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


                       DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISCRE-
                        TIONARY GRANTS: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

=======================================================================

                                (118-48)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 7, 2024

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-866 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 
 
             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                    Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking 
              Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  District of Columbia               Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California           Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana                Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey     Brian J. Mast, Florida
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Salud O. Carbajal, California          Puerto Rico
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Pete Stauber, Minnesota
  Vice Ranking Member                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois     Vice Chairman
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Burgess Owens, Utah
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
                                     Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Vacancy

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     5

                               WITNESSES

Hon. Alan Winders, Presiding Commissioner, Audrain County, 
  Missouri, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, 
  oral statement.................................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line and Regional Railroad 
  Association, oral statement....................................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Amy O'Leary, Executive Director, Southeast Michigan Council of 
  Governments, oral statement....................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
Hon. Jared W. Perdue, P.E., Secretary, Florida Department of 
  Transportation, oral statement.................................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Jennifer Killen, Superintendent, Cook County 
  Department of Transportation and Highways, Submitted for the 
  Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia........................    52
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Mark DeSaulnier:
    News release entitled, ``Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Largest 
      Tax Relief Package in Florida's History,'' by News Releases 
      by Staff, flgov.com, May 6, 2022...........................    72
    Motor Fuel Tax Relief 2022, Florida Department of Revenue, 
      floridarevenue.com.........................................    73
    Gas Tax Holiday, Office of the Attorney General, State of 
      Florida, myfloridalegal.com................................    74
    Article entitled, ``Florida's Gas Holiday Ends Today. 
      Consumers Saved 25 Cents per Gallon in October,'' by Cheryl 
      McCloud, Tallahassee Democrat, October 31, 2022............    76
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves:
    Letter of March 7, 2024, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and 
      Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Transportation and Infrastructure, from Kristen Swearingen, 
      Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs, 
      Associated Builders and Contractors........................    87
    Statement of Dennis J. Newman, Executive Vice President, 
      Strategy and Planning, National Railroad Passenger 
      Corporation (Amtrak).......................................    89

                                APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Hon. Jared W. 
  Perdue, P.E., Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation..    93

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             March 1, 2024

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
    FROM:  LStaff, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
    RE:      LFull Committee Hearing on ``Department of 
Transportation Discretionary Grants: Stakeholder Perspectives''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will 
meet on Thursday, March 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of 
the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a 
hearing entitled, ``Department of Transportation Discretionary 
Grants: Stakeholder Perspectives.'' At the hearing, Members 
will receive testimony from the National Association of 
Counties (NACo), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad 
Association, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, and 
the Florida Department of Transportation. The witnesses will 
discuss issues and opportunities related to applying for and 
securing competitive discretionary funding administered and 
awarded by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT 
or Department).

                             II. BACKGROUND

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I or 
Committee) authorizes programs carried out by DOT modal 
administrations and offices including the:
     LFederal Aviation Administration (FAA);
     LFederal Highway Administration (FHWA);
     LFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA);
     LNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA);
     LFederal Transit Administration (FTA);
     LFederal Railroad Administration (FRA);
     LMaritime Administration (MARAD);
     LPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration (PHMSA);
     LGreat Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (GLS);
     LOffice of the Inspector General (OIG); and
     LOffice of the Secretary (OST).

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT

    On November 15, 2021, the President signed the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58) 
into law, representing the largest Federal investment in 
decades in the United States' infrastructure.\1\ This 
legislation authorized and appropriated a combined $1.2 
trillion for infrastructure programs over the five-year period 
from fiscal year (FY) 2022 to FY 2026, to sustain and modernize 
the Nation's infrastructure, including roads, bridges, transit, 
railroads, ports, and airports, as well as energy and broadband 
infrastructure.\2\ Of the total authorized and appropriated in 
IIJA, approximately $661 billion is administered by DOT.\3\ The 
Department is responsible for implementing 103 programs and 157 
subprograms under IIJA, which includes 72 competitive programs 
and 93 competitive subprograms.\4\ Of the $661 billion, 67 
percent is distributed by formula (58 percent through existing 
formula programs and nine percent through new formula programs) 
and 30 percent is distributed through competitive programs (19 
percent through existing competitive programs and 11 percent 
through new competitive programs).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 [hereinafter IIJA].
    \2\ FHWA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/ (last updated Feb. 22, 
2024).
    \3\ See DOT, IIJA, Authorized Funding FY 2022 to FY 2026, available 
at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_
Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf (Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure calculation).
    \4\ DOT, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Dashboard, available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law-dashboard. [hereinafter IIJA Dashboard].
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

INFLATION REDUCTION ACT

    On August 16, 2022, the President signed the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117-169) into law, which appropriated 
$5.3 billion in FY 2022 for three new competitive FHWA-
administered programs: the Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant 
Program, the Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants, and 
Environmental Review Implementation Funds.\6\ Funding for all 
three programs is available for obligation until September 30, 
2026.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ IRA, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 2085 [hereinafter IRA].
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. IIJA IMPLEMENTATION

    Through IIJA, Congress created several new discretionary 
competitive grant programs; authorized and appropriated 
increased funding for existing programs; and created and 
expanded program and recipient eligibilities, including for 
non-traditional applicants.\8\ The majority of authorized DOT 
IIJA funding will flow to recipients through $446 billion in 
formula grants and $196 billion in competitive grants.\9\ A 
comprehensive list of these programs across modal agencies and 
total funding available for each program can be found on DOT's 
website.\10\ Since IIJA's enactment, as of February 11, 2024, 
DOT indicated it has announced nearly $290.9 billion in IIJA 
formula funding and competitive grant awards to states, local 
governments, transit agencies, airports, ports, and other 
project sponsors.\11\ IIJA authorized $262.7 billion in formula 
and competitive grant funding for FY 2025 and FY 2026 that is 
not yet available to DOT.\12\ Since enactment of IIJA, DOT 
issued at least 87 Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) 
totaling $64 billion in available funding for IIJA and IRA 
competitive grant programs.\13\ Relative to the previous 
authorization period, an analysis by the Eno Center for 
Transportation (Eno) estimates that IIJA included an 
approximately five-fold increase in the amount of competitive 
grant funding that the Secretary of Transportation will 
award.\14\ Eno also estimates that in calendar year 2023, DOT 
announced more than $40 billion in discretionary competitive 
grant awards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \9\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ DOT, Investment in Infrastructure and Jobs Act--Financial 
Summary as of Feb. 11, 2024, (Feb. 21, 2024, 1:09 p.m.), (on file with 
Comm.) [hereinafter IIJA Funding Table].
    \12\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
    \13\ BIL LaunchPad, Notice of Funding Opportunities, (last visited 
Feb. 23, 2024) available at https://billaunchpad.com/nofo.
    \14\ Jeff Davis, Status Check: The First Year of IIJA Competitive 
Grant Funding, Eno Center for Transp., (Sept. 6, 2022), available at 
https://www.enotrans.org/article/status-check-the-first-year-of-iija-
competitive-grant-funding/.
    \15\ Jeff Davis, USDOT Announced Over $40 Billion in Discretionary 
Grants in 2023, Eno Center for Transp., (Dec. 21, 2023), available at 
https://enotrans.org/article/usdot-announced-over-40-billion-in-
discretionary-grants-in-2023/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAMS UNDER T&I'S SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT'S 
                    JURISDICTION

    The new DOT discretionary grant programs created in IIJA 
are funded by contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund 
(HTF), General Fund budget authority in annual appropriations 
acts, or General Fund budget authority from advance 
supplemental appropriations.\16\ New competitive discretionary 
highway programs funded by contract authority or advance 
appropriations include: the Bridge Investment Program, 
Congestion Relief Program, Charging and Fueling Infrastructure 
Grants, Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program, PROTECT 
Grant Program, Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities 
Program, Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program, Prioritization 
Process Pilot Program, and Reconnecting Communities Pilot 
Program.\17\ IIJA additionally authorized nine new 
discretionary highway programs subject to annual 
appropriations.\18\ Over the FY 2022-2026 period, IIJA provides 
$19.3 billion in contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund 
(HTF), appropriates $14.5 billion in advance funding, and 
authorizes $13.3 billion in spending subject to appropriation 
for new and existing FHWA-administered competitive grant 
programs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \17\ Robert S. Kirk, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47022, Federal Highway 
Programs: In Brief, (Feb. 7, 2022) available at https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47022.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New FTA-administered competitive grant programs include the 
All Stations Accessibility Program, Rail Vehicle Replacement, 
Rural Ferry Service, and Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot 
programs.\20\ Over the FY 2022-2026 period, IIJA provides $4.3 
billion in contract authority from the HTF, appropriates $16.3 
billion in advance funding, and authorizes $16.3 billion in 
spending subject to appropriation for new and existing FTA-
administered competitive grant programs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \21\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also created several new competitive grant programs 
administered by OST, which include: National Infrastructure 
Project Assistance (Mega); Asset Concessions; the Multi-State 
Freight Corridor Planning Grants; National Culvert Removal, 
Replacement, and Restoration Grants; National Multimodal 
Cooperative Freight Research; Open Research Initiative; Safe 
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A); and Strengthening Mobility 
and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Grants programs. 
IIJA also codified the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with 
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) (previously known as TIGER 
and subsequently BUILD) program.\22\ Over the FY 2022-2026 
period, IIJA appropriates $19 billion in advance funding, 
authorizes $23.4 billion in spending subject to appropriation, 
and appropriates $100 million in mandatory funding for new and 
existing OST-administered competitive grant programs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \23\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other new IIJA competitive programs include the FMCSA-
administered Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement Training and 
Support Grant Program and NHTSA-administered Crash Data 
program.\24\ Over the FY 2022-2026 period, IIJA provides $549 
million in contract authority from the HTF and appropriates 
$222.5 million in advance funding for FMCSA-administered 
competitive programs.\25\ Over the same period, IIJA provides 
$750 million in contract authority and appropriates $750 
million in advance funding for NHTSA-administered competitive 
programs.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \25\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAMS UNDER T&I'S SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 
                    HAZARDOUS MATERIALS' JURISDICTION

    Additionally, IIJA created a new Railroad Crossing 
Elimination Grant Program to address safety concerns at 
highway-rail or pathway-rail grade crossings nationwide.\27\ 
IIJA also expanded eligibility for the renamed Federal-State 
Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail program, including for 
projects on the National Network that no longer need to be on 
publicly-owned infrastructure and gives priority for projects 
on corridors in the Corridor Identification and Development 
Program.\28\ The Act further builds on the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-94) 
allowance for the Secretary of Transportation to identify out-
year funding needs for rail projects through letters of intent 
by creating phased funding agreement authority.\29\ This 
permits the Secretary of Transportation to issue letters of 
intent or phased funding agreements for multi-year projects, 
subject to advance or future appropriations.\30\ Over the FY 
2022-2026 period, IIJA appropriates $44.3 billion in advance 
funding and authorizes $15.3 billion in spending subject to 
appropriation for FRA-administered competitive programs.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.; see also FAST Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-94, Sec. 
11301, 129 Stat. 1644.
    \30\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \31\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FAST Act of 2015 first authorized, and IIJA 
subsequently reauthorized, the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure 
and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant program to provide 
competitive grants for a wide range of projects that improve 
intercity passenger and freight rail transportation in terms of 
safety, efficiency, or reliability, including grade crossing 
improvement projects.\32\ Eligible recipients include states, 
an interstate compact, public agencies, Indian Tribes, Amtrak, 
Class II and Class III railroads, additional rail carriers or 
equipment manufacturers in partnership with a public applicant, 
the Transportation Research Board, universities, and non-profit 
labor organizations.\33\ Over the FY 2022-2026 period, IIJA 
appropriates $5 billion in advance funding and authorizes an 
additional $5 billion subject to appropriation for the CRISI 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ FAST Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-94, Sec. 11301, 129 Stat. 
1644; see also IIJA, supra note 1.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also appropriates $200 million annually in advance 
funding for the creation of a new Natural Gas Distribution 
Infrastructure Safety and Modernization Grants program.\34\ 
This program provides funding for municipalities or community 
owned utilities to repair, rehabilitate, or replace natural gas 
distribution pipeline systems.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \35\ PHMSA, Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and 
Modernization Grants, (last updated Feb. 8, 2024), available at https:/
/www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/working-phmsa/grants/pipeline/natural-
gas-distribution-infrastructure-safety-and-modernization-grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER PROGRAMS WITHIN THE COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION

    Additionally, IIJA provides advance funding for several FAA 
and MARAD-administered competitive programs. Over the FY 2022-
2026 period, IIJA appropriates $5 billion for a new FAA Airport 
Terminal Program and $100 million for FAA's Contract Tower 
program.\36\ Additionally, IIJA appropriates $450 million 
annually in advance funding for MARAD's existing Port 
Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP).\37\ These are in 
addition to funds that are otherwise appropriated annually. For 
the advance appropriations, IIJA gives priority to 
environmental mitigation projects, such as port electrification 
and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. While outside the 
scope of this hearing, IIJA also appropriated funds for other 
programs within T&I's jurisdiction, including those 
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             IV. GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS

    Discretionary grants are awarded by DOT to eligible 
applicants through a competitive selection process.\39\ For 
competitive grant programs, DOT first issues a NOFO which sets 
forth eligibilities under each grant program, factors for 
applicant evaluation, the period of time during which 
interested parties can apply, and other relevant 
information.\40\ DOT posts NOFOs and applicants generally apply 
through the Federal website www.grants.gov.\41\ To provide 
assistance and information on future funding opportunities for 
potential applicants, DOT has posted on its website anticipated 
dates for future grant notices. A historical listing of 
previously issued and closed NOFOs is also available on DOT's 
website.\42\ DOT has created a dashboard, which allows users to 
view IIJA funding by modal administration, fiscal year, and 
other factors such as funding source and program type.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ DOT, Federal Funding and Financing: Grants, (last updated Nov. 
20, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-
toolkit/funding-and-financing/grants-overview.
    \40\ DOT, Key Notices of Funding Opportunity, (last updated Dec. 6, 
2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/key-notices-funding-opportunity.
    \41\ Grants.gov, United States Government, available at 
www.grants.gov.
    \42\ DOT, 2022 Key Notices of Funding Opportunity, (last updated 
Dec. 5, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/2022-key-notices-funding-opportunity; DOT, 2023 Key 
Notices of Funding Opportunity, (last updated Dec. 5, 2023), available 
at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/2023-
key-notices-funding-opportunity.
    \43\ IIJA Dashboard, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eligibility requirements and other criteria for competitive 
grant programs are generally specified in statute. Typical 
recipients include but are not limited to states, the District 
of Columbia, territories of the United States, Federally 
recognized Indian Tribes, units of local government, public 
agencies or publicly chartered authorities, special purpose 
districts, public authorities with a transportation function, 
non-profit organizations, Amtrak, transit agencies, 
universities, and private-sector applicants, among others.\44\ 
Competitive grants primarily support planning or construction 
of transportation infrastructure projects; research and 
development; safety; vehicle replacement; hazard mitigation; 
resiliency projects; education and workforce development; 
technical assistance; and compliance with environmental, civil 
rights, or other laws, among other activities.\45\ NOFOs 
explicitly confirm that applicants must demonstrate compliance 
with applicable laws, such as the Build America, Buy America 
Act (BABAA).\46\ This Act requires that when procuring iron, 
steel, manufactured products, and construction materials for 
use in infrastructure projects that receive Federal funding 
assistance, preference must be given to materials produced by 
companies and workers in the United States.\47\ These 
provisions apply to all infrastructure projects whether funding 
is allocated through IIJA or other Federal programs.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ DOT, Who is Eligible to Apply for Discretionary Grants?, (last 
updated Nov. 17, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/
rural/grant-toolkit/eligible-applicants; see also IIJA, supra note 1.
    \45\ IIJA, supra note 1.
    \46\ See e.g. DOT, Off. of the Sec'y, NOFO for the RAISE Grant 
Program, Amendment No. 1, (last updated Feb. 23, 2024), available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-02/
FY%202024%20RAISE%20NOFO%20Amendment%201.pdf [hereinafter RAISE NOFO].
    \47\ Christopher D. Watson, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF119898, Congress 
Expands Buy America Requirements in the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), (Dec. 7, 2021) available at https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11989.
    \48\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, Build America, Buy America Act, 
Title IX, 135 Stat. 429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A NOFO may also set forth requirements for grant applicants 
to demonstrate effort with respect to priorities established in 
executive orders or broader Administration or DOT-wide 
goals.\49\ Project selection by the Department may also 
consider broader Administration goals. For example, the 
Justice40 Initiative (J40), created by President Biden's 
Executive Order 14008, establishes a goal to devote 40 percent 
of certain Federal benefits to funding in disadvantaged 
communities.\50\ DOT's implementation of J40 affects the 
decision-making processes for at least 39 programs and 
approximately $204 billion in authorized IIJA funding.\51\ DOT 
has outlined in its FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan its goals of 
advancing safety, economic strength and global competitiveness, 
equity, climate and sustainability, transformation, and 
organizational excellence.\52\ In order to increase the 
likelihood of securing a grant award, DOT encourages applicants 
generally, and within their NOFOs, to align applications with 
DOT's defined strategic goals and to detail how their 
respective projects would help DOT achieve these goals.\53\ 
While applicants must comply with statutory requirements for 
grants, pursuant to the NOFO they will have a greater chance at 
securing a grant award if they meet this Administration's 
additional criteria related to equity, Justice40, and climate 
change--although some competitive grant programs also include 
these same factors as statutory evaluation criteria.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ DOT, DOT's Implementation of White House Executive Actions 
(EAs), (last updated July 13, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/priorities/dots-implementation-white-house-
executive-actions-eas; see also DOT, Maximizing Award Success: USDOT 
Grant Evaluation Criteria, (last updated Nov. 17, 2023), available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/maximizing-award-
success/evaluation-criteria.
    \50\ DOT, Justice 40 Initiative, (last visited Feb. 23, 2023), 
available at https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40.
    \51\ DOT, Justice40 Fact Sheet, available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-11/
Justice40_Fact_Sheet_v1.2pptx.pdf.
    \52\ DOT, Strategic Plan FY 2022-2026, available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/US_DOT_FY2022-
26_Strategic_Plan.pdf.
    \53\ DOT, Maximizing Award Success: USDOT Grant Evaluation 
Criteria, (last updated Nov. 17, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/maximizing-award-success/
evaluation-criteria.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On its website, DOT provides a preparation checklist to 
assist applicants seeking grant opportunities.\55\ These 
guidelines provide clarity on requirements mandated by statute 
in order to receive federal funds, such as compliance with 
environmental planning policies and regulations outlined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Applicants are also 
subject to program-specific statutory requirements, that can 
include a capital projects benefit-cost analysis (BCA) or a 
requirement to secure non-Federal funding to support a 
project.\56\ DOT also provides a process timeline for 
considering, issuing, and disbursing awards.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ DOT, Federal Transportation Funding: Discretionary Grant 
Preparation Checklist for Prospective Applicants, (last updated 
November 27, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/
dot-navigator/discretionary-grant-preparation-checklist.
    \56\ RAISE NOFO, supra note 46.
    \57\ DOT, USDOT Discretionary Grant Funding Process, (last updated: 
Nov. 17, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/rural/
grant-toolkit/grant-application-process/grant-applicant-roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              V. WITNESSES

     LHon. Alan Winders, Presiding Commissioner, 
Audrain County, Missouri, on behalf of National Association of 
Counties
     LMr. Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line 
and Regional Railroad Association
     LMs. Amy O'Leary, Executive Director, Southeast 
Michigan Council of Governments
     LHon. Jared W. Perdue, P.E., Secretary, Florida 
Department of Transportation

 
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY GRANTS: STAKEHOLDER 
                              PERSPECTIVES

