fee simple land, which is a 
challenge for Tribes because, you know, then the question of 
sovereignty and having to waive--give limited waivers to 
sovereignty comes up. That is why a lot of them utilize these 
TDHEs, for Indian housing authorities, because they are 
recognized by State law as a tax-exempt entity.
    But our challenge is a lot of the individual allotted land 
and trust land is located in rural, often isolated, areas, and 
there is no jobs there. And the folks don't want to live in 
those areas. I mean, they would like to because it is their 
land, and they are attached to the land, but it makes it 
unfeasible to commute back and forth. So we operate a lot on 
the fee simple land, which makes it a lot easier for us. 
However, it is a--one challenge that we do have is, for 
instance, with the competitive block grant, the scoring of it 
gives preference to construction over acquisition.
    And in our area, we can acquire homes cheaper than we can 
construct them, and we can do it a lot quicker. And we work 
with our Tribal members, and they can select the area they want 
to live in and look at what is on the market and get into those 
homes a lot quicker.
    Mr. Cole. So this is an area you need additional 
flexibility in?
    Mr. Sossamon. Right. We really would like to see the new 
construction and acquisition scored at the same level, along 
with the addition of funding.
    Mr. Cole. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Plummer.
    Ms. Plummer. Thank you for the question. I pulled my phone 
because I wanted to read to you something that is on the 
letterhead for the (inaudible) Indian community's land 
department. And I have always held this dear. That say, ``the 
land, our land is our territory. It is not just where we live 
and farm and work, but it is who we are. Without it we have no 
past and no future, no Indian way of life today. Our conflicts 
and our travels have always been about the land.''
    Something that is unique about the communities outside who 
have a little bit of land left, and I am advocate for 
protecting that trust land, but some 90 million acres were lost 
from 1887 to 1934. That is a lot of equity that was lost in 
that land. I don't think very many lenders or others realize 
that when we are talking about that trust land that is left in 
trust with the Federal Government, it technically can be 
collateralized, but it is complicated.
    The lenders don't like it. They tend to shun away from 
those deals, and so those trust funds try to get redlined by 
lenders often. When you are trying to do a mortgage on a deal, 
it does not hold the same value. So even though you can place a 
lien on the lease hold interest, it doesn't hold the same 
value. So if you were to hold 20 acres of trust land side by 
side with 20 acres just across the reservation line, you would 
see a significant drop in value over here on the trust land.
    So Indians are coming to the closing table or the 
negotiating table without the same equity position as others. 
We have lost that equity to the tune of 90 million acres of 
land in those years. And so, you know, thankfully, that leakage 
was plugged at that time, but that is the one last asset that 
we have to use to grow our communities. What we do have, we 
cannot tax to fund social programs, roads departments, all of 
these other things. You are trying to stretch the little bit of 
funding you have left as a domestic dependent Nation to serve 
your community, and if you are cut off from big gaming, or you 
know, stepping into economic development, you remain in this 
dependent status.
    So it is just critical that the trust responsibility is met 
so that these Tribes have the ability to not only look at 
creative innovations like funding their own mortgage products, 
most Tribes couldn't even get that far because they are going 
to be using those dollars just to develop the homes, and it 
can't stretch far enough to do those things.
    Mr. Cole. Good answer. Well, I can tell you I am certainly 
familiar with the loss of land in that period you described. A 
huge hunk of it was in Oklahoma. Probably more than--well, 
certainly more than any other State given the history of our 
State. But thank you. Those were terrific answers. I appreciate 
it very much.
    I will now go to my good friend, Mr. Quigley, for any 
additional questions.
    Mr. Quigley. Asked and answered, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cole. Pardon.
    Mr. Quigley. They were asked and answered.
    Mr. Cole. Mr. Rutherford, do you have any additional 
questions?
    Mr. Rutherford. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to continue along this line of taxes and how we can 
get private investment into the Indian lands more quickly. And 
quite frankly, I am outside my zone here. So I would first ask, 
under the old opportunities zones that existed under the Trump 
administration, we were getting a lot of private investment 
into distressed areas of the country. And I don't know, were 
Indian lands involved in that?
    Mr. Bohnee. Congressman, the--at first, they weren't. The 
community had some interest in clarifying the rule set for 
opportunity zone because we found out that there was not any--
because most lands are leased, that wasn't applicable, or it 
wasn't eligible for OZ, O-Zone, opportunity zone funding. So 
the Treasury, I believe, changed those regulations. And so--
because we had some development, developers that were 
interested in investing in the community. And I think with the 
economy the way it is, I am not sure what the status of ongoing 
development is using OZ funding. But the answer is, it needed 
to be clarified, and I believe it was.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Sossamon, you 
mentioned earlier CDBG money would be--if you could utilize 
that. Is--that is restricted right now? Is that what I am 
hearing you say?
    Mr. Sossamon. Yes--well--it is not. We utilize it for that 
purpose. What our challenge is, is in our area, our market 
allows us to acquire property a lot quicker than doing 
construction, and, in many instances, a lot cheaper. But it is 
not scored in the funding application for the competitive. It 
is not scored as high as new development.
    So--and new development is good, and I believe that, you 
know, if they were scored the same, what we would do is we 
would see a mix of new development and acquisition. But because 
it is--the new developmentis scored higher, we are prevented if 
we want to be competitive, prevented from utilizing 
acquisition, which puts us at a handicap for our particular 
area. Every area is different. Some areas, acquisition won't 
work for them because there is nothing to acquire. They have to 
do new construction.
    Mr. Rutherford. Ms. Little Owl, I see you nodding. Is that 
your situation?
    Ms. Little Owl. Our situation would be almost as he is 
stating contrary to what he is stating. We won't have the 
ability to acquire. With the 2 million acres that we have, we 
are very well-spread apart. A lot of the lands are leased land 
that people do own or leasing out either for farming, and that 
is a part of their income that they depend on on a yearly basis 