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in room 
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will come to order, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time 
during today's hearing.
    Without objection, that is so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members insert a document into the 
record, please also email it to [email protected].
    So, with that, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES OF MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, 
         COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. We are here today to discuss the 
discretionary grant programs at the Department of 
Transportation and to hear firsthand from stakeholders about 
their experiences with the Department's grant processes.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the IIJA, 
authorized $196 billion over 5 years for new and existing DOT 
competitive grant programs. This represents 30 percent of the 
total funding provided by the IIJA. The committee has a keen 
interest in ensuring that these taxpayer-funded grants follow 
the intent of the law and support projects that actually 
improve our Nation's infrastructure network and the supply 
chain.
    The committee has heard concerns from stakeholders 
regarding the implementation of the IIJA, specifically citing 
the Department's delay and inconsistency with the issuance of 
Notices of Funding Opportunity, or NOFOs, and the length of 
time it takes to execute grant agreements after an award has 
been announced.
    On the front end of the process, NOFOs have incorporated 
the administration's Executive orders on climate, equity, and 
environmental justice into their grant criteria, requiring 
applicants to demonstrate efforts in advancing the 
administration's very progressive agenda.
    For example, a recipient of a 2023 Safe Streets and Roads 
For All grant award not only must certify compliance with 75 
Federal laws and regulations, but they must also certify 
compliance with 12 Executive orders. These additional criteria 
may exclude otherwise qualified projects from receiving Federal 
funding for worthwhile infrastructure improvements.
    On the back end, grant recipients are experiencing longer 
than normal wait times for the execution of grant agreements. 
As a result, IIJA funds are trickling out, limiting the ability 
of stakeholders to put these funds to good use.
    As the committee prepares for the next highway bill in the 
next Congress, it's important that we continue to ensure the 
best use of the infrastructure funding and find ways to improve 
the grant process.
    I also look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses 
today, including one from my district who I will introduce here 
in just a little bit, about their experience in applying for 
Federal funding and how they are using Federal dollars to 
improve the state of our Nation's transportation network.
    [Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
 from the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure
    We are here today to discuss discretionary grant programs at the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and to hear firsthand from 
stakeholders about their experiences with the Department's grant 
processes.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) authorized $196 
billion over five years for new and existing DOT competitive grant 
programs. This represents 30 percent of the total funding provided by 
IIJA.
    The Committee has a keen interest in ensuring these taxpayer-funded 
grants follow the intent of the law and support projects that actually 
improve our Nation's infrastructure network and supply chain.
    The Committee has heard concerns from stakeholders regarding the 
implementation of IIJA, specifically citing the Department's delay and 
inconsistency with the issuance of Notices of Funding Opportunity, or 
NOFOs, and the length of time it takes to execute grant agreements 
after an award has been announced.
    On the front end of the process, NOFOs have incorporated the 
Administration's Executive orders on climate, equity, and environmental 
justice into their grant criteria, requiring applicants to demonstrate 
effort in advancing the Administration's progressive agenda.
    For example, a recipient of a 2023 Safe Streets and Roads for All 
grant award not only must certify compliance with 75 federal laws and 
regulations, but they must also certify compliance with 12 Executive 
orders. These additional criteria may exclude otherwise qualified 
projects from receiving federal funding for worthwhile infrastructure 
improvements.
    On the back end, grant recipients are experiencing longer than 
normal wait times for the execution of grant agreements. As a result, 
IIJA funds are trickling out, limiting the ability of stakeholders to 
put these funds to use.
    As the Committee prepares for the next highway bill in the next 
Congress, it is important that we continue to ensure the best use of 
our infrastructure funding and find ways to improve the grant process.
    I also look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today, 
including one from my district who I'll introduce later, about their 
experience in applying for federal funding, and how they are using 
federal dollars to improve the state of our Nation's transportation 
network.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. I now recognize Ranking Member 
Larsen for his opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Graves, for 
holding this hearing to explore how competitive grant funds 
from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are providing 
opportunities and delivering results.
    The law provides record-breaking funding for critical 
infrastructure projects. Over 5 years, the BIL invests $661 
billion in roads, bridges, transit, buses, ferries, airports, 
ports, and rail. Congress provided 30 percent of this amount, 
about $196 billion, to be distributed through 72 competitive 
grant programs. Many of these grant programs were established 
in the BIL, and this investment level and volume of new 
initiatives far exceeds previous transportation bills.
    DOT has risen to the occasion to get this money into the 
hands of communities by issuing nearly 90 Notices of Funding 
Opportunity, or NOFOs, in the 2 years since the enactment of 
the law, and this level of grantmaking is remarkable. Compared 
to formula funds, these grants provide new and expanded 
opportunities for local and Tribal governments to pursue local 
priorities and receive grant awards directly.
    For example, the BIL's Safe Streets and Roads For All 
program, for which States are not eligible to apply, is widely 
heralded as a model for assistance to local governments to 
improve safety. In the first two rounds of funding, over 1,000 
local safety projects received grants, a huge boost to 
communities with needs that may not rise to the top of State 
DOT priorities.
    Congress also delivered an unprecedented 5 years of funding 
certainty for rail in the BIL, a level of commitment not seen 
since the creation of Amtrak over 50 years ago.
    The Federal Railroad Administration has awarded over 238 
rail projects under the BIL, including a $2 million grant to 
the city of Burlington in my district for a railroad crossing 
elimination. The FRA is working with communities to develop or 
enhance, as well, 69 intercity passenger rail corridors 
nationwide.
    Yet much of this BIL discretionary rail funding is subject 
to appropriation, and therefore at the mercy of caps and cuts, 
because rail does not have a dedicated revenue source. And the 
cuts to Amtrak in the proposed THUD bill, which stalled 
consideration of the bill last fall, demonstrated this 
committee will have to remain vigilant to protect investment in 
rail.
    Infrastructure investment means jobs. Ensuring that 
infrastructure benefits reach all communities requires a strong 
working relationship among Federal, State, regional, and local 
government partners.
    My State of Washington has a robust process to distribute 
transportation dollars to all areas, including rural counties 
and communities in my district. WSDOT leads the process by 
partnering with local governments and passing through Federal 
transportation dollars with a lot of input from State 
legislators, I might add, as well.
    Distribution of transportation funding through the State 
legislature further supports the reach into communities. As a 
result, we have seen success in addressing transportation needs 
in my district and other districts around the State. This 
collaboration further supports success in the competitive grant 
process. Local governments, including Whatcom and Skagit 
Counties, and the Tribes, such as the Lummi Nation in my 
district, have successfully applied for and been awarded 
grants.
    So, in all, Washington and my district have received more 
than $120 million in competitive grants from the BIL, so, it 
can happen.
    We are only 2 years through a 5-year bill, which means 
there is more to come: more projects, more jobs, more safety 
improvements, more pollution reduction, and more communities 
uplifted.
    Congress directed investments in the BIL to address climate 
change and reduce carbon pollution, as well. We have directed 
these investments to improve safety and equity outcomes on our 
transportation network, and we put more decisionmaking power 
into the hands of local communities who know their needs best.
    DOT's grant competitions reflect these directives from 
Congress. DOT's competitive grant considerations align with 
goals shared by those who voted for the BIL and are advancing 
cleaner, safer, and more equitable transportation.
    Now, beyond the benefits of individual projects, BIL 
resources are building local government capacity to deliver 
projects, because in some respects, the local governments don't 
have that capacity to apply for these grants. So, DOT is 
actively helping applicants new to the Federal transportation 
grant process to navigate this competitive process.
    The Thriving Communities Program supports disadvantaged and 
underresourced communities to advance transportation projects. 
The program's capacity builder organizations work directly with 
local communities to build their technical knowledge. The first 
year of funding, $21 million, supported 64 communities, 
including 27 in rural areas. This program to build the bench of 
project sponsors will transform communities that have not 
previously accessed Federal funds and will deliver jobs, 
mobility improvements, and economic benefits for years to come, 
especially in rural areas.
    So, I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the benefits to 
each of our districts and constituents. I also welcome the 
opportunity to look at how we can make it better. As a former 
county councilmember, I can assure you I understand the 
frustration that counties and cities have in accessing Federal 
money, and sometimes they choose not to. So, I fully understand 
that. But we are making progress in this particular version of 
the transportation funding through the BIL to try to address 
that technical capacity deficit so that, again, we can build a 
longer term bench to increase the number of project sponsors 
for competitive grants.
    I will finally say that there is one area where State 
legislatures, State DOTs, the local governments, city and 
county and Tribal governments all agree: there is never enough 
money from the Federal Government when it comes to 
transportation funding. So, if we can all agree on that as we 
look forward to 2026, when we have to do this all over again, 
we should keep that in mind, as well, as we are looking to 
improve the process.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington, Ranking Member, 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Graves, for holding this hearing to explore how 
competitive grant funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) 
are providing opportunities and delivering results.
    The BIL provides record-breaking funding for critical 
infrastructure projects.
    Over five years, the BIL invests $661 billion in roads, bridges, 
transit, buses, ferries, airports, ports, and rail. Congress provided 
30 percent of this amount--$196 billion--to be distributed through 72 
competitive grant programs.
    Many of these grant programs were established in the BIL. This 
investment level and volume of new competitive initiatives far exceeds 
previous transportation bills.
    DOT has risen to the occasion to get this money into the hands of 
communities by issuing nearly 90 Notices of Funding Opportunity in the 
two years since enactment of the law. This level of grantmaking is 
remarkable.
    Compared to formula funds, these grants provide new and expanded 
opportunities for local and Tribal governments to pursue local 
priorities and receive grant awards directly.
    For example, the BIL Safe Streets and Roads for All program--for 
which states are not eligible to apply--is widely heralded as a model 
for assistance to local governments to improve safety.
    In the first two rounds of funding, over 1,000 local safety 
projects received grants--a huge boost to communities with needs that 
may not rise to the top of state DOT priorities.
    Congress also delivered an unprecedented five years of funding 
certainty for rail in the BIL--a level of commitment not seen since the 
creation of Amtrak over 50 years ago.
    The Federal Railroad Administration has awarded over 238 rail 
projects under the BIL, including a $2 million grant to the city of 
Burlington in my district for railroad crossing elimination. FRA is 
working with communities to develop or enhance 69 intercity passenger 
rail corridors nationwide.
    Yet much of the BIL discretionary rail funding is subject to 
appropriation--and therefore at the mercy of caps and cuts--because 
rail does not have a dedicated revenue source.
    The cuts to Amtrak in the FY24 House Republicans THUD bill, which 
stalled consideration of the bill in the House last fall, demonstrate 
that this Committee will have to remain vigilant to protect investment 
in rail.
    Infrastructure investment means jobs.
    Ensuring that infrastructure benefits reach all communities 
requires a strong working relationship among federal, state, regional, 
and local government partners.
    My state of Washington has a robust process to distribute 
transportation dollars to all areas, including rural counties and 
communities in my district. WSDOT leads the process of partnering with 
local governments and passing through federal transportation dollars 
with a lot of input from state legislators. Distribution of 
transportation funding through the state legislature further supports 
the reach into communities.
    As a result, we have seen success in addressing transportation 
needs in my district and other districts across the state.
    This collaboration further supports success in the competitive 
grant process. Local governments, including Whatcom and Skagit 
counties, and Tribes, such as the Lummi Nation, in my district in 
Washington State have successfully applied for and been awarded grants.
    In all, Washington's Second Congressional District has received 
more than $120 million in competitive grants from the BIL. So, it can 
happen.
    We are only two years through a five-year bill, which means there 
is more to come--more projects, more jobs, more safety improvements, 
more pollution reduction, and more communities uplifted.
    Congress directed investments in the BIL to address climate change 
and reduce carbon pollution. We directed investments to improve safety 
and equity outcomes on our transportation networks. And we put more 
decision-making power into the hands of local communities, who know 
their needs best.
    DOT's grant competitions reflect these directives from Congress. 
DOT's competitive grant considerations align with goals shared by those 
who voted for the BIL and are advancing cleaner, safer, and more 
equitable transportation.
    Beyond the benefits of individual projects, BIL resources are 
building local government capacity to deliver projects. Because in some 
respects, local governments do not have the capacity to apply for these 
grants.
    DOT is actively helping applicants new to federal transportation 
grants--which includes many local governments, Tribes, and rural 
communities--to navigate the competitive process.
    The Thriving Communities Program supports disadvantaged and under-
resourced communities to advance transportation projects. The program's 
``capacity builder'' organizations work directly with local communities 
to build their technical knowledge. The first year of funding, $21 
million, supported 64 communities, including 27 in rural areas.
    This program to build the bench of project sponsors will transform 
communities that have not previously accessed federal funds and will 
deliver jobs, mobility improvements, and economic benefits for years to 
come, especially in rural areas.
    I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the infrastructure benefits 
to each of our districts and constituents.
    I also welcome the opportunity to look at how we can make it 
better. As a former County Councilmember, I can assure you that I 
understand the frustration that counties and cities have in accessing 
federal money, and why sometimes they choose not to.
    But we are making progress in this version of funding, through the 
BIL, to address the potential capacity deficit, so we can build a 
longer-term bench to increase the number of project sponsors for 
competitive grants.
    There is one area where state legislatures, state DOTs, local 
governments, city, county, and Tribal governments all agree: there is 
never enough money from the federal government when it comes to 
transportation funding. We can all agree on that as we look forward to 
2026, when we have to do this all over again, and we should keep that 
in mind as we are trying to improve the process.
    I look forward to today's discussion.

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thanks, Rick, and I do want to 
welcome all of the witnesses here today.
    And just to kind of briefly explain the lights, you will 
each have 5 minutes to give your testimony, and then green is 
go, and yellow means you are running out of time, and red is 
try to conclude as quickly as possible.
    With that, I would ask unanimous consent that witnesses' 
full statements be included in the record.
    And without objection, that is so ordered.
    I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's 
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have 
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them 
in writing.
    Without objection, that is so ordered.
    I would also ask unanimous consent that the record remain 
open for 15 days for additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record 
of today's hearing.
    Without objection, that is so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made a part of the 
record, the committee asks that you, as I mentioned earlier, 
limit remarks to 5 minutes.
    So, before we get to our witnesses, I do want to welcome 
some constituents in the audience today: Pike County Presiding 
Commissioner Bill Allen is in the office, and Audrain County 
Road and Bridge Engineer Brian Haeffner.
    Welcome to both of you for coming in and helping out with 
this.
    Our first witness today is also a constituent of mine, and 
I want to welcome Alan Winders, the presiding commissioner of 
Audrain County. He also serves as chairman of the Better 54 
Coalition. The Better 54 Coalition has been working to make 
improvements to Highway 54 between Mexico, Missouri, and 
Louisiana, Missouri. He is also the chairman of the Mark Twain 
Regional Council of Governments. And given those roles, he is 
very familiar with applying for DOT grants, as well as many 
other grants.
    Thanks for making the trip out, Alan. I really appreciate 
you being here. And with that, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ALAN WINDERS, PRESIDING COMMISSIONER, AUDRAIN 
  COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
   COUNTIES; CHUCK BAKER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND 
REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION; AMY O'LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
 SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; AND HON. JARED W. 
 PERDUE, P.E., SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TESTIMONY OF HON. ALAN WINDERS, PRESIDING COMMISSIONER, AUDRAIN 
  COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
                            COUNTIES

    Mr. Winders. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 
Larsen, and distinguished members of the committee. It's an 
honor to be here today. There is only one Audrain County in all 
of these great United States, and it's my great honor to be the 
presiding commissioner. It is also my honor to be here today.
    Audrain County is about 700 square miles, about 25,000 
people, and is a rural county in northeast Missouri. It is 
rural by all definitions. Today, I am here in the capacity as a 
member of the National Association of Counties, or NACo, which 
represents the interest of each of America's 3,069 counties, 
parishes, and boroughs. Thank you for the opportunity to 
provide the county perspective on U.S. Department of 
Transportation's discretionary grant process as it relates to 
programs in the IIJA.
    Nationally, America's counties own 44 percent of roads and 
38 percent of bridges. In Audrain County, it's a little higher 
than that. But annually, America's counties invest over $60 
million in the construction, maintenance, and operation of the 
Nation's transportation systems. We are doing our part at the 
local level. County-owned roads and bridges do not receive any 
direct, guaranteed Federal support, although they serve far 
more than just our residents. Making matters worse, 45 States, 
including Missouri and Washington, cap the ability of counties 
to increase revenues in various ways.
    In rural America, where tax bases are small, our ability to 
maintain infrastructure is even further strained, leading to 
dangerous conditions. Sadly, a driver is twice as likely to die 
in a crash on a rural road than an urban road. In rural areas, 
however, where almost 70 percent of the Nation's transportation 
system lies, along local roads and bridges that make up the 
first and last mile of America's daily commutes, America's food 
leaves the farm on local roads.
    Foremost, America's counties are tremendously grateful for 
the funding opportunities in the IIJA and urge lawmakers to 
protect the level of investment in the next law. Competitive 
grant programs represent the only way counties can access 
Federal transportation funds to carry out the projects that we 
deem a priority. And for that, we are immensely grateful.
    When counties are successful, countless examples 
demonstrate our ability to turn Federal investments into real-
life projects that improve the quality of life for our 
residents. However, competing is not easy. Not only do counties 
have to compete with ourselves, we also must vie with cities, 
States, regional organizations, Tribal governments, and others.
    Like Audrain, two-thirds of America's counties are rural 
and have serious capacity constraints that put the average 
county at a great competitive disadvantage in Federal grant 
programs because these programs are structured to reward 
applicants that have the most resources. This means that urban 
centers are typically successful, while smaller entities 
struggle to compete, even though the infrastructure serving 
these communities is no less important.
    From interstates to gravel roads, all parts of the system 
are critical to its efficient operation. Small and rural 
counties simply do not have the resources to determine which 
grant program is the right fit, prepare or contract out a 
competitive application, complete environmental reviews, meet 
the local match, et cetera.
    Other challenges exist that we have seen firsthand through 
our role in the Highway 54 Coalition. While this project is 
critical to our region, we lose rating points in the RAISE 
application based on unrelated, nonstatutory criteria. While 
the IIJA significantly increased the number of competitive 
programs counties can apply to, it did not change how the 
programs are fundamentally structured, applying the same 
reporting requirements to State departments of transportation 
and rural counties alike. This is true for counties of all 
sizes. Overly complex regulations and guidance can make 
implementing an award just about as challenging as competing 
for it.
    When we are successful, counties need responsive Federal 
partners who produce timely and clear directives that do not 
prescribe how funds are spent beyond what is required in the 
statute.
    Federal permitting requirements can also make competitive 
grant programs unattractive for potential applicants. Too 
often, simple, local projects that use Federal funding trigger 
NEPA, even when they are carried out in an already disturbed 
public right-of-way where categorical exclusion should apply. 
Awardees are reporting unprecedented timelines of up to 24 
months for grant agreements. Delays of this nature degrade 
investment and slow the delivery of projects. We strongly 
encourage the U.S. Department of Transportation to address this 
issue.
    In closing, the message is simple: please get grant funds 
out the door as quickly as possible. Counties stand ready to 
work with you as willing and able partners to help ensure that 
dollars invested in our Nation's infrastructure over the course 
of the IIJA continue to benefit Americans for generations to 
come.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the 
committee for the opportunity to be here today to talk, to give 
some feedback on how we see the program working from our 
perspective, and I look forward to answering any questions you 
may have.
    [Mr. Winders' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Alan Winders, Presiding Commissioner, 
  Audrain County, Missouri, on behalf of the National Association of 
                                Counties
                              Introduction
    Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen and 
distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 
to provide feedback on how America's county governments are faring in 
the competitive grants process as it relates to U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) funding opportunities in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA/P.L. 117-58).
    My name is Alan Winders, and I am the Presiding Commissioner in 
Audrain County, Missouri, where I have served since 2016. Among 
Missouri's 114 counties, Audrain occupies approximately 700 square 
miles in the east central part of the state. Home to just under 25,000 
residents with a population density of 36, the county is considered 
rural by the 2020 U.S. Census.
    With its rich, fertile land, Audrain is one of the state's leading 
agricultural communities with primary farm products consisting of 
soybeans, corn, grain, wheat, beef and pork. In value-added 
agriculture, a biodiesel plant and an ethanol plant located in Audrain 
County provide renewable fuels to the region. We are home to numerous 
manufacturing firms, service industries, and other small businesses 
ranging from retail shops to light manufacturing, distribution and food 
products. Our residents enjoy an economic climate marked by variety and 
progress.
    I also serve as Chair of the U.S. Highway 54 Corridor Coalition 
(Coalition), comprised of Audrain and Pike Counties, Mo. and Pike 
County, Ill., as well as the various communities that make up the route 
between Mexico, Mo. and Pittsfield, Ill. The Coalition's goal is 
improving safety and increasing corridor capacity through the 
implementation of an innovative, shared four-lane facility and 
associated intersection improvements. The coalition has been diligent, 
continuing its efforts for nearly 20 years.
    In addition to my county roles, I am testifying in my capacity as a 
member of the National Association of Counties (NACo). NACo represents 
the interests of all of America's 3,069 counties, parishes and 
boroughs. Like Audrain County, nearly two-thirds of the nation's 
counties are rural, located outside of an urbanized area and 
encompassing less than 50,000 residents. At the same time, there are 
over 120 urban counties where local services are provided to 130 
million residents each day.
    Through participation in NACo's ten policy committees, county 
officials work together to develop common legislative and regulatory 
solutions at the federal level. As a member of the NACo Transportation 
Policy Steering Committee, I work with my peers from around the country 
to advance our national transportation priorities, the number one of 
which is securing consistent federal funding for county-owned roads and 
bridges.
    As we approach the midpoint of the IIJA, America's counties thank 
you for your attention to the law's processes and, specifically, to the 
ability of local governments to access the multitude of new competitive 
opportunities created by the IIJA within USDOT. We hope you will use 
this feedback to inform your policy considerations for future surface 
transportation legislation.
    Counties offer the following considerations:
      Counties hold a large ownership share of the nation's 
roads (44 percent) and bridges (38 percent) yet receive no direct, 
guaranteed federal funding to support these assets that serve many more 
than just our residents.
      Counties must compete with other counties, our city and 
state partners, and others for direct federal funding for local 
transportation needs, often unsuccessfully, and we urge Congress to 
streamline this process.
      To ensure the IIJA meets its intended goals, federal 
policymakers should produce timely, clear criteria and guidance and 
eliminate barriers to project delivery.

    Counties hold a large ownership share of the nation's roads (44 
percent) and bridges (38 percent) yet receive no guaranteed federal 
funding to support these assets that serve many more than just our 
residents.
    County governments collectively own, operate and maintain 
significantly more public road miles (44 percent) than any other level 
of government, including states (20 percent). We also own and operate a 
significant amount of the nation's bridges (38 percent) compared to 
cities (8 percent) and townships (5 percent). Beyond roads and bridges, 
counties are direct supporters of 34 percent of airports and 40 percent 
of public transit systems that keep Americans connected in every corner 
of the country and throughout the globe.
    Home to the ``last mile,'' where the majority of Americans both 
begin and end their days, counties are leaders in the national 
infrastructure network and major investors, annually spending over $130 
billion on the construction of transportation and infrastructure and 
the maintenance and operation of public works.
    In Missouri, counties own half of all bridges, well over the 
national average. In Audrain, the county owns and operates just over 71 
percent of bridges and 65 percent of road miles. Much of the Sixth 
District of Missouri looks like Audrain, with its 39 counties 
accounting for nearly 40 percent of all bridges in the state. In 
Washington, counties own 40 percent of bridges, with the county-owned 
bridges in the 2nd District accounting for seven percent of the state's 
nearly 8,500 bridges.
    While we own a substantial share of the nation's roads and bridges, 
counties receive no guaranteed federal funding for these assets that 
serve many more than just our residents. Compounding the problem, 
Missouri, Washington and 43 other states limit the ability of counties 
to raise revenue in various ways, making intergovernmental support 
vital to meeting our public sector responsibilities, especially in 
small and rural communities where property tax bases--the predominant 
revenue source of most counties--are insufficient.
    Because federal surface transportation laws have historically 
apportioned 90 percent or more of transportation funding directly to 
state departments of transportation (DOT) via formulas, counties must 
rely on competitive funding opportunities that largely make up the 
remaining 10 percent to meet the needs of locally owned infrastructure 
outside of the National Highway System that makes up the majority of 
the nation's roads and bridges.
    While counties greatly value our partnerships with state DOTs, the 
productivity of these relationships can vary by state and even county 
by county. Further, even when the intergovernmental relationship is 
effective, DOTs have their own infrastructure responsibilities that are 
posited above our own which they too may be struggling to meet, 
especially in rural states like Missouri.
    Still, examples of county-state best practices exist nationwide. 
The Missouri DOT works closely with counties through its off-system 
bridge set-aside fund that combines the set-asides from both the Bridge 
Formula Program and the Surface Transportation Block Grant. This 
practice reduces the amount of the local match required from 20 percent 
to roughly 12 percent.
    For counties in Oklahoma, where only three of its 77 counties 
retain a professional engineer, the state DOT has taken over the 
complex reporting requirements that accompany federal awards at no 
charge and is also supporting a portion of application costs. In 
Indiana, the State Community Crossings Match Grant supports local 
investment in infrastructure projects.
    Unfortunately, these examples are not the experience for all 
counties, leading to inconsistencies in the system that vary by 
location. The divide is more easily discernible, however, within the 
states themselves because of the federal transportation funding gap 
that persists between urban and rural communities.
    Nearly two-thirds of America's counties are rural. According to 
USDOT, these areas--while sparser in population--are where 68 percent 
of the nation's total lane-miles are located. In 2019, the 
Congressional Research Service reported that, of the over 1.6 million 
miles of rural county roads, just 13.7 percent are eligible for federal 
aid.
    Due to chronic underinvestment by our state and federal partners 
and limited local tax bases, rural roads have serious safety concerns. 
Rural areas are home to just 19 percent of the U.S. population but 
represent where 43 percent of all roadway fatalities occur. Simply put, 
a driver is almost twice as likely to die on a rural road than an urban 
road. This reality is an example of the real-life consequences of USDOT 
having to select winners and losers.
    While rural infrastructure is deteriorating, it continues to 
support the bulk of the movement of people and goods. USDOT reported 
that ``large volumes of freight either originate in rural areas or are 
transported through rural areas on the nation's highways, railways, and 
inland waterways.'' This includes 46 percent of the total miles 
traveled by heavy trucks, which can weigh 80,000 pounds or more in 
states with exemptions to the federal threshold.
    Due to their size and prevalence, heavy trucks have huge impacts on 
local infrastructure felt most acutely in rural areas where travel 
times can be twice as long as urban settings due to the nearly 60,000 
bridges closed or posted with weight restrictions. Heavy trucks also 
pose serious safety risks for our residents and other travelers who 
drive along county roads each day.
    According to a 2023 local bridge study, ``local bridges represent 
76.4% of all bridges, but 89.6% of poor bridges . . . Local bridges, 
being in worse condition overall, are more vulnerable to the potential 
damage caused by heavier trucks.'' Counties urge lawmakers to prevent 
heavy truck size and weight increases not accompanied by adequate 
support to remediate impacts on locally owned infrastructure.
    Some county bridges may carry low traffic volumes but represent 
literally the only connection to work, school and emergency services 
where a failure has the potential to isolate an entire community. No 
traveler begins their trip on a highway and the functionality of the 
system depends on every cog. The connectivity of the network, ranging 
from interstates to local gravel roads, is vital. In summary, a route 
is only as good as its weakest mile (or bridge).
    Because areas with higher populations receive larger shares of 
federal funding across the government, small and rural counties are 
continuously overlooked, though the infrastructure serving these 
communities is just as important to its residents as urban dwellers. 
Competitive programs that do not have statutory population requirements 
should help address this inequity, though some FY 2022 awards have 
called this into question.
    It is evident that needs exist throughout the system, both big and 
small. Action is required from every level of government; however, some 
levels of government are not as equally equipped to access federal 
transportation funds.
    Counties must compete with other counties, our city and state 
partners, and others for direct federal funding for local 
transportation needs, often unsuccessfully, and we urge Congress to 
streamline this process.
    The IIJA was not only historic in the amount of investment it 
provided for American infrastructure but also because it increased the 
number of actors eligible to meet the nation's transportation needs. 
While process improvements can be made, counties are tremendously 
grateful for the new funding opportunities created by the IIJA and urge 
lawmakers to protect the level of investment in the next 
reauthorization.
    Competitive grants represent the only method for counties to 
directly access federal funding to address community needs which, as 
local leaders, we understand best. However, while the IIJA created 
dozens of new opportunities within USDOT, many remain inaccessible to 
county governments due to several obstacles, some stemming from the 
competitive grants process itself.
    To this end, NACo joined other stakeholders to make five 
recommendations to the White House Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) that would simplify the federal grants process:
    1.  Promote simplified concepts, accessibility of key timing/
thresholds based on entity size
    2.  Streamline common identifiers for tracking purposes
    3.  Utilize ``plain language'' instruction for the layman whenever 
possible
    4.  Lengthen timelines to accommodate local governments due process
    5.  Streamline application processes

    Even with process improvements in place, federal grants are 
structured to reward applicants with resources to compete, and many 
counties face stiff barriers. As a member of the Coalition, Audrain 
County has experienced first-hand the challenges faced by rural 
applicants. We believe our experience with applying for funding through 
the USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and 
Equity (RAISE) grant program, and the Better Utilizing Infrastructure 
to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants under the previous 
administration, is an example of how the process can work against local 
governments.
    The Coalition has yet to see success after actively seeking a RAISE 
grant for the past six years on behalf of a state asset. Despite 
submitting for the same project each year and updating its application 
to meet changing criteria, the county's rating has continued to drop 
from its highest in 2019 to its lowest in the most recent round of 
awards. Once considered innovative by agency evaluators, USDOT has most 
recently rated the application low in this category. In the Coalition's 
experience, ratings can vary based on the reviewer, creating immense 
uncertainty for applicants.
    Coalition members have spent over $15,000 alone on developing and 
updating RAISE's required benefit-cost analysis. Lacking the means for 
a consultant to assist with the application, the Coalition relies on 
support from the local area's regional planning commission, the Mark 
Twain Regional Council of Governments. This funding shortfall is common 
in rural areas and places communities on an uneven playing field with 
urban and state-level applicants even when resources are pooled.
    Undoubtedly, cost is a significant obstacle to competition for 
counties for who lack capacity, both financial and human. Counties with 
small populations and limited instruments to raise revenue must first 
evaluate whether pursuing federal funds is a good use of scarce 
resources by asking ourselves several questions, including:
      Can we afford a consultant?
      Can we meet the local match?
      If awarded, can we front the cost of the project as 
required by the reimbursable nature of USDOT programs?
      Can we administer the grant, if awarded, as grant 
administration costs are disallowed?

    Federal notices of funding opportunities (NOFO) are long and 
complex. Difficulty in deciphering funding announcements forces 
interested applicants to hire expensive third parties to understand and 
respond to the criteria. This is especially true for nontraditional 
applicants seeking funding for the first time, which represents a 
significant number of real and potential IIJA applicants.
    Seriously complicating matters further, non-statutory NOFO criteria 
has proved difficult for some counties, especially small, rural and 
first-time applicants. Meeting additional requirements, as worthy as 
they may be, only makes access more difficult for applicants who have 
not historically benefited from federal funds.
    The Highway 54 project might serve as a prime example where the 
goal of the Coalition is to build capacity by expanding a two-lane 
highway into a shared, four-lane highway in rural Missouri, about 50 
miles northwest of St. Louis. This project is critical to our region 
and will improve safety, congestion, economic development and the 
efficiency of the national network efficiency; however, our RAISE 
applications lose rating points in sections such as ``innovation'' and 
``environmental justice.''
    In our rural area and other similar communities, county officials 
simply do not have the resources necessary to be competitive with our 
urban and suburban neighbors in these types of endeavors. Ours is a 
road project though largely unrelated criteria continues to keep it 
from moving forward in the application process.
    Many rural counties are still trying to bring our infrastructure to 
states of good repair, and it is unreasonable to expect cash-strapped 
communities who have never before sought and/or received federal 
funding to exemplify innovative practices when we are struggling to 
keep our local roads and bridges in safe and working order.
    To competitively respond to NOFOs, counties across the country are 
investing tens of thousands of dollars in consultant services to 
produce applications that have no guarantee of success. In fact, a NACo 
analysis of key USDOT awards to counties in FY 2022 showed that 
counties are significantly less successful when up against our city and 
state partners in USDOT programs across the board:



    Counties fared best in the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program, 
a competitive grant created by the IIJA with a unique eligibility that 
excludes state governments. This allowed local governments to perform 
significantly better in comparison to other discretionary grant 
programs, all of which allow state DOTs to apply in addition to the 
formula funds they annually receive. Counties performed worst in the 
Reconnecting Communities category where no FY 2022 awards were made to 
county governments despite the submission of over 40 applications 
deemed eligible by USDOT.
    Of note, the Bridge Investment Program has three funding 
categories. Included in NACo's analysis are large bridge grant awards 
for projects over $100 million, which account for the majority of the 
program's award total and went mainly to states. Removing this data and 
looking at planning and regular bridge grants combined, counties 
slightly outperformed cities 53 percent to 47 percent. While this may 
seem more equitable, counties own 38 percent of bridges compared to 
cities' eight percent where 51 percent of county-owned bridges are off-
system versus just seven percent of cities.
    Among the seven programs examined, counties received just eight 
percent of awards overall, demonstrating that counties simply cannot 
continue relying solely on competitive funding opportunities to repair 
and modernize local infrastructure. In the next surface transportation 
reauthorization, counties urge lawmakers to develop a direct, 
guaranteed funding source for locally owned roads and bridges.
    In addition to funding challenges, small and rural counties also 
face personnel shortages. In many communities, the responsibility to 
find a grant, apply, administer an award, and meet reporting 
requirements can fall to the county clerk or treasurer who are seldom 
proficient in this responsibility that largely falls outside of their 
job description.
    Nevertheless, since the current funding structure demands we 
compete, counties appreciate the wealth of staff time and technical 
assistance resources USDOT has provided since the enactment of the 
infrastructure law. Counties specifically applaud USDOT's amendment to 
the FY 2024 RAISE NOFO that allows the Department to consider advance 
payments on a case-by-case basis for recipients who cannot complete a 
project on a reimbursement structure, though we recommend this 
information be available in the original NOFO going forward and that 
this practice be expanded to additional programs.
    We value our partnership with the Department and their many best 
practices around the IIJA, including:
      Allowing for advance repayment in some cases in FY 2024 
RAISE NOFO
      Facilitating local planning by providing access to key 
information, like opening and closing dates for NOFOs, and allowing for 
rolling deadlines and multi-year NOFOs
      Reducing administrative and cost burdens for counties by 
using templates and ``common applications'' that allow counties to 
apply to multiple opportunities using a single application
      Engaging rural communities with in-depth program webinars 
and other targeted resources

    To ensure the IIJA meets its intended goals, federal policymakers 
should produce timely, clear criteria and guidance and eliminate 
barriers to project delivery.
    As discussed, capacity issues and constrained finances are common 
at the local level and these factors continue to impact an applicant 
throughout the process. Should a small or rural county overcome the 
odds to receive a federal grant, the subsequent reporting requirements 
associated with 2 CFR Part 200 are extremely long and complex and 
likely too onerous to comply with.
    While the IIJA significantly increased the number of competitive 
programs counties can apply to, it did not change how programs are 
fundamentally structured. This means that the same reporting 
requirements that previously applied to more sophisticated entities, 
like state DOTs, now apply to much smaller entities, like rural 
counties. Like consultant costs, this can prevent eligible entities 
from pursuing federal programs that could otherwise benefit local 
communities.
    True for all recipients of federal infrastructure funds, confusing, 
complex and unnecessary regulations can make implementing an award just 
as challenging as competing for the opportunity. When counties are 
successful, we need responsive federal partners who produce timely and 
clear guidance that enshrines local flexibility. Federal guidance and 
regulations should not inhibit flexibility or prescribe to state and 
local governments how to spend awards.
    To ensure compliance, local governments rely on direction from our 
federal partners, such as OMB's Build America, Buy America 
implementation guidance and instructions from USDOT's modal 
administrations, such as the Federal Highway Administration. County 
officials urge our federal partners to avoid being overly prescriptive 
in crafting guidance and other resources, instead focusing on issuing 
clear directives that grant maximum flexibility.
    Federal permitting requirements can also make competitive grant 
programs unattractive for applicants interested in carrying out simple 
projects that can erroneously trigger environmental reviews even when 
they are categorically excluded. Streamlining the federal permitting 
process is a longstanding priority of local governments, who bear the 
costs of unnecessary delays created by the decades-old process 
established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/P.L. 91-
190).
    NEPA must be tailored to meet its actual goal of protecting the 
environment and not its unintended consequence of delaying and 
sometimes even preventing the delivery of critical infrastructure for 
our residents, including after natural disasters. Unintended 
consequences resulting from the current NEPA process continue to 
degrade county budgets and delay even the simplest of projects that 
have little to no impact on the surrounding environment, such as 
sidewalk repair projects in an existing right-of-way (ROW). While 
categorical exclusions (CEs) are intended to address projects like 
this, in practice they may be disregarded for fear of litigation or 
other reasons, forcing a county to undergo the same process it would 
have without the exclusion.
    Confusing matters further for local recipients, interpretations of 
CEs vary from agency to agency. From the Stafford Act (P.L. 100-707) to 
the IIJA, federal legislation is interpreted and implemented 
differently between its own agencies and regions. Counties encourage 
lawmakers to apply a more uniform and broader approach to expedite 
existing infrastructure repairs and improvements, to local standards, 
to minimize the impact of delays to the public. Maximizing the 
utilization of CEs to include the exemption of road and bridge repairs 
and improvements made within the existing, previously disturbed, public 
ROW stands to provide tremendous benefits to the public.
    Additionally, as strong supporters of the One Federal Decision 
(OFD) initiative, counties were pleased to see elements of OFD codified 
by the IIJA and furthered in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA/P.L. 
118-5), though we are concerned by the White House Council on 
Environmental Quality's most recent rulemaking in response to the FRA, 
which threatens to weaken these provisions. The IIJA also improved CEs, 
though counties support further increases to these thresholds.
    While federal permitting problems are a familiar source of 
frustration for local governments, an emerging issue among IIJA awards 
has become more pointed: the time it takes to execute a grant 
agreement. Counties and other eligible entities are reporting 
unprecedented timelines of up to 24 months, compounding the effects of 
permitting delays by further degrading federal and local investments 
and slowing down the delivery of critical projects. Counties strongly 
encourage USDOT to address this issue.
    The county message is simple: get grant funds out as quickly as 
possible to the communities where they are needed most. In the current 
economic environment, construction materials are extremely expensive, 
and delays can result in unmanageable project cost increases. 
Inflation, combined with the four-year expiration date on most USDOT 
funds, can have disastrous consequences for the IIJA's investments.
                               Conclusion
    In closing, I hope it has become evident that the safety and 
operability of county owned roads and bridges cannot continue to rely 
upon competitive funding opportunities. Counties urge you to provide a 
guaranteed funding source in the next surface transportation 
reauthorization.
    Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen and distinguished members of 
the Committee, thank you again for your attention to this important 
matter and the opportunity to testify before you today. America's 
counties greatly appreciate your continued bipartisan efforts to 
strengthen America's infrastructure.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you. Next up is Mr. Chuck 
Baker, who is the president of the American Short Line and 
Regional Railroad Association.
    Mr. Baker, 5 minutes.

 TESTIMONY OF CHUCK BAKER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND 
                 REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Baker. Thank you. On behalf of the Nation's 600 Class 
II and III small business freight railroads, commonly known as 
short lines, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
    The short line industry exists to preserve rail lines that 
would otherwise have been at risk of abandonment. These lines 
were expensive to maintain, didn't have much traffic, and were 
generally unprofitable and unloved by their previous owners. 
After the Staggers Act of 1980 allowed them to be sold to local 
entrepreneurs instead of abandoned, the new short line owners 
focused on customer service, business development, running a 
low-cost operation, and trying to scrounge up the funds to 
rehabilitate the infrastructure. Overall, this has worked quite 
well, and it's generally considered an American success story. 
We now support 478,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses nationwide.
    To keep that infrastructure functional, we invest up to 
one-third of our revenues in it, which makes short line 
railroading one of the most capital-intensive industries in the 
country. I know many members of this committee have visited 
your local short lines and have heard from customers about how 
important rail service is to their business. If you haven't 
made it out yet, we are happy to facilitate.
    Short lines partner closely with everyone in their 
community--shippers, economic development offices, and local 
and Federal officials--which brings me to the subject of 
Federal grants. We are proud to work closely with Congress and 
the U.S. DOT in strengthening the country's rail network. 
Federal grant funding helps our industry advance the goals we 
all share: improving safety, creating economic opportunities, 
supporting well-paying jobs, ensuring an efficient supply 
chain, defending America's freight network from malicious 
actors, and harnessing the environmental benefits of moving 
freight by rail.
    The key Federal grant program for short lines is the FRA's 
CRISI program. More than $12 billion is needed to allow short 
lines to fully modernize our infrastructure and meet the 
country's freight needs. In 2015, Congress recognized this and 
created the CRISI program and then built upon it in the 2021 
Infrastructure Law, giving it guaranteed appropriations.
    The program also has a clear safety mission. Each dollar of 
CRISI rebuilding work helps prevent derailments, given that the 
leading cause of derailments on short lines is simply old, 
worn-out track. Because we partner with U.S. DOT on CRISI, 
Railroad Crossing Elimination, INFRA, RAISE, and PIDP, we have 
insight into ways the grant process can be improved, and I will 
highlight a few of those now.
    One, we support robust, permanent staffing at the FRA so 
they can develop subject matter expertise and advance NOFOs, 
selections, and project execution more quickly through the 
pipeline.
    Two, we urge Congress to protect CRISI's ability to address 
the needs of freight rail. There are some efforts to expand 
CRISI eligibility to include commuter rail. We oppose this. We 
do partner with commuter rail and passenger rail and call them 
friends, but they can already avail themselves of other sizable 
funding streams that are closed off to short lines. There was 
$66 billion dedicated to rail in the infrastructure bill; $58 
billion of that was set aside for passenger rail, $3 billion 
for at-grade separations, and $5 billion for CRISI. Given that, 
we do think it would be OK for CRISI to focus a bit more 
heavily on freight in the future.
    Three, the FRA should ensure that small freight rail 
projects continue to receive fair consideration, and that a few 
larger projects don't blot out the sun, taking finite resources 
away from smaller dollar but highly impactful short line 
projects.
    Four, provide predictable, regular grant application timing 
and confidence in the amount of funding available. This means 
that Congress can encourage the FRA to stick to regular, annual 
timing on a given grant program, that Federal agencies should 
just run 1 year of funding at a time, rather than combining 
NOFOs and creating a lumpier program, and Congress should 
continue to provide advance appropriations like it did in IIJA, 
which has been a real game changer for predictability and 
planning.
    And five, streamline processes such as NEPA, which can 
needlessly delay important projects that clearly won't have any 
meaningful environmental impact.
    Grants can be a huge help, but I do have to note a few 
challenges that may underline some of those gains.
    California now has a misguided environmental rule on the 
books that means some short lines would ``be eliminated'' due 
to the cost of proposed regulations, and that is CARB's words, 
not mine. It's especially galling, considering how beneficial 
for the environment it is to move goods by rail. EPA is now 
reviewing a waiver request from California to allow them to 
advance this rule, which we hope that they reject.
    We are also braced for an imminent crew size rule from the 
FRA that would mandate some of our members hire personnel they 
don't need, forcing small railroads who already operate with 
tight margins to invest limited resources in the wrong places.
    We hope to continue working with this committee to overcome 
those challenges, just as we worked so well together to advance 
investments into short line rail infrastructure. Thank you.
    [Mr. Baker's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line and 
                     Regional Railroad Association
                              Introduction
    As president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad 
Association (ASLRRA), the trade association representing the more than 
600 Class II and III freight railroads (commonly known as short line 
railroads or short lines) and hundreds of suppliers that make up the 
country's short line freight rail economy, I appreciate the opportunity 
provide testimony for this hearing.
    The short line industry is a great American success story, and 
members of the industry are tremendously proud of their vital role in 
the country's economy. I look forward to discussing that story as I 
answer your questions, especially how competitive federal grant 
opportunities have bolstered our industry's ability to serve customers 
in the thousands of rural and urban communities where we operate, to 
drive local economies forward, and to increase the fluidity and 
efficiency of the national freight rail network and the overall supply 
chain. We appreciate this committee's focus on providing successful 
grant programs and ensuring they are efficient and properly 
administered. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this 
topic as well as advancing smart, sensible and bipartisan goals we all 
share, like improving safety throughout the transportation network, 
creating economic opportunities and supporting well-paying jobs, 
ensuring an efficient supply chain, and harnessing the very real 
environmental benefits of moving freight by rail.
                  The Short Line Freight Rail Industry
    Short line railroads and the national network. Short lines have 
been serving customers for well over a century and occupy a significant 
place in the country's freight supply chain network. Short lines are 
small businesses: the typical short line employs about 30 people, 
operates about 80 route miles, and earns about $8 million in revenue 
per year. Our significance is not our size but who and where short 
lines serve. For large areas of rural and small-town America, short 
lines are the only connection to the national rail network. As Caren 
Kraska, president and chairman of the Arkansas & Missouri Railroad in 
Arkansas and Missouri and who appeared before this committee three 
years ago would say, ``For our grain, animal feed, frozen poultry and 
other shippers, you can't get there from here without short line 
service.'' Our industry's first-mile/last mile service touches one in 
five railcars on the national rail system, ensuring that businesses in 
small towns and rural communities have access to markets across the 
country and to the ports that reach global markets.
    Short lines' history and investment needs. The short line industry 
as we know it is the product of the Staggers Act of 1980, which made 
the sale or long-term lease of light-density lines from Class I 
railroads to local entrepreneurs possible, thankfully avoiding the 
abandonment of those lines and the ripping up of their track for scrap. 
These lines were spun off from Class I networks for a reason: they 
faced high hurdles to continued business operations, were burdened with 
decades of deferred maintenance, and often had few customers. To bring 
these businesses back from the brink, these small railroads focused 
like a laser on world class customer service, relentlessly marketed the 
service and knocked on every door they could find, and frequently spend 
up to a third of their annual gross revenues on maintenance and 
improvements, making short line railroading one of the most capital-
intensive industries in the country. Despite the challenges, the short 
line industry has emerged as a great American success story. Short 
lines have revived those marginal lines they inherited, turned them 
into thriving enterprises that preserve service for thousands of 
customers and jobs for thousands of employees, and emerged as a pivotal 
link in the economy. Short lines now manage one-third of the freight 
rail network and touch one-fifth of all carloads while still only 
accounting for six percent of the freight rail industry's total 
revenue. Short lines are prevalent in the districts represented by 
members of this committee, and I know many of you have visited those 
properties over the years and have heard from short line customers 
about how important rail service is to their businesses.
    Short lines are economic engines for localities, particularly 
small-town and rural America. Together, our members are tied to an 
estimated 478,000 jobs nationwide, $26.1 billion in labor income and 
$56.2 billion in economic value-add--providing a service that 10,000 
businesses nationwide rely upon to get goods and products to market.\1\ 
Our members ship all types of commodities and serve industries 
essential to our country's economic health--like the manufacturing, 
agricultural, energy, and chemical sectors that are particularly 
reliant on short line service. The availability of rail service 
provided by short lines is often the tipping point for manufacturers 
and shippers in deciding where to grow and expand, driving new, well-
paying jobs particularly in rural and small-town America where job 
creation is often the most difficult. Short lines proved their 
flexibility during the pandemic, responding to customers' and the 
nation's needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Section 45G Tax Credit and the Economic Contribution of the 
Short Line Railroad Industry, prepared by PwC for ASLRRA (2018) (``PwC 
report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Short lines' personnel live and work in the communities they serve. 
Short lines are managed and staffed by individuals who are part of the 
fabric of their local communities. Because short lines run relatively 
short distances, employees live near their job--and their customers. 
This local focus makes for a strong customer orientation, greatly 
reinforced by the fact that the loss of one primary customer on a short 
line can easily make the difference between a successful operation and 
severe financial difficulties. Many short lines are family-run 
businesses--providing safe, efficient, flexible, and cost-effective 
service is personal to them.
    Short lines are environmental stewards. The freight rail industry 
is inherently a sustainable, environmentally friendly mode of 
transportation. No other surface mode of freight transportation comes 
close to the efficiency of a steel wheel on a steel rail. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data show freight railroads 
account for only 0.6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 
only 2.1 percent of transportation-related sources. On average, freight 
railroads move one ton of freight 480 miles on a single gallon of 
diesel fuel, approximately four times as far as our over-the-road 
competition. Short line service alone keeps 31.8 million heavy trucks 
off highways and public roads, saving lives, preventing costly wear and 
tear on the roads, and relieving congestion, in addition to improving 
our air quality. Short lines are committed to doing their part and then 
some to help the environment, by working to move more heavy freight off 
trucks and onto trains and continuously seeking ways to reduce their 
environmental impact with the implementation of technology and 
operating practices that reduce emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ASLRRA is currently partnering with the FRA and short line 
railroads to test locomotive emissions by studying fuel injectors and 
additives. Products like these that increase fuel economy may also 
yield emissions benefits. This is a two-year project that will give 
ASLRRA a better understanding of how small railroads can utilize cost 
effective methods for reducing their impact on the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Short Lines and Federal Grant Opportunities
    Competitive federal grants are critical for strengthening the short 
line rail network. In 2015, Congress recognized the outstanding 
rebuilding needs of the short line industry and acted, creating the 
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) 
program. Congress wisely made Class II and Class III short line 
railroads directly eligible recipients of competitive funds. Since the 
first CRISI grants were awarded in 2017, short lines have used CRISI 
program resources to replace track and crossties, add and extend 
sidings, rehabilitate bridges, improve drainage and roadbeds, replace 
rail and upgrade and replace motive power, among many other 
investments. An important achievement of many of these projects has 
been to enable these lines to handle the industry-standard 286,000-
pound railcars, ensuring national network interoperability. With 
federal grant support, short lines have revitalized significant 
sections of the rail network, allowing for greater volume of service, 
elimination of bottlenecks, and reduction of congestion as well as 
harnessing the significant environmental benefits of moving freight by 
rail. Perhaps most important, every dollar invested in improving rail 
infrastructure is a dollar invested in rail safety.
    Below are a few examples from previous rounds of CRISI awards:
      An $8 million CRISI award in FY2022 in Missouri will fund 
the rehabilitation of 52 miles of Missouri Eastern Railroad track in a 
rural area, increasing operational safety and capacity and making the 
infrastructure more resilient to future flooding events.

      The state of Washington received a $73 million CRISI 
award for an ambitious rural project to upgrade short line railroad 
infrastructure, improving the infrastructure of all three branches of 
the Palouse River & Coulee City Rail System, operated by three 
different short lines. This project will improve the weight capacity of 
the lines, increase track speeds, and enhance resiliency to weather 
events such as flooding. Another CRISI award in the state will enable 
the replacement of two older diesel switching locomotives with zero-
emission battery electric models by Tacoma Rail.

      A $7 million CRISI award will fund track rehabilitation 
and bridge replacement on the Texas North Western Railroad in a rural 
area of the northern Panhandle of Texas. This project will improve 
safety and enable the railroad to handle industry-standard 286,000-
pound railcars and larger modern locomotives, which are important 
benefits for the agricultural shippers served by this line.