as well. So for us, it would have to have the infrastructure 
built as well as the construction. So it really would depend 
Tribe to Tribe.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I am going to advise just a 
little bit of housekeeping, we have lower Member participation 
than usual, so you know because it is fly out day. So people 
have to get off or they miss their airplane, they are stuck 
here a lot longer than they intend to be. So I would like to 
end this way: Number one, we pay a lot of attention to what is 
in the record. And number two, you all have done a terrific 
job, I think, in creating a record that we have not had to look 
at here as we legislate for a long time. So I want to thank 
you.
    I want to give each of you an opportunity--and I will start 
with you, Dr. Wesaw. We will sort of do it in reverse and go 
down this way. If there is any particular additional points 
that you think this committee needs to know or take into 
consideration as it works on the funding allocations in the 
Tribal programs at DoT and HUD, this is a great opportunity to 
make sure we have that fact.
    So I am going to start with you, but again, we will go 
right down aisle.
    Mr. Wesaw. Thank you for opportunity. Yeah. I would say 
with any funding streams that are made available to Tribes, 
whether it be for transportation or whether it be for housing, 
the least amount of restrictions as possible on them, I think, 
go the furthest. We are able to do things, and like I have 
said, we have a housing wait list of 150 families that want to 
come back to our region to develop the region as a whole, but 
we just don't have the infrastructure in place to get the stuff 
that we need built or to buy preexisting, and then renovate it. 
So anything that we can do with the least amount of 
restrictions would go a long way for our community. Thank you 
for the opportunity. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Little Owl.
    Ms. Little Owl. Thank you. I would like to also, kind of, 
reiterate some of what he is saying as far as restrictions, but 
I think the main focus should be the fact that with our 
treaties, the obligation to our Tribes should not be 
discretionary appropriations, or it should be more focused on 
advanced or mandatory funding again, because we are talking 
about a system that is already in place with a formula that is 
already in place. It is just a matter of having the same 
dollars and then adding Tribes into that, because we are 
growing as a Tribal Nation. And kind of the point in being is 
we do have Tribes added to our formulas and added to our 
competitive grants, and it is just less and less and less 
money. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sisco--or chairman, excuse me.
    Mr. Sisco. Yes. Again, the least amount of restrictions. 
Again, thank you for opportunity, and again, happy birthday. To 
allow the Department of Transportation to give us the funding 
so these underserved communities such as ours as Kings County, 
that we can funnel those--we can funnel those funds directly to 
the municipalities that we work with in because, in essence, so 
we are not--can utilize their expertise and their equipment to 
maintain and fix our roads. So the least amount of restrictions 
and to the funding from the DoT to--so we as Tribe can funnel 
to the municipalities that can assist us.
    Mr. Cole. Mr. Bohnee.
    Mr. Bohnee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just concur 
with all the comments that have been made. I would also just 
encourage that all the Federal agencies are executing the 
implementation of all of these agreements. I referenced the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I don't want to harp on the 
Bureau, but they have a key role in all of the activity--
funding activity that goes on.
    And I would just reference the issue with leasing. We know, 
at least in our community, one of the top 20 highly 
fractionated land bases in the country that the leasing 
regulations and the Bureau's activity around that are a key to 
a lot of development, whether it is transportation, 
infrastructure, and housing. So that would be my comment is 
that make sure that the agencies are working in sync together 
so that all of these activities can be done in a timely way.
    Mr. Cole. And let me just add from my colleagues, I am sure 
things are much better under Secretary Allen for a lot of 
reasons. She is a quite extraordinary former Member of this 
body, and of course, a Native American herself. But in my 
family when I was growing up, the nickname for the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs was ``bossing Indians around.'' So I think that 
is still a common sentiment, and hopefully it will get a lot 
better under my friend, the current Secretary.
    With that, Ms. Plummer, let's go for your final thoughts.
    Ms. Plummer. Thank you. I just need to underscore what has 
been said across the board that the reauthorization of NAHASDA 
and significant increase to IHBG dollars for inflation-adjusted 
issues is recognized and authorized as a bare minimum. I would 
also say there is a plea out there for section 4 funding. They 
are capacity-building dollars for Tribal communities. That is 
an excellent tool. One way that it is being used in South 
Dakota, we talked a lot about not being able to get contractors 
out there.
    We have used section 4 dollars for workforce development in 
the State of South Dakota blending into North Dakota for a 
construction internship program to build that workforce so that 
there are local contractors, and could give multiple examples 
of great ways that that is a capacity-building tool.
    Last year was the first year that there was a native set-
aside, and it is just not enough to meet the need that we are 
seeing out there. So asking for a $50 million set-aside for 
native communities and section 4, I would elevate working 
groups with HUD 184.
    There has been good Tribal consultation, but sometimes 
there is a gap between a program that has not really been used 
on reservations well, understanding how to get into the weeds 
of the execution. So I would ask for specific working groups 
with practitioners and Tribes together to begin to really see 
solutions as opposed to just the comment periods that are out 
there.
    And then just recognizing the full spectrum of government 
programs that are a part of the solutions, together with DoT, 
with HUD, with USDA, VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 
encouraging ways that they can talk to each other more not that 
it is not so confusing at the Tribal level.
    We teach a curriculum enhancing and enabling homeownership 
that was designed as a companion to the Tribal leader's 
handbook on homeownership. And every time we teach it, we have 
to spend a lot of time breaking down on watching all of these 
Federal programs so that Tribes can understand, Oh my gosh, I 
have access to so much more than I thought I had just through 
HUD. And so encouraging that type of collaboration.
    And also recognizing the full spectrum of Tribal partners 
that have a hand in this. It is the Tribe, but it is the 