    Even with these vital investments made to date, our industry 
estimates more than $12 billion is still needed to allow short line 
railroads to fully modernize and meet the country's freight needs.\3\ 
Of course, the ultimate beneficiaries of railroad infrastructure 
improvements are short line shippers, and they will tell you that the 
benefits are real and substantial. We have collected and will continue 
to collect shipper accounts in this regard and have attached to this 
testimony a national cross section of comments from those who 
benefitted from CRISI projects. (See attached addendum.) These are but 
a sample selection, but collectively they demonstrate the importance of 
these projects from the front lines of local economic activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ PWC report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is not just CRISI. Other federal grant opportunities can also 
have an outsized impact on our members' ability to serve their 
customers. Short lines work with public entities to access these other 
important programs, including the Railroad Crossing Elimination program 
(RCE), which recently made a $2 million dollar award to fund a planning 
project to eliminate three busy railroad highway at-grade crossings in 
Kansas City. Similarly, the RCE program provided $37 million for the 
first phase of the West Belt Improvement Project that will create a 
sealed corridor along a line of the Houston Belt & Terminal Railroad, 
replacing seven busy at-grade crossings with vehicle underpasses. And 
there are other programs, like the Nationally Significant Multimodal 
Freight and Highway Projects program (INFRA), the National 
Infrastructure Project Assistance program (Mega), the Rebuilding 
American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program, 
the Rural Surface Transportation grant program, and the Port 
Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). CRISI remains the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA )program with the broadest 
eligibility for almost all types of short line projects and the one 
easiest for small railroads to access.
    IIJA bolstered competitive grant opportunities for short line 
railroads. In 2021, Congress passed the IIJA, recognizing many unmet 
needs facing our national rail network and parts of the nation's 
transportation system.
      CRISI. IIJA dramatically expanded CRISI's scale, 
providing advance appropriations of $1 billion per year for five years 
and authorizing up to an additional $1 billion per year. An emphasis on 
eligibility for upgrading locomotives to achieve significant reductions 
in emissions was also added to the statute. We strongly urge Congress 
to continue working to meet this vision, appropriating the full 
authorized $1 billion in each fiscal year. We appreciate the leadership 
of everyone on this committee who has fought for strong funding levels, 
as those have been reflected in some recent spending bills.

      +  Fiscal Year 2022's budget law brought the first full year of 
IIJA's implementation--and, with it, new and significant investments in 
short line freight rail projects. The Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) selected 47 projects that were advanced by short line railroads 
or short line partners. These projects improved safety, strengthened 
network efficiency for shippers, further minimized short line rail's 
environmental footprint, and built new economic opportunities, many in 
rural areas and small towns across the country. Of these, 13 projects 
included grade crossing safety and trespassing mitigation elements. 14 
projects invested $300 million to upgrade track to move industry-
standard railcars weighing up to 286,000-pounds. Twenty projects 
upgraded or repaired bridges. Six short line projects upgraded or 
replaced more than 30 locomotives, which will result in significant 
reductions in emissions. In all, short line projects in 48 states have 
received awards via CRISI.

      +  Fiscal Year 2023's budget agreement was a continued show of 
strong, bipartisan support for the CRISI program and a testament to all 
in Congress who back this important effort. In carrying out the 
spending legislation and IIJA, we understand FRA plans to announce a 
funding opportunity in the coming weeks that would provide nearly $2.4 
billion for competition. This will combine Fiscal Year 2023 
discretionary funds and advance appropriations with Fiscal Year 2024 
advance funds. Short lines are absolutely thrilled by the opportunity 
to continue putting forward smart, resourceful and competitive grant 
applications, and partnering with FRA and states, localities and 
communities nationwide to bolster the country's freight rail backbone.

      +  Fiscal Year 2024's budget agreement--now swiftly on its way to 
becoming law--continues the important, bipartisan work of providing 
additional funding for CRISI beyond the guaranteed advance 
appropriation. The overall CRISI funding amount in the deal, while not 
at the level that Congress funded for the first two years of IIJA and 
disappointingly below the initial levels produced in either the House 
or the Senate, is still appreciated and reflects tough choices Congress 
must make. Of course, we think funding CRISI at the highest level is 
very compelling, and ASLRRA looks forward to working with this panel, 
the Appropriations Committee and your colleagues in Congress to ensure 
CRISI gets the resources it needs so it can keep investing in the many 
rural and urban communities represented by the entire panel today.

      Other critical programs at USDOT (RCE, INFRA, Mega, 
RAISE, Rural Surface Transportation, and PIDP, among others): CRISI was 
not the only meaningful improvement in IIJA, so too were several other 
major programs that received significant new resources. While short 
lines are not directly eligible applicants in these programs, short 
lines have successfully partnered with other entities to advance key 
program goals. For example, in the recently announced INFRA and Mega 
awards, short lines and their customers stand to benefit from sizeable 
awards for bridge replacements and major upgrades in and around several 
busy ports. In advancing rail-related projects, U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) recognized rail's ability to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions when there is a modal shift in moving freight via rail 
instead of truck.

      +  RCE: IIJA took an especially important step forward for rail 
safety with the creation of the new Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) 
Program. This is a tremendous policy achievement, providing new 
resources to eliminate dangerous crossings. Moreover, the creation of 
this as a separate new program allowed CRISI to focus on tackling even 
more rail safety challenges. For example, CRISI--with the robust 
funding levels unleashed in IIJA--can now advance even more projects 
like repairing worn-out track, the leading cause of derailments on 
Class II and III railroads. While short line railroads are not directly 
eligible for RCE grants, ASLRRA has encouraged its members interested 
in advancing an RCE project to coordinate with eligible public 
applicants. In the most recent round of awards announced in June 2023, 
of the 63 projects funded, ten involved Class II or III railroads--or 
about $72 million of the $573 million in awards. We understand the 
funding notice for Fiscal Year 2023 funds will be released in the 
coming months, and we are excited about any possibilities for this 
program to help address crossing safety in the communities we serve. We 
urge Congress to keep momentum for this program going strong as it 
makes funding decisions for Fiscal Years 2025 and 2026 and beyond, 
providing as much in resources as possible beyond the guaranteed 
appropriations already set in IIJA.

    More resources may be needed by short lines to face new challenges. 
Earlier this year, a new rule went on the books in California that 
threatens to impose drastic new financial obligations on short line 
railroads. Implementing the rule, the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) even admits some short lines ``would be eliminated'' due to 
``the costs of the Proposed Regulation'' (emphasis added).\4\ Should 
this rule stand (and even worse proliferate nationwide) and California 
be granted the inappropriate waiver that it has requested from the EPA, 
short lines would require ever more resources to ensure they can make 
investments in their network while simply trying to keep their business 
afloat. We calculate that this rule could force California short lines 
to try to make nearly half a billion dollars in motive power fleet 
investments over only a few years. That would be a steep change by 
multiple orders of magnitude above historical short line locomotive 
capital investment levels. We expect the next round of the CRISI 
program will see several applications for funding for locomotive 
projects from California short lines as they attempt to respond to this 
huge and problematic unfunded mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ State of California Air Resources Board. Proposed In-Use 
Locomotive Regulation Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment. Page 
143. May 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Short Lines' Perspective and Suggested Reforms:
                     CRISI and Other Grant Programs
    The administration's efforts to advance CRISI and other programs of 
importance have been commendable: USDOT's team has been collaborative, 
dedicated and consistently willing to engage and ensure short line 
stakeholders are informed. Likewise, Congress has been very eager to 
collaborate and work in a bipartisan way to strengthen CRISI and other 
programs important to short lines. While ASLRRA and the short line 
industry are ever appreciative of the commitment from Congress and the 
administration to CRISI and other programs that invest in the rail 
network, there are areas where continued diligence is especially 
necessary and otherwise where these programs can be further 
strengthened or improved.
    Protect CRISI's ability to bolster the freight rail network. ASLRRA 
strongly discourages set-asides within CRISI for passenger rail 
projects or expansions of the program to include major new eligible 
applicants such as commuter railroads. With so many challenges facing 
our supply chain, short lines ought to remain viable competitors for 
these limited funds. While we have no opposition to passenger rail, 
IIJA already provides Amtrak and passenger rail applicants with a 
massive amount of funding, well beyond what is available through 
CRISI.\5\ Likewise, commuter rail already has access to substantial, 
well-established, and dedicated funding programs administered through 
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), such as formula funding and 
the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. Commuter entities are also 
eligible for department-wide competitive grant programs, like Mega and 
RAISE, and federal loan programs such as RRIF, another federal funding 
source utilized in the past to support Amtrak service. It would be 
unfair, unnecessary and against Congressional intent reflected in IIJA 
to divert limited funds that would otherwise be open to short lines 
toward passenger and commuter rail activities that have so many other 
federal programs that they may access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Fiscal Year 2023 passenger rail funding includes funds for 
Amtrak and the Northeast Corridor ($1.1 billion authorized, $1.2 
billion in advance appropriations), which could benefit commuter rail; 
Amtrak's national network ($2.2 billion authorized, $3.2 billion in 
advance appropriations), and the Federal-State Partnership for 
Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program ($1.5 billion authorized and 
$7.2 billion in advance appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ensure flexibility in size of awards. ASLRRA encourages grant-
making agencies to recognize that a series of smaller awards spread 
across a diversity of smaller railroad projects can have the same, if 
not more, positive impact as an award to a single major corridor. While 
short lines' experience on this front is largely CRISI-related, it 
applies to all grants. While larger projects understandably appear an 
easier way to deploy CRISI funding, this needs to be balanced with the 
realization that small railroads by nature will often have smaller 
projects, however no less important to the communities they serve.
      Upcoming FY23/24 CRISI NOFO: Avoid preference for high-
dollar projects: ASLRRA's concern is especially prominent in the CRISI 
space as FRA will soon unveil the combined FY23/FY24 funding 
opportunity. We understand that FRA plans to release a very sizeable 
funding opportunity for CRISI in late March 2024. Short lines are 
confident they will continue to put forward competitive projects 
nationwide. ASLRRA is, however, concerned that the massive amount of 
funding in the NOFO could be challenging to administer and could lead 
to decisionmakers choosing a handful of higher dollar projects instead 
of a perhaps larger number of small dollar applications. Just a few 
large-scale passenger rail projects could easily consume most funding 
available. This dilemma is exacerbated by the timeline we understand 
FRA has set for itself to announce awards, which would be around 
October. Having so little time to award such a large amount of funding 
could lead to difficulties in giving the expected large amounts of 
short line-related applications proper, equitable review. In other 
words, the NOFO could attract many applications for very large projects 
from large project sponsors, and potentially be inadvertently tilted 
against making smaller projects and rural awards as big of a portion of 
CRISI as they have been seen in past cycles. It is important for CRISI 
to be balanced, not only geographically but also on the size of the 
project. Congress could, for example, include report language in an 
appropriations measure encouraging FRA to continue their past (and very 
much appreciated) practice of supporting many small project awards, and 
clearly communicating that intent in the upcoming NOFO and their public 
engagement materials.

    Ensure realistic match requirements. We understand there may appear 
to be rationale at times to favor grant applications that ``over-
match,'' or that pay more of their cost share than necessary, but this 
could come at the serious detriment of important short line projects 
that simply cannot provide an overmatch in funds. We appreciate efforts 
to ensure recognition of this, and, furthermore, to help level the 
playing field and provide a significant federal cost share for 
applicants with smaller projects, in rural areas, and with severely 
limited resources for any sort of match, much less the resources needed 
for major upgrades of expensive supply chain infrastructure.
    Ensure sufficient opportunities to compete. We generally discourage 
efforts to limit state departments of transportation in the number of 
grant submissions they are allowed in a round of funding. For programs 
that short lines cannot directly apply for, short lines must partner 
with other entities to advance rail investments. Limits in the 
application number can force pre-application competition between 
smaller short line projects and other major projects, often putting the 
smaller project at a disadvantage. We appreciate efforts to ensure that 
short lines are not inadvertently restrained in project opportunities. 
We further appreciate efforts to ensure that in programs like CRISI, 
short line projects are not at any disadvantage simply because they are 
made by the railroad directly.
    Advance transparency wherever possible. We encourage efforts to 
make more of the application process open and public to ensure 
applicants--including future potential applicants--gain clarity that 
can facilitate their project development and future application 
efforts.
    Provide consistent and more detailed explanation of awarded CRISI 
grants. With the announcement of CRISI awarded projects, ASLRRA 
recommends FRA release a robust explanation of each award. This should 
include high level financial metrics of the project (total cost, CRISI 
award, amounts and sources of matching funds), scope of work, 
environmental readiness, and proposed grant project performance 
metrics. In the initial CRISI awards associated with FY22, announced in 
2023, FRA made a good step forward in this by consistently posting the 
matching funds to the award. Continuing enrichment of this information 
in a reasonable way will take some of the pressure off debriefing on 
unsuccessful applications and provide clearer understanding of why 
specific projects were awarded CRISI funding.
    Aim for regularity in calendar of grant application timing. We 
strongly support efforts to bring predictability to the timing of 
funding opportunities and application cycles, i.e., knowing when each 
year's application window generally opens and closes--like a football 
season. While we understand the outside forces that can lead to highly 
variable application windows, knowing generally when to expect a 
funding window is critical for short line railroads and other small 
businesses, who could use this certainty to ensure they are ready and 
able to put their best and most competitive foot forward in the 
application process.
    Advance appropriations = predictability. IJJA's provision of 
advance appropriations was a significant game changer; ASLRRA strongly 
encourages Congress to include similar advance appropriations in future 
reauthorization bills so that grant-making agencies can move forward 
with funding opportunities regardless of year-to-year political 
dynamics, giving short lines and other small businesses the ability to 
plan for funding rounds. Government investment in long-term 
infrastructure is much more effective if all stakeholders can 
realistically plan for it--unpredictable, highly variable funding is an 
inefficient way to invest finite resources.
    Continue to build out USDOT and FRA's monitoring and reporting of 
grants status. We appreciate FRA's effort to provide critical 
information on grant program activity, such as FRA's Fiscal Year 2022 
CRISI, Fed-State Partnership, RCE, and Restoration & Enhancement Grants 
Reports, as required by Congress. These reports provide useful, high-
level reporting of the progress of grant awards by program and fiscal 
year through achievement of obligation and closeout. We encourage 
efforts like these to include more information on individual projects 
and performance obligations. This data will support development of 
enhanced performance objectives for the CRISI program and other 
programs, improving the exchange of relevant data with Congress for 
performance monitoring and oversight.
    Support FRA staffing, engagement, and outreach needs. ASLRRA 
appreciates USDOT's efforts to engage with stakeholders like the short 
line rail community. These efforts, both before and after the 
submission of grant applications, whether at a high level of detail or 
deep into the weeds of application details, greatly improve the project 
development process. We appreciate these efforts, and we recognize they 
require precious time. We support efforts to provide permanent staffing 
at stable funding levels and for all levels of program managers, 
administrators, and other experts, especially on complicated 
environmental matters. Permanent staffing signifies proper resourcing 
to establish a stable core of civil servants to handle the myriad tasks 
associated with grant programs management. This should be a workforce 
that develops significant subject matter expertise and consistent 
practices and procedures. Ideally this workforce should be authorized 
and funded reliably over time, as contrasted with approaches that might 
seek to use ``takedowns'' that can fluctuate from year to year or those 
that might encourage heavy use of contracted support services.
    Streamline and standardize processes where possible. In reviewing 
applications, we encourage efforts to improve technical analysis 
processes at FRA and throughout USDOT. We suggest a review effort in 
which applicants simply provide structured inputs for technical 
analysis, with the review process using a standardized process to 
analyze these inputs. This will provide multiple benefits: remove 
variances on how projected project outcomes are valued in the 
application, provide a clear basis of expectations for project 
performance if an award is made, and ease processing of applications. 
Likewise, we encourage USDOT--whether in CRISI, RCE or other programs--
to only require information mandated by the program's governing 
statutes; requiring applicants to put forward additional, extraneous 
information can be unduly burdensome on time-starved entities. After 
awards are announced, short line grant winners consistently express 
frustration with the time it takes from the announcement of an award to 
the execution of a grant agreement and actual project work beginning. 
We recognize FRA aims to move quickly, and we encourage any efforts to 
streamline this process through standardized agreement templates. We 
also encourage efforts to improve and simplify the Benefit-Cost 
Analysis (BCA) process for grant applicants, ensuring they are as 
straightforward as possible and only required when truly necessary.
    Improve elements of the NEPA process. Short lines are an 
environmentally beneficial means to move goods and freight. We 
encourage efforts to ensure National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
requirements reflect this sustainable way to move freight and do not 
undermine it.
    Specifically, we believe there could be room within USDOT's NEPA 
implementing regulations to expand definitions of selected categorical 
exclusions (CEs) without risking significant environmental impacts. One 
area is for bridge rehabilitation projects and for construction of 
smaller railroad facilities. The definitions for these CEs have some 
fixed elements--such as ground coverage and watercourse definitions--
that could be adjusted to grant the agency more discretion and 
flexibility to make its class of action determination. The definitions 
built into these CEs have arbitrary elements that can force certain 
projects into costlier and more time-consuming environmental 
assessments that may not be justified by the environmental impacts of 
the project. We encourage USDOT and FRA to explore their regulations in 
this area and seek to increase their flexibility.
    We appreciate the efforts of USDOT, and especially FRA, to continue 
to standardize their NEPA review procedures and to improve the guidance 
and documentation they provide to grant applicants. Clarifying guidance 
documentation that is unclear or may cause confusion is helpful, as is 
the provision of clearer guidance on analyses and permitting 
requirements associated with different environmental impact areas. 
Examples of environmental impact area analyses products or awarded 
permits can be especially helpful to applicants and awardees that are 
new to NEPA. NEPA compliance is a complex topic. By providing clarity 
for applicants on exactly what needs to be done and when during pre- 
and post-award periods, there could be fewer delays in getting to grant 
agreement.
    Build America, Buy America. As recipients of federal funds, 
ASLRRA's members are keenly interested in requirements regarding the 
production of materials used in construction. We appreciate any efforts 
to ensure that these mandates come with the recognition that they may 
be exceedingly difficult to satisfy, and thus the waiver process should 
be fast, fair and efficient.

                               Conclusion
    ASLRRA appreciates the committee's close attention to the items we 
have noted in our statement, and we welcome future opportunities to 
work together on these matters.
                                Addendum
    Selected Shipper Quotes from Completed Short Line CRISI Projects
Lancaster & Chester Railroad (L&C)--Lancaster, South Carolina
    ``Over the last 11 years, Chester County has attracted over $3 
billion in new industrial development creating almost 4,000 new jobs. 
This massive amount of opportunity is a direct result of having the 
short line L&C railroad as our partner.''--Alex Oliphant, City Council 
Member, Chester County, SC

Panhandle Northern Railway (PNR)--Borger, Texas
    ``The products produced at our industrial plants are hazardous 
products so maintaining safe track is critical in maintaining public 
safety for our community''--Garrett Spradling, City Manager, Borger, 
Texas

Napoleon, Defiance & Western Railroad (NDW)--Defiance, Ohio
    ``The NDW provides transportation for our tomato paste from 
California to our facility saving us a lot of time and money versus 
going over the road. The rehabilitation also offers us new 
opportunities to move more materials by rail.''--Gavin Serrao, 
Cambell's Soup Logistics Manager, Napoleon, OH
    ``The NDW has been a railroad that's needed a lot of investment for 
a long time. Every State DOT knows there are these railroads that can 
be so much more for the local economy than they are now and NDW brought 
the professionalism, the expertise, and the financial resources to make 
this project possible.''--Matt Dietrich, Ex. Dir., Ohio Rail 
Development Commission

Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS)--Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    ``The majority of the 8,000 carloads we ship go over that bridge 
and if that infrastructure was out it would have a multi-million dollar 
impact on the efficiency and cost-competitiveness of our business.''--
Nick Bowdish, CEO, Elite Octane

Lake State Railway (LSRC)--Saginaw, Michigan
    ``Lake State Railway's service to our facility has allowed our 
operation to be cost competitive despite our remote location in 
relation to the majority of our customers and suppliers. The CRISI 
grant has allowed us to increase the rail carload capacity, reducing 
our cost and helping to ensure our long-term success.''--Jim Spens, 
Plant Manager, Panel Processing, Inc.

Chicago South Bend & South Shore (CSS)--Michigan City, Indiana
    ``The CRISI project being done by CSS shows a commitment to safety 
and the growth of CSS customers located between Michigan City and 
Kingsbury. My company truly appreciates the project to help our company 
grow.''--David Gelwicks, President, Hickman Williams Co.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you. Next we will hear from 
Ms. Amy O'Leary, who is the executive director of the Southeast 
Michigan Council of Governments.
    Thanks for being here.

    TESTIMONY OF AMY O'LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST 
                MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 
Larsen, and members of the committee for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    SEMCOG is a regional planning agency serving almost 5 
million people in the 7-county area of Metro Detroit. We are a 
local government association with over 180 members that are 
cities, villages, townships, and counties. As a metropolitan 
planning organization, SEMCOG is responsible for ensuring data-
driven, efficient use of the transportation funds. This 
includes development of a long-range transportation plan for 
our complex system of roads, bridges, transit, nonmotorized 
transportation, and freight. We also develop and manage the 
current list of federally funded road projects, which, for 2023 
through 2026, totals $5.8 billion in Federal funds.
    Discretionary funds have made a significant difference in 
our region, which can be described in three buckets.
    Bucket 1 involves emerging issues and current challenges. 
Our best example is Safe Streets For All grants. While we were 
making progress on road safety prior to the pandemic, we 
experienced a spike in fatalities during and post-pandemic. 
Safety is one of several issues best understood and addressed 
at the local level, which is why we have advocated for the 
direct funding to MPOs, cities, and counties.
    SEMCOG proactively adopted a data-driven safety plan, and 
the award of over $10 million will help us put this plan into 
action via safety audits on our high-injury roads and quick-
build safety pilot projects.
    In addition to SEMCOG's grant, communities in our region 
received over $80 million, including construction funds awarded 
to the cities of Detroit and Dearborn.
    Due to the immense need to improve transportation safety 
nationwide, we would encourage considering a formula program in 
the future.
    The second bucket of discretionary funds is focused on 
innovation, and the PROTECT Grant Program focuses on innovation 
and resiliency. Like many parts of the country, we have 
experienced an increase in extreme weather and flooding. SEMCOG 
works to find solutions, including developing a nationally 
recognized flood risk tool and coming up with updated current 
and future precipitation estimates with our experts. This work 
sets us apart and makes us ready to develop an actionable 
transportation resiliency improvement plan under PROTECT. This 
funding will accelerate the implementation of projects to 
manage these flooding events by identifying the best locations 
and the best techniques that we should be using.
    Another innovative program is the Reconnecting Communities 
Grant, which provides funding to address the physical barriers 
due to dividing communities and neighborhoods from important 
services due to highways. In partnership with the State of 
Michigan, our region received $21 million in the city of Oak 
Park, which is divided in half by I-696. With significant 
disadvantaged populations, the project will provide access to 
local businesses and schools by foot and improve connectivity.
    The third bucket of discretionary funds is for large 
projects which exceed the scope of formula funding, including 
INFRA and RAISE. Innovate Mound in Macomb County received $98 
million through this program to reconstruct 9 miles of road to 
support economic development in the State's defense corridor. A 
$104 million INFRA grant will help to reconnect one of 
Detroit's once predominantly Black and economically strong 
neighborhoods that was divided by highway construction. The 
reconstruction of I-375 will convert a sunken freeway to a 
lower speed surface-level boulevard. The third project is a $24 
million investment through the Railroad Crossing Elimination 
Grant Program for a grade separation in the city of Monroe. 
This critical project will improve response time for emergency 
vehicles and increase safety.
    Finally, I would like to mention the critical roles regions 
play in pursuing these discretionary funds. One way we assist 
is by applying for the funds on behalf of our local 
communities, and then passing those dollars through to our 
communities. We also assist by convening meetings with 
community leaders and developing partnerships to determine the 
most strategic way to pursue the grants and which grants to 
pursue.
    Regions play a key role for frustrated communities who 
don't have the capacity or resources to apply. In response to 
these frustrations, we partnered with the State of Michigan's 
Infrastructure Office, who developed a program to write grants 
and provide match through a vetted process.
    I would like to conclude by thanking members of the 
committee and acknowledging the important role that regions do 
play in providing much of the needed fund that helps us do our 
job and improve the lives of our residents. Thank you.
    [Ms. O'Leary's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Amy O'Leary, Executive Director, Southeast 
                    Michigan Council of Governments
    Introduction--SEMCOG--Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
    Thank you Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of 
the Committee for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Amy O'Leary, and I serve as the Executive Director of 
SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. SEMCOG is a 
regional planning agency serving almost 5 million people in the seven-
county region of Southeast Michigan. Our region is home to 58% of 
Michigan's economic activity and nearly half the population. We are 
both an association of local governments and a Metropolitan Planning 
Organization.
    As a local government association or council of governments, SEMCOG 
has over 180 members, including counties, cities, villages, townships, 
intermediate school districts, and community colleges. We help 
facilitate coordinated planning and decision-making to address regional 
challenges and opportunities. This includes transportation planning, 
environmental stewardship, economic development, and quality-of-life 
improvements. By bringing together local governments and agencies, 
SEMCOG encourages sustainable growth, transportation infrastructure 
development, and preservation of natural resources, ultimately 
enhancing the region's overall well-being.
    SEMCOG also has numerous federal designations, including 
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), water and air quality 
planning agency, and Economic Development District for the metropolitan 
Detroit region. As the region's MPO, SEMCOG has the responsibility for 
ensuring that existing and future expenditures of government funds for 
transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, 
cooperative, and comprehensive planning process. This is conducted 
through the development and implementation of a long-range 
transportation plan. In this capacity, we support coordinated, local 
planning with technical data, and intergovernmental resources for the 
region's complex transportation system of more than 25,000 miles of 
road, 2,900 bridges, 8 fixed-route transit providers, 4,000 miles of 
all-season truck routes, 7 commercial marine ports, 34 airports, and 8 
international border crossings that account for 36% of the U.S. trade 
with Canada. Our current 2023-2026 Transportation Improvement Program 
includes $5.8 billion in federally funded road projects, which 
represents the success of the federal formula funding program in our 
region.
    Through our work as the regional planning organization, we support 
a regional vision of:

        All people in Southeast Michigan benefit from a connected, 
        thriving region of small towns, dynamic urban centers, active 
        waterfronts, diverse neighborhoods, premier educational 
        institutions, and abundant agricultural, recreational, and 
        natural areas.
           Successes and Challenges of Discretionary Programs
    Discretionary funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), 
and other federal programs, have been positive for the region, 
enhancing our capacity to undertake larger and more diverse 
transportation projects and leading to substantial improvements in 
local and regional transportation networks. From our experience, the 
positive aspects of these funds and programs can be placed into three 
broad buckets that allow for new and needed resources for the region 
and our communities.
Bucket 1. Discretionary funds that focus on new or emerging issues and 
        challenges
    The best example for our region is the Safe Streets and Roads for 
All (SS4A) Grant Program. For metropolitan Detroit, like the rest of 
the country, the safety on our roadways for all users is one of our 
most pressing issues. While we were making progress in the years 
leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, we experienced a spike in both 
fatalities and serious injuries due to crashes on our roadways. This 
increase continues post-pandemic, and it highlights needed investments 
in enhanced infrastructure, education, policies, and enforcement.
    SEMCOG has long advocated for funding to be directly allocated to 
MPOs, cities, and counties on transportation issues that are best 
understood and addressed at the local levels, and safety is one of 
these issues. The goals and priorities of the Safe Streets and Roads 
for All Grant Program provide specific and dedicated funding that 
previously was unavailable at regional and local levels.
    SEMCOG was proactive by adopting a data-driven regional 
transportation safety plan, developed through input from all levels of 
government, along with stakeholders, advocates, and community 
organizations. At the same time, many of our communities have also 
developed, or need to develop comprehensive safety plans that direct 
limited dollars to the most in-need and impactful locations or 
programs.
    SEMCOG is thankful to have received over $10 million in SS4A 
funding in both rounds of the program. This funding will be utilized to 
conduct needed transportation safety audits on our high-injury road 
networks, establish quick-build safety infrastructure pilots with an 
emphasis on locations in Justice40 Communities, and enhance our 
regional public education campaigns. In total, communities in Southeast 
Michigan received over $80 million through the first two rounds of this 
program, including much-needed implementation and construction funds 
for the cities of Detroit and Dearborn. These awards will enhance 
safety infrastructure along major corridors for the most vulnerable 
road users. Having proactive plans in place in the region benefited our 
readiness for these discretionary funds.
    While this program and additional funding to address our safety 
needs have been successful for the region and our local communities, we 
recommend that this funding move from Discretionary to Formula. 
Transportation safety is a pressing issue nationwide, and to address it 
we need a more reliable and consistent funding source. This is 
especially the case in ensuring that the most in need and challenging 
roadways can receive and benefit from these funds.
Bucket 2. Discretionary funds that focus on innovation and pilots
    Southeast Michigan has experienced several extreme weather events 
and flooding disasters--seven FEMA Major Disaster declarations since 
2012--which have caused significant and repeated impacts to regional 
transportation infrastructure. To begin to address these risks, SEMCOG 
has invested in several efforts over the last seven years, including a 
Flood Risk Tool, current and future precipitation estimates for the 
seven counties in the region, a special interest group to address 
stormwater management in the transportation planning process, and a 
Regional Resilience Framework as a resource for communities. SEMCOG is 
applying for the PROTECT Discretionary Grant Program to build on this 
foundation of work and accelerate implementation of equitable, nature-
based resilience strategies across the SEMCOG region, and develop a 
Southeast Michigan Regional Resilience Improvement Plan.
    The Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Program is also 
impactful to Southeast Michigan. The challenge of transportation 
facilities, especially our freeways, is that they often divide 
communities and become physical barriers between neighborhoods and 
access to core services. While this occurs across the country, it is 
especially the case in older cities and metropolitan areas, like 
Detroit. One major barrier to accessibility and economic development in 
our communities and neighborhoods is I-696. In partnership with the 
Michigan Department of Transportation, we were the recipient of a $21 
million Reconnecting Communities award for the City of Oak Park, which 
is divided in half by I-696. With a significant Orthodox Jewish 
community, along with several disadvantaged communities and populations 
in the city, the need to access local businesses, schools, places of 
worship, and other daily destinations by foot is a necessity. This 
award will support a $43 million investment to reconstruct the deck and 
plaza over I-696 to ensure residents can safely be connected to vital 
destinations.
Bucket 3. Discretionary funds that focus on large projects
    The truth is that not every community has an issue or challenge 
that these discretionary funds are designed to address, nor are all 
communities ready to apply when the funding is made available. 
Additionally, there are simply many large, high-expense needs that 
traditional and formula funding cannot address. A benefit of some of 
the new discretionary programs is that they direct funding to those 
communities that are ready or have a specific challenge or need. This 
can be seen as a benefit for strategically aligned opportunities, 
versus formula funds that go to everyone and in quantities not large 
enough for some of the most regionally significant projects and needs.
    Three examples of this are the INFRA, RAISE, and Railroad Crossing 
Elimination funding programs, which fund large projects that would 
unlikely be funded through formula funds or which would only be funded 
by several years of pooling funds. In our region, four major projects 
have benefited from access to these larger funding amounts.
    The first is the Innovate Mound project in the cities of Warren and 
Sterling Heights in Macomb County. This project received $98 million 
through the INFRA Program, the largest grant ever awarded to a non-
state agency, and is expected to be completed later this year. This 
investment, along with funds from Macomb County, both cities, and other 
funding sources contributed to the $217 million project. The Mound Road 
Corridor is home to more than 47,000 jobs, over $2 billion in earnings, 
and national economic drivers such as General Motors, Detroit Arsenal, 
the Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), General 
Dynamics, and BAE Systems. This project will reconstruct 9 miles of 
roadway to support current and future economic development and 
Intelligent Transportation Systems, along with improved transit and 
nonmotorized facilities.
    The reconstruction of I-375 in Detroit from a sunken freeway to a 
lower-speed surface level boulevard and grid creates a mobility vision 
prioritizing pedestrians and walkable connections. This is another 
project that has long been needed, but funding was never available. The 
Michigan Department of Transportation received an INFRA grant for $104 
million, supporting the $300 million project, to reconnect once-
predominantly Black neighborhoods divided by the highway when it was 
built in the 1960s, bulldozing the Black Bottom and Paradise Valley 
residential and commercial districts.
    Through the RAISE program, the City of Pontiac received a $16 
million award to complete and connect one of the region's most popular 
trails--the Clinton River Trail--through the city. This project will 
increase transportation choices and eliminate gaps through ADA and 
universal design improvements in a Justice40 and long disinvestment 
neighborhood and community. This is an excellent example of a project 
that would have been unlikely to have had the formula funds available 
through programs like the Surface Transportation Block Grant or TAP.
    The final project is the $24 million federal investment through the 
FRA Railroad Elimination Grant Program for the grade separation for the 
CSX railroad in the City of Monroe. This critical project will improve 
response times for emergency vehicles and increase safety for 
pedestrians and motorists.
Transition to Collaboration
    While we support the funding made available through these new 
discretionary funds, we recognize and represent communities who are 
challenged to both understand the funding available and lack the 
resources to develop and submit a competitive application. This is a 
concern that we've been hearing and echoing over the last two years.
    This is where regions come in. We are the connection to our local 
communities and one of our main functions is to help line up the 
projects with data, information, and funding availability.
    1.  One way we do this is by applying for grants on behalf of the 
region and then passing the funds through to our communities. This is 
how our Safe Streets for All project will be administered. This is also 
how we've established the region's application for Climate Pollution 
Reduction Grant (CPRG) funding through EPA.

    2.  Regions also convene and partner to ensure we are strategic in 
determining the most appropriate entity or entities to apply. This 
includes both the alignment of the application to the specific funding 
source and the most appropriate entity within the region to apply. For 
example, the City of Detroit is applying on behalf of the region for a 
CPRG grant, going outside of its geography to apply for hydrogen buses 
and hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Pulling the appropriate players 
together and convening is the role of regions.

    3.  Regions are a voice for local community concerns and help get 
them addressed. We have been a voice for communities that these 
applications are expensive and if a goal is to ensure funds make their 
way to our most in-need communities, support must be given. The fact of 
the matter is that the communities that these programs are 
prioritizing, such as Justice40 identified communities, are the same 
ones without the resources and capacity to apply. To address this 
challenge, SEMCOG partnered with the Michigan Infrastructure Office, 
which formed a streamlined program to write grant applications for 
communities through a vetted process and has also set aside matching 
funds for communities receiving dollars. An example of how this has 
thus far been successful, at least in the application phase, is a joint 
application submitted for the Thriving Communities Program. Through the 
region, we brought together and facilitated an application for three 
in-need and underinvested communities--Hamtramck, Warren, and 
Ypsilanti. While we are still awaiting notice about this award, the 
process of identifying available funding, coordinating with the most 
appropriate communities, aligning and funding a grant writing team, and 
submitting a competitive application has been a success. This is a sign 
of both the strength of regions and the need for additional resources 
for our most in-need communities to submit competitive applications.

    I would be remiss to not mention the importance and reliance of 
formula funding for regions like Southeast Michigan. Regions use the 
same data and locally driven approach to successfully implement local 
formula programs as well. Three formula programs that our communities 
rely on most heavily to make much-needed investments in our 
infrastructure are the Surface Transportation Block Grant, 
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), and the newer Carbon 
Reduction Program. While these are formula funds that the region 
receives, we've established a competitive process to distribute funds 
in which we work directly with communities, provide technical 
assistance, and align the eligibility of the programs with the needs of 
the community and region. For each program, we've had successful 
implementation through strong partnerships at the local, regional, and 
state levels. Through the TAP program, we are investing $10 million 
annually to build out our regional trail network while also enhancing 
our critical safety needs by enhancing crosswalks, closing gaps in our 
sidewalk systems, and connecting people to core services and transit 
lines.
                            Recommendations
    The array of grant programs under BIL is highly valued by SEMCOG 
and our peer regions to address specific local needs, particularly 
those that do not align with traditional formula funding parameters. 
However, there is a need to balance discretionary and formula funding, 
with a particular emphasis on increasing formula funds to ensure 
consistent support for foundational planning activities. Discretionary 
funding has been pivotal for advancing projects with a strong focus on 
equity, environmental sustainability, safety enhancements, and 
technological innovation, filling critical gaps left by formula 
funding.
    We urge simplification of the grant application process, provision 
of clearer guidelines, and more flexible match requirements to make 
these funds more accessible to all regions and communities, especially 
the smaller and less-resourced ones. Additionally, streamlining 
processes to reduce delays in procurement and grant agreement 
finalization, coupled with efforts to simplify compliance and reporting 
protocols, will facilitate smoother project execution. Adopting direct 
recipient funding structures, akin to the SS4A program, for other 
discretionary grant programs could significantly expedite funding 
distribution and reduce administrative delays, enabling streamlined 
project implementation.
    I would like to conclude by thanking the members of the Committee 
for acknowledging the important role of regions and providing much-
needed funding that helps us do our job and improve the lives of our 
residents.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. I will now turn it over to the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, to introduce our next 
witness.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chairman, I appreciate 
that. Today, I am honored to introduce the secretary of the 
Florida Department of Transportation, the Honorable Jared 
Perdue. And I just want to tell you, he is a hard worker. As a 
matter of fact, he began his career with the Florida Department 
of Transportation, and he is still there, and he has worked his 
way through just about every position there is, and learned 
much about what we need in Florida, and is a valued asset to 
this panel. So, I am appreciative of that.
    His leadership roles are known, and he also knows Florida's 
transportation better than anybody. And he also knows the 
struggles our State has had in facing the implementation of 
Federal discretionary grants and how difficult that is.
    In addition to graduating from The Citadel with a civil 
engineering degree, he also is a family man. He has five 
daughters, and we are proud of that. And he is a hard worker, 
and he is a motivated public servant, sticking it out with the 
Florida Department of Transportation, and we appreciate that.
    I am encouraged that Florida is well represented here 
today, because it is a large department, and it's one that 
needs to be heard from on this very, very important issue.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
    Thanks for being here, Secretary Perdue. Sorry I missed our 
meeting yesterday; I was on the floor. But with that, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

  TESTIMONY OF HON. JARED W. PERDUE, P.E., SECRETARY, FLORIDA 
                  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. Perdue. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman Webster, for 
the introduction. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 
Larsen, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity 
to be a part of today's hearing. It truly is an honor, and I 
appreciate your commitment to protecting and advocating for our 
country's infrastructure.
    My name is Jared Perdue. I currently serve as the secretary 
for the Florida Department of Transportation. I am a Florida 
native, a professional engineer, and have been a public servant 
with FDOT my entire 20-year career.
    Florida has one of the most diverse transportation 
portfolios in the country. FDOT's dedicated team oversees 
12,000 miles of roadway, maintains over 7,000 bridges, and has 
nearly 7,500 miles of bicycle facilities. Florida is the only 
State with four large-hub airports amongst its 19 commercial 
airports. Our 15 deepwater seaports are major contributors to 
America's supply chain, totaling 4.3 million TEUs in 2023, 
which is roughly 10 percent of the Nation's total. Almost 3,000 
miles of rail and our 48 transit systems keep our goods and 
people moving throughout Florida daily. Finally, Florida leads 
the Nation as the fastest growing, most forward-facing State 
for space development. In 2023 alone, our Space Coast launched 
over 70 rockets.
    With our dynamic transportation system, expectations from 
our 22 million residents and 137 million annual visitors are 
higher than ever before. To help meet those expectations, FDOT 
has strong support from Governor DeSantis and our Florida 
Legislature, with 76 percent of our budget coming from State 
funding, which means 24 percent of our budget is supported by 
Federal funding.
    Federal dollars come from a combination of measures through 
IIJA, including discretionary grants. IIJA serves as a great 
example of increasing investment for infrastructure needs 
across our country. However, pieces of IIJA are hampering State 
flexibility and slowing the delivery of infrastructure to our 
communities, specifically through its emphasis on competitive 
discretionary grant funding over formula funding.
    Under traditional formula funding, States rely on their 
calculated apportionment to plan, program, and deliver projects 
for their communities. Historically, States have received 90 
percent of total surface transportation apportionments in 
formula funds. Under IIJA, however, approximately 15 percent of 
funding is now being directed to discretionary grant programs, 
adversely impacting States who should be receiving more funding 
based on population, lane-miles, land mass, or vehicle-miles 
traveled. Florida's $500 million in discretionary grant awards 
equate to only 1.04 percent of the funding available for 
discretionary grants.
    Of the formula funding, Florida receives nearly 5 percent 
of the apportionment total under IIJA. As a growing State 
facing dynamic population and economic growth, Florida would be 
better positioned to meet emerging transportation needs through 
long-established formula programs. If IIJA funding made 90 
percent available in formula funds instead of discretionary 
grant funding, Florida would receive an additional $2 billion 
over the 5 years of the act.
    Since the inception of IIJA, FDOT has set aside resources 
totaling over $430 million in the pursuit of discretionary 
grant funding at one time or another. While waiting for an 
award announcement, this money was not building infrastructure. 
Instead, it was waiting to learn if we would be selected.
    It's also worth noting that a single quality application 
cost approximately $150,000 in fees and staff-hours to develop. 
To date, FDOT's total approximate expenditure and application 
preparation is more than $5.5 million. I cannot imagine how 
difficult it is for smaller State agencies, local governments, 
and especially fiscally constrained rural municipalities to 
apply for these grants. For these communities, the status quo 
seems untenable.
    In summary, the current discretionary grant process creates 
burdens for transportation providers, arbitrarily picks winners 
and losers, and prioritizes political ideologies over physical 
infrastructure. Formula allocation of funds is more efficient 
and allows States to actually deliver infrastructure that is 
specific to their needs and supported by their communities.
    FDOT encourages Congress to lay the groundwork for a 
transportation authorization that revives stronger formula 
funding; encourages U.S. DOT to operate efficiently, not 
bureaucratically; rejects the politization of our Nation's 
highways; and continues to appropriately increase overall 
funding for robust transportation infrastructure across the 
country. Our industry is the literal foundation for America's 
continued growth and success.
    Thank you again for the tremendous opportunity to be here 
today, and I look forward to answering any questions you may 
have.
    [Mr. Perdue's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared W. Perdue, P.E., Secretary, Florida 
                      Department of Transportation
                              Introduction
    Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be a part of today's 
hearing. My name is Jared Perdue and I serve as Secretary for the 
Florida Department of Transportation. I am a Florida Native, a 
professional engineer, and since graduating from the Citadel in 2003, 
have been serving my state as an employee of FDOT where we work to 
deliver the projects that are funded through the Surface Transportation 
Act.
    Prior to being appointed by Governor DeSantis as Secretary, I held 
various roles throughout the state, most notably as the District 
Secretary for Central Florida, where I was responsible for executing 
the I-4 Ultimate project--the largest transportation project in Florida 
history. However, my perspective is not limited to the high growth 
areas of central Florida, Orlando, and the Space Coast, as I began my 
career working near my hometown of Panama City, Florida as an engineer 
in FDOT's rural panhandle area. I have also served in a wide range of 
technical expertise areas including as a geotechnical engineer, Traffic 
Operations Engineer, Design Engineer, and Director of Transportation 
Development.
    My team and I don't just build roads and bridges, we construct and 
maintain transportation infrastructure that Florida's 22 million 
residents and 135 million visitors can rely on. In Florida, we support 
every mode of transportation you can think of--from traditional roads 
and bridges, rural roadways, tolled facilities, massive interstate 
thoroughfares, freight and passenger rail, deepwater seaports, 
international airports, and multi-use trails and bike paths throughout 
our world-renowned outdoors. We are even engaged in space commerce and 
notably in the emerging advanced air mobility industry, just to name a 
few.
    Today, I look forward to sharing Florida's perspective on the 
current flaws in the development, application, and award of 
discretionary grants included within the IIJA. I hope my comments 
provide a better pathway for how Congress can work to both fund and 
deliver transportation infrastructure throughout our country that saves 
time and tax dollars.
      Florida: A National Leader in Transportation Infrastructure
    It should come as no surprise that Florida is a leader throughout 
the transportation landscape. While some states rely heavily on federal 
support for maintaining their transportation infrastructure, Florida 
does not. In fact, thanks to the leadership of Governor DeSantis, FDOT 
is currently managing a $65 billion Five-Year Work Program, 76% of 
which is funded solely by the state and less than a quarter by the 
federal government.
    Aside from our geography and position in the worldwide supply 
chain, and a growing population that constantly allows for innovation, 
the Sunshine State has one of the most robust transportation portfolios 
in the country:
      FDOT is responsible for more than 12,000 miles of roadway 
and maintains over 7,000 bridges and has nearly 7,500 miles of bicycle 
facilities;
      Among the 19 commercial airports in the state, Florida is 
the only state with four large hub airports--Fort Lauderdale, Miami, 
Orlando, and Tampa;
      With 15 deepwater seaports in Florida, we are a 
significant contributor to America's supply chain as evidenced by the 
4.3 million total TEUs moved in 2023 equating to 10% of the nation's 
total;
      Almost 3,000 miles of rail keeps our goods and passengers 
on the go, along with the 48 transit systems across the state; and
      Florida leads the nation as the fastest growing, most 
comprehensive, and forward-facing state for space-related development, 
manufacturing, and flight. In 2023, Florida's Space Coast launched over 
70 rockets.
                     IIJA's Deviation in Structure
    Federal Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026 provide an infusion of $550 
billion nationwide towards new infrastructure investment whether by 
competitive grants or formula apportionment to improve roads, bridges, 
water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband. Under IIJA, there are 
essentially three types of funding: (1) traditional formula-based 
funding; (2) new, required formula-based programs; and (3) a-much-
expanded discretionary grants program.
    Previous federal transportation authorizations placed an emphasis 
on formula-based funding, which provided flexibility by the state 
Departments of Transportation to advance their state-specific 
infrastructure goals. Now, with IIJA, the number of competitive grant 
programs has skyrocketed from 13 to 45, placing less emphasis on 
states' needs with more decisions being made top-down. While the 
``competitive'' label attached to these grants may be a good talking 
point, it is actually a mask to cover the disservice currently being 
done to the delivery of infrastructure nationwide.
    Rather than focusing on a state's knowledge and experience to get 
the work done, U.S. DOT is administering discretionary grant programs 
with ideological considerations that are not focused on reducing 
congestion, supporting our supply chain, or maintaining the nation's 
aging infrastructure.
                       Picking Winners and Losers
    Now, halfway into the IIJA authorization, U.S. DOT has only awarded 
$47.9 billion (out of the $158 billion available) in surface 
transportation discretionary grants across the country. Two of the most 
populous states in the nation, Florida and Texas, have received some of 
the lowest funding amounts per capita from these discretionary 
programs, while Maryland has taken home the largest amount. Currently, 
Florida has the 2nd lowest per capita award rate in the country. To 
date, Florida has been awarded $500.5 million of grants which equates 
to $22.52 per capita. The national state average is awards totaling 
$740.1 million at $144.02 per capita. Maryland's awards have totaled 
$7.2 billion at $1,173 per capita.
      Out of the 36 discretionary grant applications that FDOT 
has submitted, only eight of those grants have been awarded to us 
totaling $246.6 million--$180 million of which come from a single grant 
award for Truck Parking expansion in Central Florida.
      As of February 29, 2024, out of Florida's 412 cities, 67 
counties, and 27 MPOs only 87 applications have been selected by U.S. 
DOT, totaling $317.4 million.