housing authority. Sometimes the native CDFI, sometimes the 
Tribal enterprise and other non-profits at the Tribal level 
that are all a part of the solution. And so, broadening that 
spectrum of eligibility and communication to really see 
projects get off the ground and stay doing what they intend to 
do.
    Mr. Cole. You know, I think just in quick response, 
Secretary Fudge is really to be commended for setting up the 
Tribal advisory body, and we will see how well it works. I have 
a lot of confidence in my friend who I know Mr. Sossamon know, 
Chief Batton is a member of that as well. So that is a good 
beginning. It just needs to be followed through with, and we 
are not always good at follow-through at the Federal level.
    With that, Mr. Sossamon, let me go to you for any final 
thoughts.
    Mr. Sossamon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not anything 
that the committee doesn't know, but I would just remind you to 
keep this in mind when you are looking at the funding, that 
housing is number three on the hierarchy of needs: food, 
clothing, and shelter, okay? And we talk about investing in 
these programs, and they are an investment. But there is a 
return on this investment in housing. As you know, native 
families, we tend to like to live in extended families. We have 
our parents, our grandparents in, and take care of them, and we 
have our children. And when they have adequate housing, what--
and grandma's living with us, then that reduces the burden on 
nursing care. And our students, when we have adequate housing, 
we know their grades go up. We know that suicide and drug abuse 
and things like that go down, and successful students make 
successful adults. And therefore, they achieve self-sufficiency 
as a result of that, so there is less burden on the need for 
these Federal subsidies. So when we look at this investment, 
remember this is one that will give a return back, okay, for 
the future.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. And let me move to my good 
friend, Ranking Member Mr. Quigley, for any final thoughts, 
reflections he has.
    Mr. Quigley. First, I want to thank you for hosting this, 
and I want to thank all of you for participating. I guess, more 
importantly, thank you for the work you are going back home to 
do. The chairman talked about follow-up on the Federal level. 
That is our responsibility, but you are all going home to 
continue the good fight, and for that, we appreciate it and for 
your being here today.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Cole. Let me--before I close, number one, join my 
friend, the ranking member, thanking all of you for coming. It 
makes a big difference. I know it is difficult to travel. Some 
of you are from relatively remote locations. Thank you. I have 
been to Standing Rock. It is a ways to get here, so thanks for 
the effort. And anytime we are coming from California, it is a 
long flight. So again, thank you, all, for that. Very important 
for us to have your testimony and very helpful to the 
subcommittee.
    As I listen, the themes that immediately come to my mind, 
you know, were echoed time and time again, which is not enough 
resources by a long shot, not keeping your treaty obligations 
and fulfilling your trust responsibility, make it simple, you 
know, it is pretty complex bureaucracy out there, and stay 
engaged, you know, and continue to work with us.
    None of these problems are going to be solved in a single 
appropriations bill. And frankly, some of you mentioned other 
problems that this committee does not have direct jurisdiction 
over. A lot of these things are spread into different 
subcommittees, although I can assure you, you know, when you 
are working with the interior appropriations subcommittee, 
Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree are really engaged 
on these issues and they are very good. They touch quite a few.
    The law enforcement issue is a big one. It is just a 
gigantic problem. And it has been historically underfunded. And 
frankly, in my feeling, you know, hobbled by inadequate 
jurisdiction on Indian land when non-Indian folks encroach. We 
have made some efforts to try and change that in the Violence 
Against Women Act, but there is a lot more out there to deal 
with in this regard, and it is both resources and jurisdiction.
    I will tell you this, I mean, this committee will listen 
loud and clear because I also think, you know, we are probably 
going to have a tough budget year, but we have historically 
underfunded these functions. And so this isn't a matter of a 
year, this is a matter as I laid out at the beginning, we are 
not doing statistically as a percentage of the overall budget 
what we were doing 20 years ago. And that is something we need 
to take into account. Again, I am not singling out either 
party, any administration, any Congress. I don't think that was 
the intent, but that is the reality.
    And you know, you have to keep the focus on these things or 
again, people seem to forget about it and they are off pursuing 
whatever the bright shiny object is, or they are appropriately 
looking after their interests in their areas and we don't have 
Native American presence in equal amounts in every 
congressional district or every State in the country. But the 
obligation is just the same. It doesn't matter, because as 
several of you pointed out and appropriately so, these treaty 
obligations. These are obligations of the United States, and 
they don't go away. And it is not like one good year takes care 
of what is a perpetual obligation, you know, under treaty 
rights.
    So thank you for coming to educate our committee. We would 
look forward to continuing the dialogue. You may hear from our 
staff on some things that were particularly complex, or they 
need additional information on it as we figure out what we can 
do. And I would also invite you to do the same. That is, as 
you, you know, develop additional insights or think there is 
something that we particularly need to know, we are going to 
move pretty fast this year. I would expect, at least in terms 
of what this subcommittee does, and then like most things in 
Washington, I doubt we will get our work done by September 
30th, the way we should. But hopefully this subcommittee will 
have gotten its work done, and we will be in a position to try 
and contribute to a solution further down the road, which in 
the end of the day, the work has got to be a bipartisan 
solution where both sides sit down and work through these 
issues.
    But I can assure you that your concerns and your interests 
aren't going to be forgotten in that discussion, and certainly 
not by this subcommittee.
    So again, I thank you all for coming. I thank my friend, 
Mr. Quigley for remaining. He has got to get out of here I 
know. And he was very kind to stay because if we lose one of 
our parties, then that ends the hearing, and we are not able to 
get your thoughts and your remarks on the record where we would 
want them. And I thank my colleagues Mr. Valadao, and Mr. 
Rutherford as well, for the same thing.
    With that, thank you for coming. The hearing is adjourned.