    Under traditional formula funding, states rely on their calculated 
apportionment, to best plan for programming and delivering projects for 
their communities. Historically, states have received 90 percent of 
total surface transportation apportionments in formula program. Under 
IIJA, approximately 15 percent of funding is now being directed to 
discretionary grant programs, leaving behind states who should be 
receiving more money based on population, lane miles, land mass and 
vehicle miles traveled.
    Florida's $500.5 million in discretionary grant awards equate to 
only 1.04% of the funding available for discretionary grants. Of the 
formula funding, Florida receives 4.78% of the apportionment total 
under IIJA. As a growing state facing dynamic population and economic 
growth, Florida would be better positioned to meet emerging 
transportation needs through long established formula programs. If the 
IIJA funding made 90 percent available in federal authorization, 
Florida would receive an additional $2 billion over the five years of 
the Act.
                      Wasted Time is Wasted Money
    With the increase in discretionary programs, FDOT and local 
entities are required to compete for federal funding, which is timely, 
costly and an overall burden to states and our local partners who want 
to deliver infrastructure not wade through federal bureaucracy.
    Two years after being awarded the 2021 RAISE grant for the Tampa 
Heights Mobility Project, FDOT's grant agreement has still not been 
executed by U.S. DOT. On average, the grant funds for FDOT projects 
have taken up to 18 to 24 months to be authorized. Currently, FDOT has 
received authorization for 13.68% of our awarded grants--leaving 86.32% 
waiting for a grant agreement and funds to be obligated by U.S. DOT.
    The additional time required to enter into a grant agreement with 
U.S. DOT makes many of Florida's top projects untenable for grants, as 
delays could jeopardize critical investments into our communities. 
Aside from the waiting period, a quality grant application can cost 
nearly $150,000 in resource and staff hours to develop. FDOT has 
submitted 36 discretionary grant applications under IIJA making FDOT's 
total approximate expenditure more than $5.5 million. Florida has 29 
Fiscally Constrained Counties (mostly rural)--how are they supposed to 
prioritize projects when the resources and expertise for complex 
applications are limited?
    As an added business consideration, to meet the federal match 
requirements for application submissions, a 20% match of state funds 
must be committed. While applicants wait months for paperwork to be 
reviewed, a considerable amount of resources in FDOT's Work Program are 
essentially sidelined in anticipation of a potential grant award. Since 
the inception of IIJA, FDOT has had to set aside resources totaling 
over $430 million in the pursuit of discretionary grant funding at one 
time or another. While waiting for an award announcement, this money 
was not building infrastructure, instead it was waiting to learn if we 
would be selected. In Florida, we are aware that some industry partners 
are opting to not apply for federal discretionary grants to ensure 
their funding cycles can remain active and reliable.
    By the time a grant award is realized for a community, the effects 
of federally-induced inflation, compounded by a 18-24 month delay in 
award, have immediately driven project finances into the red. DOTs, 
cities, counties, MPOs, and local agencies bear the responsibility of 
cost overruns due to the combination of inflation and slow agreements 
and authorizations. If FDOT struggles with this scenario, I must 
imagine rural and small communities heavily weigh whether they even 
apply for grants in the first place--making these discretionary funds 
even further out of reach for some who need them most.
    It should not be taken lightly that U.S. DOT is under a tremendous 
burden, albeit self-inflicted. The magnitude and scope of a 
discretionary grant program of this size is formidable, and the sheer 
staffing needs required to evaluate and process this program is 
overwhelming--and would be for any agency. That is why we must return 
to primarily traditional formula-based funding. Transportation 
infrastructure is planned 15-20 years in advance to begin with, we 
should be doing everything possible for our citizens to bring it to 
reality efficiently not prolong it further.
                  Equity In Action vs. Equity Inaction
    IIJA deviated from a time-tested authorization structure for 
funding the country's infrastructure. As one of those deviations, U.S. 
DOT has made it clear that non-pecuniary factors like DEI and ESG 
considerations, may take priority when selecting which transportation 
projects are most important for our communities. These ``priorities'' 
are clearly seen in the goals of discretionary grant programs.
    U.S. DOT has declared that there must be equity in transportation, 
but Florida, the nation's 3rd largest state, only stands to receive 1% 
of competitive grants; rural and Justice 40 communities are actually 
disadvantaged and penalized the most by burdensome red tape; and NOFO 
requirements force one-sided ideologies to act as a carrot and a stick 
simultaneously.
    The mentions above are only within the discretionary grant space, 
not even venturing into IIJA's new formula-based programs which are now 
required. NEVI is part of a vision to force individuals into only 
driving one type of vehicle. The Carbon Reduction Program is a program 
forcing states to acknowledge there's a carbon emissions `problem' 
while in Florida the U.S. EPA admitted we have the cleanest air quality 
on record. Some programs are even being promulgated outside of legal 
authority. These programs similarly don't prioritize infrastructure, 
they prioritize ideologies.
    FDOT is very proud of the INFRA Grant we received for trucking 
parking last month. With this funding we will be able to add over 900 
truck parking spaces to the network of truck parking FDOT has been 
building for years. It truly is a great win for our state. It is 
unfortunately overshadowed by the realization that our selection was 
most likely embedded in the Administration's belief that reducing 
carbon emissions was a priority consideration for our application, not 
the fact that the backbone of our supply chain, our truck drivers, need 
a place to rest and that Florida was the most financially- and 
technically-qualified to deliver this complex project. These 
``priorities'' are not to relieve congestion, increase safety, or 
promote innovation; they're not about infrastructure at all.
                Conclusion & Where We Hope to Head Next
    In summary, the current discretionary grant process creates burdens 
for state DOTs and all applicants, unfairly picks winners and losers, 
and prioritizes non-transportation factors. Formula allocation of funds 
is more efficient and allows states to actually deliver infrastructure 
that is specific to their state and supported by their communities. 
FDOT encourages Congress to lay the groundwork for the next 
transportation authorization that revives stronger formula funding, 
encourages U.S. DOT to operate efficiently not bureaucratically, 
rejects the politization of our nation's highways, and continues to 
appropriately increase overall funding for robust transportation 
infrastructure across the country. Our industry is the literal 
foundation for America's continued growth and success.
    Thank you again for the tremendous opportunity to be part of this 
process.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you again to all of our 
witnesses, and I will now open it up for questions, and I 
recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first questions. So, it 
goes to Commissioner Winders.
    I know you recently applied for a RAISE grant, a $25 
million RAISE grant for Highway 54 in Missouri. I am curious, 
can you talk a little bit about the challenges that you had, 
and obviously, the benefits of that particular project?
    Mr. Winders. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The project itself is taking a two-lane highway, Highway 
54, and creating a shared four-lane, which, if you are not 
familiar with that, it's effectively passing lanes every so 
often.
    Doing this project would also complete a shortcut between 
the Avenue of the Saints and Interstate 70. The shortcut is 
half done, but we need to do--this project would be the rest of 
it. We have been unsuccessful in 6 years in applying for RAISE 
grants. Our grant application has dropped over the years. 
Actually, every year. The first time we applied, we were 
``highly recommended,'' and then we went to ``recommended.'' 
And now I believe the latest iteration was ``acceptable,'' and 
this is with, effectively, the same application. What has 
changed are the raters and rating criteria. Effectively, it has 
been, for us--our experience has been it has been a moving 
target.
    The first--when we were--I believe when we were highly 
rated, we needed to do a benefit-cost analysis, which was a 
$15,000 bill. And for a small coalition, that was a little bit 
difficult for us. But after our application was rated highly, 
one of the things we needed to change was have that benefit-
cost analysis. So, we put together the money and did that, and 
then the next year, we were not highly rated, we were 
recommended. So, it has been items that--in areas that have to 
do with the reviewer or the rating criteria that has changed 
that has made our application less favorably looked upon.
    The other thing that happens is, as additional rating 
criteria have come into being, a county with a road project 
with clean air--and it just being a road project--environmental 
issues, clean air issues, and innovation, we just don't get a 
lot of points for that, in spite of the fact--and now I will 
talk a little bit about the benefits of the highway. That 
particular road shares traffic with everything from horse and 
buggy Amish traffic at 3 or 4 miles an hour to 60-mile-an-hour 
heavy-truck traffic, 20-mile-an-hour combines that are 16 or 
thereabouts wide, and every vehicle in between. Passing lanes 
would be a great safety improvement for that part of the--and a 
very much-needed safety improvement. We just have been unable 
to make that case in the RAISE grant application.
    In addition to that, it's an unfinished project. I 
mentioned that this four-lane is halfway done between 70 and 
the Avenue of the Saints. Completing this section would allow, 
effectively, a shortcut or a bypass on the northeast part of 
St. Louis, which should help congestion, and the I-70, the 
Wentzville, where the Avenue of the Saints crosses Interstate 
70. So, we think it would be a really good improvement for the 
State and national system, as well.
    Finally, it's an unfinished project. A couple of decades 
ago, we--the Federal Government, in conjunction with the 
State--did the four-lane halfway through the project to Mexico, 
Missouri, and then it stops. So, completing this section is 
actually, I believe, the completion of some vision from decades 
ago that was positive in terms of how transportation could work 
to move people and goods in our area and nationally.
    It's not the only unfinished project. So, I assume there 
might be others like us that will also have trouble getting 
through the rating criteria. One example might be a bypass in 
Hannibal in Marion County. The Avenue of the Saints goes 
mostly--you can go from Waterloo, Iowa, almost to St. Paul, all 
the way to New Orleans, and there are seven stop signs on that 
route. The rest of it is four lanes, and those seven stop signs 
are in Hannibal. That bypass would really--is really a--we are 
talking about a completion of the project.
    If we have these problems, I assume that other places do, 
as well; other counties do, as well. We simply don't have the 
capacity, in spite of the fact that we have the best 
transportation planner at our Council of Governments--her name 
is Anna Gill, and she is with us here today. We have the best 
transportation planner in the State, we just don't have the 
financial and human capacity to compete with the larger 
projects.
    So, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, if that was long-winded, but 
that's kind of the story of the 54 Coalition.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    That is a great intro for a question for Ms. O'Leary, 
because I wanted to ask you, from a regional planner 
perspective, one, if we had more direct allocation of formula 
funding to local governments or targeted competitive grants 
open to counties, cities, or MPOs, would that be an 
improvement?
    If so, how would it be an improvement?
    And then the second--well, answer that one first.
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Yes, I think that would 
be an improvement in certain areas, where we have the expertise 
at the MPO level or at the local government level. And I think 
the Safe Streets For All is a really good example of that.
    We at the MPO level across the country have safety plans 
that can identify exactly the types of projects that need to 
happen. And then we work with our counties and our local 
governments, and some of them have even more in-depth safety 
plans done and ready to go. So, in that case, where the 
projects are really on the ground and local, I think it makes 
sense to be able to pass the funds through at that level.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. So, on that point, so, in my 
district, I have the Puget Sound Regional Council, which is 
kind of the urban planning bit. Then I have Skagit Council of 
Governments and Whatcom Council of Governments up near the 
border, much more rural areas. I have got Island County, which 
is its own thing, as well, very much its own thing. And there 
is--I would suggest there is a variety of technical capacity in 
each of those, as well, although probably better than, say, any 
one of the smaller cities that currently exists.
    So, do you have some thoughts about the technical capacity 
support that has come through the U.S. DOT?
    Ms. O'Leary. Right. So, I think that MPOs provide and 
regions provide a lot of opportunity to provide capacity to 
local communities, especially smaller ones that don't 
necessarily have that knowledge or technical ability to do so. 
And that's one of the things that we have been able to do at 
SEMCOG. But you're right, we are a staff at SEMCOG of 70 staff 
being able to do that, whereas some of the smaller regions and 
MPO in the State may have two or three staff.
    So, the ability to provide regions some of that technical 
support and dollars to be able to gear up to provide that 
assistance to local communities, I think, would be very 
helpful. I think the Federal programs to provide technical 
support are so important, but sometimes they don't necessarily 
know the issues like we do at the local level in being able to 
work directly with the local community.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Right. Mr. Baker, in the next 
authorization, we will need to tackle how to get predictable 
funding for rail. Do you have an answer about how to do that?
    Mr. Baker. Well, I guess cutting to the end of the answer, 
I don't know if you will consider this an answer to how, but 
the advance appropriations from IIJA were just a real game 
changer for rail, which I think you referenced in your opening 
statement. That's been just a massive deal.
    Rail has never had that before for short lines, applying 
for CRISI. Knowing that CRISI will be well funded every year in 
advance is a huge deal and makes it something, frankly, you can 
count on and think about long-term business and growth for, as 
opposed to something that's subject to the vagaries of the 
process. Congress just sort of magically did that last time in 
the infrastructure bill.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. We are that good.
    Mr. Baker. And so, if that's how it happens again, that 
would be OK with us.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. OK, all right. So, thinking 
through the discretionary versus the formula, I appreciate, 
Secretary Perdue, your comment about having more formula. Roger 
Millar from my State wants that, too. I never ran into a State 
DOT director who didn't want more formula money.
    But the flip side is that either there is more money 
overall or, with the money that we authorize, then there is 
going to be some split. And we did a lot more competitive grant 
programs in this version because there was a need to do that. I 
can think of one in particular, one particular need in our 
State, with culvert removal as a for-instance. So, there is 
just going to be this continual tradeoff.
    But then we also have a process in our State--and by the 
way, we are better than Florida--21 percent of our 
transportation budget was federally funded, so in that regard. 
But there is always this tradeoff. And we have a process 
between our legislature and our county governments and city 
governments using things like the County Road Administration 
Board to get dollars from formula allocated into these 
distribution mechanisms. And so, that is what we do. It can be 
done.
    That's kind of my point I made earlier on the testimony. 
Does Florida have something like that, or does it all go 
through the State legislature?
    And nothing wrong with yours or my State legislature, but 
sometimes it's the vagaries of the State legislature, as well, 
that dictates where the money goes.
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Ranking Member Larsen, for that 
question, and yes, actually, there is a time-tested model in 
place.
    Actually, with traditional formula allocations of Federal 
funds, we do have local programs. Florida is a very diverse 
State, geographically. We have very rural communities, we have 
very urban communities. And we have, actually--like through the 
Bridge Formula Program, we have replaced a lot of off-system 
local bridges. In cases where local municipalities have the 
technical expertise and the staffing and manpower to manage 
Federal programs, we are more like a pass-through, and we 
administer the funds to the locals. Then, for rural communities 
that may not have the staffing or expertise, we actually go in 
and deliver those projects for those rural communities. So, 
there is a time-tested model in place.
    I think there is a very good way for formula distributed 
allocations to be utilized to help local communities.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Well, just before I 
yield back, when I came on the committee in 2001, we argued 
about donor and donee States and tried to get a formula change. 
And this is just--your testimony and testimony from Roger 
Millar, and he's great, it is just a version of that donor 
versus donee thing that someday will be perfect.
    Yes, thanks. I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Crawford.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While we are here 
today to discuss the Department's administration of grant 
programs, I would be remiss if I didn't raise my continued 
concern with the Federal Highway Administration's final rule to 
require a greenhouse gas performance measure forcing State DOTs 
and MPOs to set declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions 
stemming from transportation on the National Highway System. As 
I previously discussed in this committee, this rule exceeds the 
administration's statutory authority. This policy was 
considered and rejected as part of Senate negotiations of IIJA.
    So, Secretary Perdue, does Florida DOT agree that the rule 
goes beyond the administration's statutory authority?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman. And yes, absolutely. We 
do agree that it does go beyond the authority granted to FHWA, 
which is one of the reasons we joined 20 other States in a 
lawsuit challenging that rule.
    And our mission at FDOT is to deliver transportation 
infrastructure that moves people and goods safely and 
efficiently. I think the last thing that Floridians want FDOT 
to be doing is tracking and monitoring tailpipe emissions when 
they choose to drive a car.
    Mr. Crawford. So, how will this rule impact the ability of 
State DOTs to make their own project selections?
    Mr. Perdue. This rule could have a significant impact. We 
actually have 27 MPOs in the State of Florida. So, the rule not 
only requires DOT to set targets and track, but also those 
local MPOs. And so, it is a tremendous effort to ramp that up 
and figure out, like, where are the different targets going to 
be, how are they going to be set up, what is it going to look 
like? There is just a lot of unknowns, and it is just very 
burdensome.
    Mr. Crawford. Let me shift gears just a little bit. As you 
know, Secretary Perdue, I just significantly expanded 
discretionary grant opportunities. And there is a process 
conducted before the end of each fiscal year known as August 
Redistribution, in which outstanding obligation limitation for 
nonformula programs is redistributed to State DOTs.
    The total amount considered as part of this process has 
escalated over the past several years, and more specifically, 
grown significantly since enactment of IIJA. Federal Highways 
has projected the balance could reach $8\1/2\ billion this 
year. The American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, or AASHTO, recently wrote to 
congressional leaders to raise this issue and encourage action.
    I appreciate the concerns of the State DOTs, which are left 
scrambling to absorb this funding on a short timeline to ensure 
it does not lapse. Is this something you at Florida DOT are 
concerned about?
    Mr. Perdue. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. It is actually a 
major concern and a huge challenge. So, yes, redistribution 
happens in August every year. And basically, what happens is at 
the Federal level, the discretionary funds and the TIFIA funds 
that have not been utilized or obligated are then redistributed 
to the States. And we are asked to take additional funds at the 
eleventh hour of building our programs in the form of formula 
distributions.
    So, the discretionary funds that are not moving are then 
being redistributed to us as formula, but over the life of the 
authorization, that reduces our actual formula allocation 
balance. The allocation for the discretionary grant program 
still stays at what it is.
    And I would highlight that we are over halfway through the 
IIJA authorization, and only around 30 percent of grants have 
been awarded at this time. A lot less than that has actually 
been authorized and obligated. So, that redistribution amount 
continues to grow. We, as a State, are being asked to take more 
and more and more, and all that does is draw down on the 
formula funds that we can actually spend in the future.
    Mr. Crawford. Any thoughts on how we might fix this 
problem?
    Mr. Perdue. There are a few opportunities and a few ways to 
fix the problem. But one thing that I would definitely 
highlight here is that, obviously, if the authorization could 
direct more resources to formula programs, as opposed to 
discretionary grants, that would be great.
    Another potential solution is, when redistribution happens, 
if those redistributed funds could add to our overall 
allocation of formula funds and at the same time reduce the 
overall authorization for the discretionary grant programs, I 
think it would be a more predictable and manageable and 
consistent way going into the future.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. O'Leary, while most highway formula funds 
go to States, metropolitan regions receive dedicated formula 
funds through the Surface Transportation Program, the 
Transportation Alternatives Program, and the Carbon Reduction 
Program through a process known as suballocation. Can you speak 
to the benefits for the communities you serve in having 
dedicated, predictable funding streams for your region?
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you for that question. Yes. SEMCOG and a 
lot of the larger MPOs across the country do have suballocation 
of the Transportation Alternatives Program and the new Carbon 
Reduction Program.
    One of the reasons that I think that works really well--so, 
in our region for TAP, as we call it, we receive about $10 
million a year. What's nice about it being formula funds is 
that there is consistency that we know we will be receiving $10 
million every year from this program, so, we can look forward 
at projects that might not quite be ready this year, but they 
can get in the pipeline.
    We have a group of elected officials at our organization 
that actually makes all the funding decisions that we have. So, 
we, as staff, take all the applications for the TAP funds and 
for carbon reduction. We vet them ourselves from the technical 
standpoint, but then we take them to our regional review 
committee of elected officials that represent fairly our entire 
region to make the final decisions about which funds happen for 
TAP and for carbon reduction. Both have been highly successful 
in our region for that way and very equitably contributed.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. O'Leary, another question for you. This 
committee often talks about the role that highway 
infrastructure can play in promoting economic development, but 
that's not always the case. Your testimony cites Interstate 696 
as--and here I am quoting you--a ``major barrier to 
accessibility and economic development,'' and discusses how 
predominantly Black neighborhoods were razed in the 1960s to 
make room for Interstate 375 in Detroit.
    I helped create two programs, Reconnecting Communities and 
Neighborhood Access and Equity, to begin redressing some of 
these harms. Can you discuss how reimagining and rebuilding 
highway infrastructure can improve economic development?
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you for that question, yes, and thank 
you for starting those programs for us. I talked for a bit 
about the Reconnecting Communities Project, and in the instance 
of the 696 cutting one of our communities in half, and the 
ability of our citizens to be able to get across the freeway to 
be able to go to their schools or go to their places of 
worship, has been a challenge for them. And so, being able to 
receive that spurs economic development, and it's a citizen's 
right to be able to go to their community centers and things 
that were across the freeway. So, it has been a very exciting 
program.
    In the case of I-375, that is a very large program, so that 
is a $300 million reconstruction program. And while we would 
have loved to use Reconnecting Communities, that pot of money 
was a little bit smaller. So, they went with the larger pot of 
money under INFRA to be able to fund over $100 million to look 
at raising the grade because, yes, 375 in the 1960s cut very 
prominent Black neighborhoods in half and destroyed commercial 
areas back in the 1960s. So, this will raise it back to grade, 
and slow it down, and make it more pedestrian friendly.
    And at SEMCOG, one of the things we do is the travel 
modeling to make sure that the system can handle that, that the 
freeways we work with our State DOT very closely and make sure 
that all of that can work, so that when we bring things up to 
grade, it will end up having an economic boom in our downtown, 
but also, more importantly, connect our citizens across that 
freeway.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bean of Florida [presiding]. Thank you very much, and 
good morning, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
Let's continue. Let's go to the great State of Florida, where 
Dan Webster is recognized.
    Representative Webster, you are recognized.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary Perdue, the drawn-out timeline for MARAD and DOT 
during the grant obligation process, like the Port 
Infrastructure Development Program, so forth, forces recipients 
to adjust their scopes due to inflation. I think other 
pressures, too, would cause readjustment.
    Considering the Port Infrastructure Development Program as 
an example, what is the average time it takes DOT to complete a 
grant contract?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. And 
yes, I would say in the transportation industry specifically, 
we have seen, year over year, close to 20-percent increases in 
the cost of delivering projects.
    Currently, what we are seeing with discretionary grants 
under U.S. DOT is that it's actually taking from 18 to 24 
months to get from award announcement to actual execution of a 
grant agreement, which is when you can actually access the 
money.
    For an entity like a seaport, who is typically delivering 
infrastructure and financing it through a myriad of sources--
one would be they utilize State funds from FDOT, they utilize 
their own funds, they utilize bonding, and they also rely on 
these Federal grants--having to wait 18 to 24 months to 
actually access the money puts them in a real bind with their 
capital plan, and they find themselves with the cost of the 
project having gone up and then having to readjust their 
programs and plans and potentially find different ways to 
finance the project.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Can you give an example of how we 
might be able to avoid those delays?
    Mr. Perdue. There are a few different opportunities.
    One suggestion that I could bring is especially for 
entities and agencies that have been managing Federal programs 
for many, many years. I mean, like FDOT, we deliver billions of 
dollars' worth of infrastructure with Federal funds on it. 
Instead of going through this lengthy kind of bureaucratic 
process of having to enter into a separate grant agreement for 
every single award, the funds could actually be distributed to 
those entities that are time tested and proven and know how to 
manage Federal funds, and directly administered to those 
agencies to deliver the projects. That would speed things up 
significantly.
    The other suggestion would be just speed up the time it 
takes to execute a grant agreement. I mean, there is no reason 
it should take 18 to 24 months.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, as you know, the House--we 
didn't have much say in what went into the IIJA. Most of us 
were on the side that didn't even vote for the bill because of 
various reasons. But if we had a say in the final bill, we 
probably wouldn't have had so many discretionary grant 
programs.
    So, the multiyear planning program is difficult, and we 
have to rely on discretionary grants, but we don't have to as 
much. And as we rewrite, in the coming years, the IIJA, do you 
have any recommendations on why we might use more formula-
driven programs?
    Mr. Perdue. I do, Congressman, and thank you. And I am 
happy to be on this panel with a colleague from the MPOs, 
because they are very important.
    And just to give a little context, transportation 
infrastructure is not dreamt up overnight. It takes years to 
plan infrastructure projects out. And we work very closely with 
MPOs and local communities to develop those plans using data 
and science and growth models to plan what projects are going 
to be needed 20 years in the future. And once the project is 
conceived, we immediately begin working on the development 
process.
    And even NEPA alone--to administer Federal funds, you have 
to go through the NEPA process. That process alone takes 3 or 4 
years a lot of times. And so, the fact that we have 
discretionary grants available is great, but there are a lot of 
additional requirements in those grants that may not have been 
part of the considerations for that planning. And you can't 
just dream up a project overnight and change the direction you 
are going.
    And so, for instance, in the State of Florida, we have 
billions of dollars of infrastructure in the pipeline right now 
that was conceived by local communities that they are waiting 
for us to deliver. And the faster we can get our hands on that 
funding, the better it is going to be for that infrastructure. 
And so, like, looking into the future, formula distribution, 
formula allocation is much more effective, and there are a lot 
of opportunities in that. And if local communities are the 
focus, I think that there is a way to use those formula 
distribution, those formula allocations to help those local 
communities, as well.
    And in a lot of cases in Florida, like for our fiscally 
constrained local communities and those that are rural, they 
actually need State DOT's help to administer projects with 
Federal funds. And so, it is actually a--it is beneficial for 
our communities if those formula allocations, even the ones 
that are going directly to communities, come through State 
DOTs. For those local communities that have the staffing and 
expertise to manage Federal funds, we can be a pass-through and 
administer the funds to the locals. And for those that can't, 
we can step in and actually help them deliver those projects.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much for your 
answer.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much, Representative. 
Let's go to the great State of California, where Representative 
Garamendi is recognized.
    You are recognized, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garamendi. Good heavens, Mr. Chairman, such enthusiasm 
for an introduction. Thank you.
    I am sitting here listening to this. You guys have never 
had it so good. The State of California has never had it so 
good. Cry me a river. There is a river of money flowing from 
the Federal Government to the States, both in formula as well 
as in grants. And what I hear is a lot of crying about, well, 
it isn't this, we should do that, we have to sign, we have to 
have a little bit more information, and they are not approving 
it quite as fast as they ought to.
    And by the way, Mr. Perdue, you are complaining that with 
the allocations you are getting more money upfront and then 
later, down the years in the future, you may not have as much 
because you are getting it now rather than later. Cry me a 
river, folks.
    The IIJA has provided more money for infrastructure of all 
kinds, including transportation, than ever, ever before in the 
history of this Government. So, cry me a river. Yes, there are 
restrictions, there are formulas. Mr. Winders, you complain 
about not getting your thing because the criteria has changed. 
You didn't say one word about what was wrong with the criteria. 
That would be useful to us. If you don't like the criteria that 
has been written in the current law and implemented by the 
Department of Transportation, then tell us what is wrong with 
the criteria.
    And I suspect some of it is, well, the criteria has 
changed, we are going to worry about communities that have been 
divided and destroyed by previous infrastructure, and we want 
to address that. You guys got a problem with that? Yes or no, 
Mr. Winders, a problem with that policy?
    Mr. Winders. No.
    Mr. Garamendi. Good. Mr. Baker, problems with that policy?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Mr. Garamendi. How about Ms. O'Leary?
    Ms. O'Leary. No.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Perdue?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman. You know, the----
    Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. Yes or no.
    Mr. Perdue [continuing]. The increased funding is----
    Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. No, the policy question is, 
should we be allocating money by grants to communities that 
have been destroyed by previous infrastructure projects?
    Mr. Perdue. I would say it's much more efficient and 
effective to allocate money by formula distribution.
    Mr. Garamendi. All right, then you want to do away with all 
the grants, including the $15 million that Florida received for 
high-speed rail. Got it. We will just eliminate the high-speed 
rail grant program for Florida. And by the way, your ports 
receive mostly grant programs. You want to do away with that 
also? We could do away with that.
    The bottom line is we have a situation here where this 
Congress--excuse me, the previous Congress, not this one--the 
previous Congress authorized and appropriated more money than 
ever for formula, as well as for discretionary grants. I 
understand none of us get everything we want. Certainly, we 
don't get everything I want for my district. But I do know that 
the opportunity to get it exists today. So, just a couple of 
questions.
    Mr. Perdue, Florida reduced its gas tax to 0, gasoline tax 
to 0 in 2022. Is that correct?
    Mr. Perdue. No, that is not correct.
    Mr. Garamendi. So, was there a reduction in the gasoline 
tax in Florida in 2022?
    Mr. Perdue. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Garamendi. I believe your Governor signed a bill that 
did that. But you know better than I, I suppose.
    I just found that the utility of this hearing would be: 
What are the specific questions that you have about the 
discretionary funding mechanisms and formulas? The criteria? 
What is wrong with the criteria that is out there? I gave one 
example. Are there other examples of criteria that you think 
are incorrect? I think you can provide that to us in writing.
    I will also note that this little--we are sitting here with 
the IIJA providing more money than ever before for all kinds of 
infrastructure, including transportation. And there were 13 of 
my Republican colleagues that voted for it. Only four of them 
still are in Congress, but they are happy to vote no and take 
the dough. So, the question for us as we go forward is: If you 
don't like the formula, if you don't like the discretionary 
allocation, what is wrong with it?
    The fact of the matter is that the Department of 
Transportation has pushed out a vast amount of money through 
both formula, as well as discretionary funding. So, please 
deliver to us in the days ahead what of those criteria in the 
discretionary funding that you find inappropriate.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much.
    Let's go to the Lone Star State, the great State of Texas, 
where Dr. Babin, Representative Babin, you are recognized.
    Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Thank 
you, witnesses, for being here, as well.
    I represent the 36th Congressional District of Texas, home 
to some of our most critical ports in the Nation and waterways 
and, really, more refineries and petrochemical plants than 
anywhere else in the country, rail, highway infrastructure, 
manufacturing, industrial sector facilities. And I am very 
pleased we are having this hearing to discuss these issues and 
opportunities related to competitive discretionary funding from 
DOT.
    My first question is for all of the panelists. If you would 
give a very brief answer, I would appreciate it. In 
conversations with the Texas Department of Transportation, or 
TxDOT, I have heard that the U.S. Department of Transportation 
conducts debriefs with grant applications that were not 
selected. And I have also heard that these debriefs are not 
transparent whatsoever. Applicants aren't allowed to seek 
additional information or even see the scoring sheets or speak 
to those who scored the applications. What is your experience 
with these debriefs?
    And what do you think could be changed to make them more 
beneficial and transparent, please?
    Go ahead, Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. For short line railroads, anyone who doesn't win 
a CRISI grant typically does request a debrief, and they get 
them. We do appreciate the opportunity.
    I would agree with the premise of the question, though. The 
whole process could be more transparent.
    Dr. Babin. Yes.
    Mr. Baker. Frankly, we would love to see much more public 
information about who applies, who doesn't win, and for the 
ones that do win, exactly what was in the application, where it 
stands, how it's progressing. I think sunshine would be a 
tremendous----
    Dr. Babin [interposing]. Amen.
    Mr. Baker [continuing]. Benefit for the whole process.
    Dr. Babin. It's amazing how sunlight can help things.
    Anybody else?
    Mr. Winders. We would agree. I believe that the debrief 
process is helpful and can be helpful. In our particular 
circumstance, it affected what we did. We went and got the 
benefit-cost analysis, but it didn't help us. So, not knowing 
necessarily everything about the criteria and especially how it 
would be rated the next year was--it would have been helpful to 
know that.
    Dr. Babin. Thank you.
    Nobody else? OK. Another question for all of you, and 
anyone feel free to chime in briefly.
    Many local governments receiving grant funds do not realize 
that the money is provided on a reimbursable basis, which can 
be very critical to a small city. I was a small city mayor, 
myself. Is the DOT doing a good job of letting locals know 
that?
    What should DOT do to ensure that this is understood, so 
that locals can consider this in their decisionmaking process?
    Who would like to answer that one?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you.
    Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Perdue. Yes, thank you Congressman. Absolutely, I can 
provide a little insight on that.
    Some of them--I would say some of your more progressed that 
have staffing and expertise are aware of that. Others, a lot of 
rural communities, underserved communities may not be aware of 
that. And it can be a real challenge. And I mentioned in my 
testimony the demand on resources just simply to pursue grants 
and also even provide the matching requirements. This is one of 
the challenges with discretionary grants programs.
    At Florida DOT, we actually had to set up an entire team to 
support our local governments and local communities, especially 
as they are staring in the face the potential opportunity to 
directly receive Federal grant moneys. It is very cumbersome, 
very difficult, very challenging to manage projects with 
Federal dollars on them, and there is a lot of requirements and 
rules you have to meet, and it takes a lot of expertise to do 
that.
    And so, it is taking a lot of assistance from FDOT in 
support of those local communities, and it can really be a 
challenge.
    Dr. Babin. OK, thank you very much. The last question is 
for you, Secretary Perdue. As you know, it is important that 
State DOTs maintain awareness of projects on their own system 
to ensure coordination with local partners and the appropriate 
project planning that must go forth. Are you finding that the 
U.S. Department of Transportation is awarding funds to 
transportation partners in your State on projects that are on 
the State system without notifying you?
    Are there any examples you would like to share?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman. I don't have any 
specific examples. We did identify this as a major risk early 
on, which is one of the reasons we established our team. The 
risk is there. The opportunity for that to happen is there. And 
so, we have kind of set up a process internal to FDOT to have 
consistent, frequent communications with those local 
communities that are pursuing grants. And we have even offered 
our support in terms of the grants they are pursuing, just so 
that we will have that awareness, because that is a potential 
risk.
    Dr. Babin. OK, thank you.
    And I am going to yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you, Dr. Babin. Let's go to the 
great State of Nevada.
    Representative Titus, you are recognized. Good morning.
    Ms. Titus. Good morning, and thank you very much. I just 
wanted to point out that the grant moneys that have come from 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have really helped southern 
Nevada recover, and they have been coming pretty rapidly, and 
we appreciate that.
    You may have heard about the $3 billion that we got as part 
of building a super-speed train from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, 
which will certainly help with our tourism economy. And another 
program that we have gotten considerable funding, $13.3 
million, is for Safe Streets and Roads For All.
    And Ms. O'Leary, you mentioned in your testimony that your 
area has a similar program, and you suggested that it 
transition from discretionary to formula funding. Would you 
elaborate on that, and tell us why that would make such a 
difference, and what a problem it might be if this whole 
program went away?
    Ms. O'Leary. Right. Well, thank you for noticing that in 
the testimony.
    When I mentioned the buckets of discretionary funds, one of 
the buckets was for kind of new challenges. And safety isn't a 
new challenge, but post-pandemic and during the pandemic, it 
became a challenge again with fatalities. We were seeing a 
trend of it going down, and suddenly, during the pandemic, it 
started going up, and post-pandemic, it continues to go up.
    Ms. Titus. The same in Nevada.
    Ms. O'Leary. So, I think noticing that, and then saying, 
OK, that is a challenge, and having discretionary funds to be 
able to address it is vital, but it's not going away. We 
wondered if it was a blip during COVID that then we would see 
it start going back down again, and we haven't. So, that's what 
makes me think this is a problem that is across the country, 
not in just Michigan, right, and not just in Nevada. We have 
got it everywhere.
    And that's where it does seem to make sense to me that in 
the next round that we talk about it being more formula because 
it does impact everyone across the country. And again, locally 
derived solutions are really making a game changer.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. When you provide safety for all 
the different users of the road, it's not only good for those 
users, but it gets more people perhaps out of cars and on 
bicycles, or mass transit, or just walking to the store, or 
whatever it might be. But we have got to be sure those streets 
are safe for all those users. So, thank you. I would like to 
consider making that change next time.
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. Yes. And then I would just ask all of you this 
question. Mr. Yakym and I introduced a bill called INVEST in 
Our Communities Act, and it was about promoting economic 
development.
    One of the things we looked at is capacity building. Small 
towns, rural areas don't have the same resources to apply for 
certain grants, and we wanted to see about building that in. I 
wonder if some of you would comment on how that might make a 
difference. Is it needed? Should we look at that in the next 
transportation authorization bill as we consider different 
grant programs?
    Mr. Winders. I believe we would appreciate and support 
anything that would provide technical assistance to rural 
communities and counties as it relates to navigating through 
the grant processes, the notices of Federal funding, and 
compliance with the rules. So, I believe that we would support 
that.
    Mr. Baker. There are some small short line railroads that 
would make some of those small towns and counties look like 
major metropolises by comparison. So, I am not sure if the bill 
applies to small businesses, but in general, we would welcome 
any sort of help. Applying these programs can be very 
challenging, and it just looks like a Mount Everest of 
bureaucracy if you are a small business trying to conquer this.
    Ms. Titus. And sometimes in small governments or rural 
areas, it's, well, ``here, you're not busy, write us up a grant 
proposal,'' and that's just not going to be competitive today. 
We need that expertise and those resources. Anybody else want 
to comment?
    Ms. O'Leary. I would just add, I think it's a great idea. 
One of the things we've noted is that, with the grant 
opportunities, it would be--we talked just about that. It would 
be nice if there was some capacity building built right into 
it. So, I think that's a really great idea.
    I would say it is rural areas, but it's also our small 
urban cities. So, while some of our large urban cities have 
more staff and more capacity, some of our small urban cities, 
they are very limited in staff and the ability to write these 
grants, as well. We formed a committee at SEMCOG of just those 
mayors to come together, and we actually have a meeting 
tomorrow to talk about what their issues are. And then one of 
the number-one things they say is their ability to write these 
grants and the capacity building that they need. And they are 
very urban communities, they are just very small.
    Ms. Titus. OK, thank you.
    Well, thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much. Let's go to the 
great State of North Carolina, where Representative Rouzer is 
recognized.
    Representative Rouzer, good morning.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Perdue, in your testimony, you state that your 
department was awarded a RAISE grant in 2021, but the U.S. 
Department of Transportation has not yet finalized that grant 
agreement. In fact, you mentioned how grant delivery can often 
take 18 to 24 months to be disbursed. Consequently, by the time 
funding for these projects is delivered, they are already in 
the red.
    So, that has been the experience in North Carolina, as 
well. In October of 2022, the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation was awarded an INFRA grant to widen 10 miles of 
the I-85 FUTURES Corridor. This grant has been pending for more 
than 18 months. At the time of the application submittal, the 
estimated cost was $640 million. In June 2023, the project was 
set to cost $720 million. By November of 2023, the project was 
at $839 million, meaning a total increase of at least $200 
million--$200 million. In August 2022, the department was 
awarded a RAISE grant to reconstruct 28 bridges in several 
counties across North Carolina, and this grant agreement with 
the Federal Highway Administration has still not been 
finalized. And while it may be somewhat of a complex project, 
that's inexcusable.
    So, one aspect of this grant debate that we have not really 
dived into are the cost overruns. Can you talk about your 
experience in Florida with regard to that?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman, and what you are 
describing that North Carolina DOT is dealing with is the same 
that every public transportation provider is dealing with. 
Especially over the last 3 years, nationwide, the economy has 
been volatile. The cost of doing business has continued to 
increase. We have seen in some regions increases as much of 20 
to 30 percent year over year.
    If you look at the discretionary grant process as a whole, 
from the time you decide to pursue a grant to the time that you 
actually are able to access the funds to build the project, you 
are looking at potentially 3 years. This is not an efficient, 
effective way to deliver infrastructure.
    And I will just go back again to my statements about 
formula allocation. When we receive the formula allocation in 
those funds, regardless of what programs they are for, they can 
go directly on projects and be put to work immediately.
    So, this is a tremendous challenge. I have already heard 
from several transportation entities in Florida that are 
considering not pursuing Federal grants because of the 
financial liability and financial risk with having to wait so 
long to actually access the money.
    Mr. Rouzer. Yes, and the bottom line is, you can fund 
something all you want to fund it, but if you don't have a 
good, quick pathway to get the money there and get it 
delivered, what does that mean, you know? It's just a lot of 
extra cost, a lot of extra burden. And the last time I checked, 
money is a scarce resource, it's not infinite.
    The North Carolina Department of Transportation has found 
that the new, multistep application process for the Bridge 
Investment Program to be somewhat helpful. Specifically, this 
program now gives applicants a period of time for dialogue to 
address initial feedback from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation before a final decision is made.
    The North Carolina Department of Transportation recently 
applied, in fact, for a Bridge Investment Program grant for the 
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement project in Wilmington, 
North Carolina. It is going through this process. Has your 
department benefited from this program at all, this process?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman. Actually, no, we have 
not benefited from it. We have applied for three projects in 
the Bridge Investment Program. One of them is known as DuPont 
Bridge in Bay County, Florida. It serves, actually, a major Air 
Force base that is going through a tremendously huge rebuild 
after Hurricane Michael. It is also in need of capacity 
improvements and is also deficient, and it's time to be 
replaced.
    We were not successful in getting that award. The feedback 
we received was really not transparent, was inconsistent, 
incoherent. We are not really sure why it was not a good 
candidate, but we had to go ahead and fund the project anyway, 
because we have to deliver this major bridge project for the 
Air Force base.
    And secondly, we submitted one in the Florida Keys along 
Key bridge, and we were not successful for that one, either, 
which, as you know, there is only one way in and out of the 
Keys, so, that bridge project is extremely important for 
hurricane evacuation.
    Mr. Rouzer. Yes, absolutely.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much. Up next is the 
great State of California.
    Representative Carbajal, you are recognized. Good morning.
    Mr. Carbajal. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, also referred to as BIL, 
one of a few names that people give it, provided an 
extraordinary amount of competitive grant funding through the 
72 programs. The Department of Transportation has issued nearly 
90 Notices of Funding Opportunity to distribute this funding.
    However, in recent meetings with MPOs, counties, and cities 
in my district, I know there are challenges for local 
governments to compete for grant funding.
    A two-part question, Mr. Winders. From your perspective, do 
you agree that Congress should continue to provide 
infrastructure funding directly to local governments?
    And two, if the multitude of competitive grants under the 
BIL poses challenges, what are your recommendations to build 
local capacity and make it easier for local governments to 
succeed as we begin to turn our attention to our next surface 
reauthorization bill?
    Mr. Winders. Thank you, Representative, for that question.
    I believe that the position of the National Association of 
Counties is clear that we would like to see this level of 
investment in our Nation's infrastructure continue. So, 
hopefully, that is the answer to your first part.
    Your second question is a little more difficult. We do need 
to find ways and would support ways that our Federal partners 
could help us gain capacity to be able to go through Notices of 
Funding Opportunity, and to navigate the things that have to be 
done, the laws and regulations when a grant is awarded. But 
even before you--so, we would appreciate that and support that.
    But in addition to that, we would support the concepts of 
making things more simple and making the objectives clear, 
exactly what is it that we are trying to do, and how the 
applications will be rated. We are absolutely in support of 
local flexibility, which could mean direct funding for counties 
in terms of infrastructure.
    We also support the removal of barriers into the project. 
And you identified one that we have also identified, which is 
critical, and that is capacity, financial and technical 
capacity.
    So, I just want to touch a little bit more about 
objectives. If the objective is to build a road--and that is, 
of course, what I am talking about, we want to build a road. I 
don't know how we are going to affect air quality. I don't know 
how we will meet some of the other rating criteria, which is 
not to say that they are not important, which is not to say 
that we don't value clean air, which is to say we can't write 
an application--or I don't know how we can write an 
application--that will compete with places that have that issue 
and issues like those.
    So, clear, single-minded grants to do specific things with 
specific goals in mind, we would support.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Winders. That was kind of a long answer.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Having served in local government 
as a county supervisor, and working with the National 
Association of Counties, while we appreciate our State 
partners, it is always nice when funding could be directed to 
local governments. And I think that has always been advocacy 
for many of local governments throughout our country, and 
certainly in the State of California in my region.
    Mr. Baker, in 2015, Congress created the Consolidated Rail 
Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, CRISI, program. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $5 billion in Federal 
funds for the CRISI grant program to help support short line 
and passenger rail projects. How has this program been 
beneficial to your industry and the public?
    Mr. Baker. Thank you. CRISI--essentially, my entire 
testimony focused on CRISI. It's a huge, huge deal for short 
lines. It's allowing us to rehabilitate and preserve lines that 
otherwise would be at risk of abandonment.
    And short lines, without boring people with the origin 
story of short lines, but they essentially exist to preserve 
lines that otherwise would go away, typically serving small 
towns, rural areas, disadvantaged areas, some small ports. And 
it's very expensive infrastructure. But frankly, the reason 
it's a short line in the first place is because it doesn't have 
enough traffic to be a Class I. It's just not busy enough.
    And so, we do our very best to run lean and scrounge every 
penny we can. But if we are going to maintain expensive 
infrastructure, and rebuild bridges, and do it all safely, 
sometimes we need some Government help. And the Government, 
luckily, has been supportive of short lines for a long time. 
And this new level of CRISI has taken it even to a higher 
level, so, we are extremely appreciative.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
    I am out of time, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you, Representative.
    Let's head north to the great State of Minnesota where, 
Representative Stauber, you are recognized. Good morning.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And to my colleague, 
Representative Carbajal, being a former county commissioner, we 
are speaking the same language. I appreciate you.
    Smaller governments often face difficulties when applying 
for Federal grant dollars due to the complex, time consuming, 
and expensive process. Larger cities with bigger budgets can 
hire grant writers and lobbyists to apply for Federal grants, 
giving them an advantage in the overall process.
    Mr. Winders, I looked at your history, read your testimony. 
You have been a great public servant for a long time. We need 
more of you. That's all I can say. But I do have some 
questions. What has been your experience in applying for DOT 
competitive grants from a cost and resource standpoint?
    Mr. Winders. It has been difficult. Thank you for the 
compliment, Representative. I appreciate that very much.
    It has been difficult for us to keep the resources together 
to put together an application. Obviously, we have not been 
successful in putting the right resources into our application 
or answering the questions correctly. Or--and this is what I 
think is the case--the rating criteria just don't match up with 
rural Missouri or rural America, so, the competitive field is 
tilted, is tilted away from rural America.
    We are very fortunate in that we have a great regional 
planning commission, a very dedicated staff----
    Mr. Stauber [interposing]. Which you led several years 
back.
    Mr. Winders. That may be true. But they are still limited. 
We have 8 counties, something under about 100,000 people and 5 
staff members.
    So, our experience, I think, is not unique in rural 
America. Those folks do a great job with the limited resources 
they have. But when it comes to writing a grant application 
that's competitive, it's difficult.
    Mr. Stauber. A couple of things here. So, would you agree 
that the process is not easily understood and not simple to 
use?
    Mr. Winders. I would 100 percent agree with that, 
Representative.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes. So, rural communities are at a 
disadvantage, I agree, in applying for these grants.
    And one of my great frustrations with the IIJA was that it 
was drafted without the input of a single Republican Member of 
Congress. My constituents were not given a seat at the table, 
and it is evident in the legislation. For example, the Rural 
Surface Transportation Grant, this grant was created through 
IIJA as a carve-out for rural communities. I want to emphasize 
rural communities.
    Unfortunately, there was an oversight in drafting, as the 
definition in statute for ``rural'' is, as you know, 200,000 
people or less. That is the definition of ``rural'' that was in 
the IIJA. There are 855 cities in Minnesota; 796 cities have 
populations of under 20,000.
    So, under this current definition in the IIJA, those that 
would qualify for rural roads would be everybody in the State 
of Minnesota, with the exception of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. 
So, that means our northern communities with 3,000 people are 
fighting the suburbs of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. And so, had 
it gone through regular order, we would have caught that and 
changed that definition. Now we are trying to backtrack it with 
legislation to change it, and it's very frustrating.
    At the end of the day, I am looking at ways to make the 
grant process more accessible to not only my district, which is 
rural Minnesota, but across America in your district, as well. 
I have helped introduce the Rebuilding Rural Roads Act, which 
Congressman Finstad from southern Minnesota and I lead. It 
strikes the 200,000 people in the Rural Surface Transportation 
Grant and inserts 20,000 in its place.
    And I also have cosponsored the Simplifying Grants Act, 
which would require Government agencies to simplify the 
difficult process for all current and future Federal grant 
opportunities. Not 150 pages, 20 pages.
    I just want to thank you all for being here.
    And just real quick in my 30 seconds, Mr. Baker, the short 
lines are so important, as you know, in northeastern Minnesota, 
with the mining. We have an awesome opportunity. And you know, 
I think that, as we look at the opportunities for economic 
development, and particularly in northeastern Minnesota and our 
mining industry, we have to really ensure that the railroads 
are properly maintained. And I can tell you that the safety is 
as important to the constituents as it is to you. And we have a 
good working relationship in northeastern Minnesota, and we 
appreciate that. Safety is the number one, number two, and 
number three priority.
    Mr. Winders, again, thank you for your service. And county 
government is so precious. Thank you.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much, Representative. 
Let's go to the land of Lincoln, the great State of Illinois, 
where Representative Garcia is ready to go.
    Good morning. You are recognized, Representative Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking 
Member, for this hearing, and to all the witnesses who have 
joined us.
    I would like to begin by offering a statement for the 
record from the Cook County Department of Transportation and 
Highways. I ask unanimous consent to include the statement in 
the record.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
Statement of Jennifer Killen, Superintendent, Cook County Department of 
Transportation and Highways, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. 
                            ``Chuy'' Garcia
                              Introduction
    I am pleased to submit this statement on behalf of the Cook County 
Department of Highways and Transportation (DoTH). Cook County's 
transportation system is one of its greatest assets--key to the 
national and international movement of people and goods and to the 
economic vitality of the region. DoTH prioritizes investment in its 
existing transportation assets, recognizing it as an investment in the 
County's future and the lives of its residents. DoTH is equally 
committed to identifying and responding to changes in demands on the 
transportation network by building a multimodal system that supports 
the economy, improves mobility, reduces transportation costs, and 
creates livable communities.
    Cook County is at the center of the nation's third largest 
metropolitan area with nearly two million households and more than five 
million residents. We also are at the center of our nation's 
transportation infrastructure, with access points to national and 
global markets via two major airports, ten interstate expressways, six 
of the seven Class I railroads, 16 intermodal facilities, and the Port 
of Chicago. Cook County accounts for 40% of the State's residents and 
43% of all state jobs. Transportation matters because it provides 
access to jobs, and also access to schools, health care, fresh food and 
much more. This makes transportation an asset worth investing in.
    DoTH has jurisdiction over 561 center-line miles of roadway and 
maintenance responsibility for 1,620 lane miles of pavement, 365 
traffic signals, 7 pumping stations, and 4 maintenance facilities. It 
also has jurisdiction over 93 structures (bridges and large drainage 
culverts) and shares responsibility with other agencies for another 42 
structures. In addition to these assets, Cook County leverages 
investments in transportation projects throughout the county and 
manages relationships with other transportation agencies to support 
regional transit, freight, and alternative modes of transportation.
    Cook County's role as an umbrella unit of government, covering a 
geographic area comprised of 134 municipalities and 29 townships, 
crisscrossed railroads, with roadways under local, state, and federal 
jurisdiction, means DoTH often supports or leads multi-jurisdictional 
projects with unique community and environmental concerns. Cook County 
is uniquely positioned to provide the transportation leadership, 
expertise, and resources required to advance regionally significant 
projects which cross multiple agency and municipal boundaries. Through 
coordination with its partners, the County also develops an annual 
program that will preserve existing infrastructure, improve 
connectivity and accessibility, build safer communities, generate 
economic investment, and advance the regional transportation network.
    We would like to thank the Members of this Committee who supported 
the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA), which provided the 
largest one-time infusion of federal funds into our nation's 
infrastructure and transportation network. This legislation has allowed 
the County to expedite several critical transportation projects. 
Furthermore, we are pleased the Committee is holding this important 
hearing to examine U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 
discretionary grants through the lens of transportation stakeholders. 
We would like to share from a county perspective how we utilize 
discretionary funds and ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. To 
do so, we'd like to highlight our Invest in Cook program and some 
examples of local partnerships that have been widely successful and 
have allowed us to assist communities that may not have the tools to 
apply for or be highly competitive for discretionary grants.
                             Invest in Cook
    Launched in 2017, the Invest in Cook program makes available up to 
$8.5 million annually to support planning, engineering, land 
acquisition or construction for transportation improvements that 
support the five policy priorities of Connecting Cook County, the 
County's long range transportation plan. Invest in Cook helps 
communities tap into new fund sources and accelerate the completion of 
projects that may otherwise languish. In its first seven years, Invest 
in Cook awarded $56.4 million to fund 243 projects throughout the 
County.
    The Invest in Cook program provides assistance to projects that 
have tremendous merit or potential but might otherwise stall because of 
a lack of local match or lack of local staff resources. As such, the 
program invests mostly in projects located off the County highway 
network and emphasizes multimodal projects that expand the traditional 
purview of the Department. The County has sought to fund early phases 
of projects--planning and preliminary engineering--to help develop a 
pipeline of strategic transportation improvements. Also, the program 
often provides a critical final piece of construction funding for 
larger projects or helps supply the match required for State and 
Federal grants.
    Invest in Cook additionally positions projects for future federal 
funding opportunities that are competitive through the State, such as 
the Surface Transportation Block Grant program or the Transportation 
Alternatives Program. Most of these programs require projects to 
complete preliminary engineering before projects become eligible to 
apply. These provisions make it difficult for lower capacity 
communities, such as those in south Cook County, to access the largest 
sources of competitive transportation funding in the region. To 
illustrate, Cook County's seed investment of $820,000 of preliminary 
engineering on three freight projects in 2017 has already yielded 
federal and state commitments of almost $38 million to advance these 
projects through design and construction. In 2023, seven projects in 
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)'s recommended FY24-28 
CMAQ and TAP-L programs which were previously funded by Invest in Cook 
were approved for $40.8 million of follow-on funding.
    To date, Invest in Cook has helped complete 26 transit, 70 roadway, 
32 freight, and 115 bicycle/pedestrian projects. Every dollar from 
Invest in Cook leverages $3.50 from federal, state, and local sources.
                     Rail and Transit Partnerships
    The IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provide unprecedented 
funding opportunities for transportation infrastructure. Through Invest 
in Cook, Cook County can provide matching funds for grants that transit 
operators and other local agencies apply for that help bring needed 
funding to the Chicago area. For example, the landmark All Stations 
Accessibility Program (ASAP) brings new resources to metro areas, such 
as Chicago, with legacy transit systems lacking adequate Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. Cook County partnered with Metra 
on a successful ASAP application in 2022 for the 95th Street/Chicago 
State University Metra station, helping better connect a major 
educational institution to transit and support revitalization along the 
95th Street corridor. The station modernization is also a major part of 
the campus master plan developed by Chicago State. The City of Chicago 
and Chicago Transit Authority also received a planning grant for this 
same corridor.
    The West Cook Rail Safety Improvement Project is another example of 
how the county partners with other entities to successfully carry out 
discretionary federal grants to complete vital projects. Between 2017 
and 2021, Cook County had the second highest number of trespass 
fatalities of all U.S. counties, with 43 fatalities. The West Cook Rail 
Safety Improvement Project will reduce pedestrian safety incidents 
along the BNSF line, which is the busiest line for the Metra commuter 
rail system as well as a major freight corridor. This corridor is a key 
safety hot spot in the county, with a total of 25 pedestrian-involved 
injuries or fatalities between 2012 and 2021. The project limits are 
along the Metra BNSF line in west suburban Cook County, including the 
municipalities of Berwyn, Brookfield, La Grange, and Riverside. Cook 
County is implementing the project using a $2.9 million Consolidated 
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant from 2022.
                               Conclusion
    The IIJA and IRA provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fund 
our country's transportation network. While there will always be 
challenges tied to administering new grant programs, we believe that 
Cook County is a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, and we are 
proudly leveraging our own resources to help our communities and 
partners secure these discretionary grants for important projects that 
may not be funded by any other means. Our Invest in Cook program is an 
example of how larger units of government can help smaller communities 
be successful in applying for and administering grant funding.