                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Bohnee, Gary, special assistant, Office of Congressional and 
  Legislative Affairs, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.   318
    Prepared statement...........................................   320

Buttigieg, Hon. Pete, Secretary, Department of Transportation....   173
    Prepared statement...........................................   175
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   207

Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Tennessee, submitted statement.................................    96

Fudge, Hon. Marcia, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban 
  Development....................................................   109
    Prepared statement...........................................   112
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   151

Garcia, Hon. Sylvia R., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Texas, submitted statement............................    99

Landsman, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio........................................................    90
    Prepared statement...........................................    92

Little Owl, Barbara, executive director, Standing Rock Housing 
  Authority......................................................   330
    Prepared statement...........................................   333

Nolan, Billy, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation 
  Administration.................................................   241
    Prepared statement...........................................   243
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   282

Oliver Davis, Hon. Rae, Inspector General, Department of Housing 
  and Urban Development..........................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    73

Plummer, Tonya, Director of Native American Housing Programs, 
  Enterprise.....................................................   302
    Prepared statement...........................................   305

Schrier, Hon. Kim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington.....................................................    83
    Prepared statement...........................................    86

Sisco, Leo, chairman, Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa 
  Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe...............................   323
    Prepared statement...........................................   325

Soskin, Hon. Eric J., Inspector General, Department of 
  Transportation.................................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    80

Sossamon, Russell, executive director, Comanche Nation Housing 
  Authority......................................................   296
    Prepared statement...........................................   297

Wesaw, Alex, treasurer, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians.......   338
    Prepared statement...........................................   340

                                  [all]