    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman.
    In my district, Cook County Department of Transportation 
and Highways has done an excellent job at leveraging 
discretionary grants from the IIJA at the local level. The 
Invest in Cook program makes up to $8.5 million available 
annually to support planning, engineering, land acquisition, 
and construction of transportation projects. The Invest in Cook 
program provides assistance to projects that might otherwise 
stall because of a lack of a local match or local resources. In 
its first 7 years, the program has awarded $56 million to fund 
243 projects.
    A question to Ms. O'Leary: Invest in Cook is a great 
example of how regional governments can play an important role 
in assisting local communities with grant applications, project 
data, and funding. This model has been effective for winning 
IIJA discretionary grants throughout my district. Your council 
seems to have found a similarly effective approach. Can we 
encourage standards and best practices to be more widely 
adopted so that more counties can leverage this funding, in 
your opinion?
    Ms. O'Leary. Yes, thank you so much.
    I would like to say that building local capacity is really 
right up the alley of the MPOs and the regional governments 
that you mentioned, as well, and the great program that you 
just described. That is exactly what we try to do at SEMCOG, 
and many of us across the country that are the MPOs or the 
council of governments do for our membership, is to be able to 
provide that capacity building, get people together, make sure 
they know about the grant opportunities, and help them figure 
out what is the right grant to apply for, what is the criteria, 
what is their chance of success. Because it is expensive to 
apply, and we want to make sure that we are connecting all of 
the data and information that we have.
    And it sounds like your group is doing exactly the same 
thing. So, I do think there is quite an opportunity there for 
other MPOs across the country to be able to do that, as well.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great. Thank you, Ms. O'Leary. Your 
testimony also mentions the Safe Streets For All grant program, 
and the need for this to become formula funding rather than 
discretionary. I know a couple of my colleagues have raised 
this issue. How would transitioning to formula funding for this 
program impact the amount of funds available for Justice40 
communities that need investments the most?
    Ms. O'Leary. The reason we thought that it could evolve 
into a formula program is one that we mentioned. It really is 
an issue across the whole country. We are all struggling with 
this issue post-pandemic, and so, formula funds would be 
helpful to be able to do that.
    But also one of the benefits of formula funds is really 
understanding what you are going to receive, for the most part, 
every year, and be able to line those projects up and work with 
our partners and our local governments over the years. And that 
is what we have successfully been able to do with our TAP 
program and our CMAQ and our carbon reduction programs, so that 
we are all working together and we know what to expect every 
year. And I think that's what we thought would be the benefit 
of moving it to a formula program.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. So, the certainty and the 
predictability would be----
    Ms. O'Leary [interposing]. Absolutely.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois [continuing]. A big asset to you 
all. Well, thank you so much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much. I now will take 
us to the free State of Florida, where I recognize myself for 
just a brief series of questions.
    Guys, you're doing great.
    Mr. Secretary, what an honor it is to have you also from 
the free State of Florida. Would you agree that Florida is on 
fire right now? Florida's population has just skyrocketed and 
continues to skyrocket every day. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Perdue. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not only is our population 
skyrocketing, but also the number of people that visit Florida 
has skyrocketed.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Very good. And not only are they 
building houses and condos and residential units, we need 
roads, and we need those roads that have already been there 
repaired. Is that a fair statement?
    Mr. Perdue. That is a fair statement.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. And it is a challenge. You do have to 
do it smarter, faster than everybody else to keep up.
    Would you also say that--some would argue--Florida doesn't 
get its fair share of transportation dollars? Is that a fair 
statement? Could you argue that?
    Mr. Perdue. That is definitely a fair statement in terms of 
discretionary grant distribution.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Very good. Speaking of discretionary, 
some would say that we should do away with them because 
transportation departments don't work with local governments. 
Is that true? And how do we do it in Florida?
    Mr. Perdue. That is 100 percent inaccurate. And thank you 
for bringing that up.
    Actually, local governments and local communities are 
really the heart and soul of every single transportation 
project, regardless if it is a road project, a transit project, 
seaport, airport. Transportation infrastructure goes through an 
extensive process of grassroots planning at the local community 
level.
    As a matter of fact, every transportation project that we 
deliver as a State DOT is conceived of and prioritized by the 
local community before we ever spend $1 on it.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. That is the type of--that is what we 
want to see. Members of Congress--I was, as you know, in the 
Florida Senate for 10 years. We put our money where our mouth 
is because we didn't get, we think, our share, but it demands 
it. Those roads have to be built, have to be maintained. But 
the only way to do it is, as you said, is the coordination with 
local governments. We are all in it together.
    So, Florida is just--everybody is coming to Florida. Maybe 
there is a State law that in the Northeast, if you turn 70, you 
have to move to Florida.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bean of Florida. That's a joke. That's not really what 
happens, but it seems like it does.
    So, how do you do it? I know there is an initiative, Moving 
Florida Forward. Would you talk about that--maybe other States 
are listening--of how to get it done?
    Mr. Perdue. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And having been 
in the State legislature, you know we have a very solid history 
in Florida of our legislature continuously investing in 
transportation infrastructure.
    Governor DeSantis has been a tremendous leader in that. As 
a matter of fact, we have had record numbers of general revenue 
surplus. And it was through his initiative called Moving 
Florida Forward that the legislature invested another $4 
billion in general revenue surplus into our already record work 
program, which was about $65 billion over 4 years. And so, that 
is tremendous. And it has enabled us to move many major complex 
projects forward, like I-4 in central Florida, that a lot of 
people know. Even if they don't live there, they know it. We 
have been able to move those projects forward in a time when it 
is very difficult to get our hands on Federal funding through 
the discretionary process.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Is there a secret sauce to getting 
projects done on time and under budget?
    Mr. Perdue. It takes extensive work with local communities 
generating that grassroots support, which is something that we 
have really learned to value at Florida DOT.
    Every single community is different. Every single community 
has its own character, its own vision. Making sure that the 
projects we deliver are aligned with their goals and their 
values and their vision for the future will speed it up like 
you have never seen.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Fantastic. Thank you so much, Mr. 
Secretary.
    I now take us back to North Carolina, where Representative 
Foushee, you are recognized. Good morning.
    Mrs. Foushee. Good morning, and thank you. And thank you to 
the witnesses for being here with us today.
    We know that discretionary grants are a vital part of our 
funding infrastructure that make our infrastructure projects 
like roads and bridges and our transportation projects like 
rail lines and new buses possible. I am thankful for the Biden 
administration's work on expanding discretionary funding 
opportunities, and glad to say that my district, NC04, has 
received over $130 million in discretionary funding in recent 
fiscal years.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law appropriated billions of 
dollars for infrastructure programs, many of those dollars 
being available through competitive grant programs. Now that 
these funds are available, we must make sure that DOT has the 
resources necessary to administer them in a way that is 
accessible for our stakeholders. I look forward to hearing from 
you on the ways that you would like to see the discretionary 
grant process improved, and how we can work together to ensure 
the process realizes its full potential.
    My first question is for anyone who would like to weigh in. 
I would like to ask about Notices of Funding Opportunity, or 
NOFOs, and the information provided to stakeholders when 
applying for these grants. What additional information or 
resources can DOT provide to improve the clarity of NOFOs or 
answer any questions stakeholders may have when applying?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Foushee. Not all at once.
    Mr. Baker. Well, I think we have discussed that I think 
everyone here would welcome help building capacity, especially 
of smaller applicants who struggle to deal with the 
bureaucracy.
    But I do also think there is an opportunity for DOT to 
simplify the NOFOs. I don't know that making them ever more 
complex, and then offering ever more resources to help people 
deal with ever more complexity is a productive way to view it 
as much as it is they could be much simpler, there could be 
standardized templates, they could be shorter. There is, I 
think, a big opportunity for DOT to get to the point quicker.
    It doesn't need to be a 40-page NOFO for a small applicant 
to access a small grant program.
    Mrs. Foushee. Others?
    Mr. Winders. Representative----
    Mrs. Foushee [interrupting]. Well, my second question is 
for Ms. O'Leary.
    As the executive director of the Southeast Michigan Council 
of Governments, I am sure you have helped many local 
governments through the grant process. You alluded to some of 
those in your testimony. What are some of the top issues you 
see local governments experience when applying for 
discretionary funding?
    And what recommendations do you have for streamlining the 
application process through DOT?
    Ms. O'Leary. I would say the top issues that we see are a 
lot of what has been spoken about, one is connecting with the 
right grant. There are a lot of opportunities, so, which grant 
fits with my project. And so, we try to talk to them about what 
are you really trying to achieve, what is your project, or what 
is the issue that you are having? And then some of us who have 
the knowledge of the grant programs could help connect them to 
the right grant to apply for.
    The second is really, as was spoken of, the cost to apply 
for the grants can be an impediment to some to be able to 
apply, especially if they don't have a grant writer on staff. 
The amount of money really varies, depending on--if it is a 
more small planning grant, it could be $10,000 to $20,000. I am 
seeing $40,000 with our Safe Streets For All application, but 
that was planning more related. And then, as you get into the 
RAISE--[to Mr. Perdue] you have much more experience over here 
with what those costs would be.
    And then I think the match. That is a concern for people, 
as well. Especially as the projects get larger, the ability to 
match, especially in our underserved areas, is very difficult 
for them to be able to take it on and be able to do the match.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. I see my time is approaching.
    I yield back.
    Mr. D'Esposito [presiding]. I now recognize Mr. Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here. I appreciate your testimony.
    Secretary Perdue, I know a lot of folks who were excited 
about the infrastructure bill and the suggestion that it was 
going to provide increased funds for things like roads and 
bridges. In my home State of Louisiana, we have seen where the 
assumption of an increase in funding has been more than 
consumed by the bureaucracy, by inflation, by supply chain, by 
labor. Are you seeing similar outcomes in Florida?
    Mr. Perdue. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. And absolutely, we 
are. As a matter of fact, if you look at the increase in the 
cost of doing business over the last 3 years, the actual 
increase of the formula distribution in IIJA was not even 
enough to fully cover the cost of inflation. It basically came 
just in the nick of time.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, and that is what we are 
seeing at home, as well.
    Another question for you. Your testimony was fascinating in 
that you indicated $150,000 in terms of the cost of applying 
for some of these discretionary grant programs.
    I want to make note, Mr. Chairman, you can buy a home for 
$150,000 in a lot of the communities that I represent in south 
Louisiana. So, it is an extraordinary cost.
    And you indicated that millions of dollars that 
cumulatively you have spent applying for discretionary grants, 
yet not seeing the outcomes or performance that you think is 
fair to the State of Florida. What do you attribute, one, the 
higher cost--and I know you talked about this a little bit, 
but, one, the higher cost; and secondly, just the lack of 
performance of your grant applications compared to what you 
have seen historically?
    Mr. Perdue. Well, to start with, the lack of performance, I 
am not really sure why we are not being awarded grants. I mean, 
we have world-class infrastructure in Florida, just like many 
other States. Quite honestly, it doesn't make sense. I mean, 
right now we are at 1 percent of grant awards. We have the 
third largest population in the Nation, so, it just doesn't 
make sense.
    Now, with discretionary grants, inherently, there is an 
assumption that it is competitive. And so, every entity 
pursuing grants wants to produce and submit the best possible 
application they can submit. This takes time. This takes 
resources. We are seeing the cost of preparing an application 
continue to increase. And I would say the more awards we don't 
receive, the more we try to figure out what more do we need to 
do to receive a grant because we are just not real sure 
anymore. And it's becoming a real struggle, and we don't get a 
lot of feedback on why we are not being awarded grants.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And in 
that regard, I used to run a multibillion-dollar infrastructure 
program. And I know that certainty and predictability and clear 
criteria was always something that was very helpful to us. And 
in this case, this administration has brought new criteria to 
the table, including under the auspices of Justice40, which 
implicates over $200 billion in funds, effectively setting 
aside 40 percent of it for this criteria that I believe really 
distorts or provides a lack of clarity for criteria related to 
transportation.
    For example, some of the criteria that was brought to the 
table to determine where grants for transportation projects 
will be issued are things like climate change, racial equity, 
enhancing union opportunities, things that don't really have 
criteria that are traditionally applied to transportation 
projects.
    Have those criteria that--I will say it again, it's not 
time saved in traffic, reduced emissions, safety improvements, 
things that are historically criteria that apply to 
transportation projects--has that complicated your ability to 
figure out how to apply or how to compete for some of these 
discretionary grants?
    Mr. Perdue. Yes, it has. And you are exactly right, they've 
brought a lot of requirements to the table that are not 
directly connected to infrastructure that we are supposed to be 
building and delivering for the residents of Florida.
    And I will go back to this statement: The infrastructure 
that is in the pipeline has been planned for the last 15 to 20 
years by our local communities. They built models, they used 
data, they used science to determine what was going to be 
needed 15 to 20 years in the future. What transportation 
providers find themselves doing are trying to figure out ways 
to take the infrastructure in the pipeline and shoehorn it back 
into these random requirements that are being included in 
NOFOs.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. That is very helpful, thank you.
    Mr. Winders, you noted that the complexity of complying 
with Federal regulatory requirements is incredibly costly in 
terms of trying to advance projects that are priority for you. 
Can you talk a little bit more about maybe the comparison of 
projects that you have built without Federal funds using State 
and local that don't trigger Federal regulatory requirements, 
as compared to those that do trigger Federal regulatory 
requirements?
    Mr. Winders. Yes, thank you for the question.
    The projects that we do with local county money, the 
requirements are much less onerous. There are State 
requirements, of course, but we can budget, we can budget and 
execute the projects. We build several bridges every year, and 
it's much quicker.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Last quick question. Do you trash 
the environment when you build projects without complying with 
Federal requirements?
    Mr. Winders. No sir, we do not.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I didn't think so. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes 
Ms. Scholten for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much 
to our witnesses for being here today. It is especially great 
to see a representative from my home State, the great State of 
Michigan.
    Ms. O'Leary, you spoke in your testimony about how the 
simplification of the grant application process would help make 
funds from key pieces of legislation, such as the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, more accessible to smaller and less 
resourced communities.
    As a member of both this committee and the Small Business 
Committee, I understand how many hurdles there are in these 
grant application processes. We actually hired a specific 
grants and outreach coordinator in our office just to help 
address a lot of these issues. What specific hurdles come to 
mind for you, and what would that process for simplifying the 
grant application look like to you?
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you. It's great to see you.
    Well, our local governments have a lot of issues relating 
to applying for the grants. And I think one of the big problems 
is just really connecting what grants need to be applied for 
for what projects. And having that guidance can be a challenge. 
And that is where regions are trying to play that role to 
really understand--we play that role on a lot of things, 
whether we try to understand a grant program or understand a 
regulation. Our local governments are really busy running their 
government, and so, we need to be able to play that role and 
say, OK, we as regional entities can talk to you about here are 
the grant applications, here are the ones that would fit with 
what you want to get done.
    So, that is one of the number-one things I talk to them 
about is what are the issues you are hearing? We brought 
together 35 to 40 mayors. They are meeting again tomorrow to 
talk about what are their issues in their community. And 
infrastructure was still the number-one thing they said, both 
transportation and water infrastructure, and lack of capacity 
to be able to apply for the grants.
    Ms. Scholten. Yes, yes, thank you. You also cite the 
importance of helping communities prepare for extreme weather 
events that are becoming more frequent with climate change. To 
that end, what could the PROTECT discretionary grant program do 
for communities like those in southeast Michigan experiencing 
extreme weather events like the August 2023 floods?
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you. Well, we are pretty excited about 
the PROTECT grant, both on the planning side--we are a regional 
planning agency, of course--but also on the implementation 
side. Being able to develop a transportation resiliency plan 
will actually lower the match for those that then apply for 
PROTECT implementation dollars, which is--one reason to do it, 
right, is to be able to address the match issue for our 
communities.
    But what we have also seen is, with the amount of rain and 
flooding and flooding disasters that we are having in our 
region, the infrastructure isn't going to handle that amount of 
rain, and we can't build ourselves out of it. We can't pull all 
the infrastructure out and put larger pipes everywhere.
    So, what we are trying to do, which we think is pretty 
innovative, is looking at the PROTECT funds to figure out where 
in the region does it make sense to store large amounts of 
floodwater above ground using large-scale green infrastructure 
or other techniques because our region and many urban areas are 
very complicated. You can't just put the water in one spot and 
think it is going to work. You have to understand how the sewer 
system and the stormwater system work together. And so, we are 
excited about that opportunity to be able to identify actual 
locations that then can lead to implementation dollars.
    Ms. Scholten. Yes, that is fantastic. We look forward to 
continuing to work with you on that, as well. Using my last 
minute here to stay on the theme of water, in my district over 
in west Michigan, water is critically important. It is a way of 
life for all of us in Michigan. But the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law's unprecedented investment in communities is 
already being felt. Earlier this year, the EPA announced $177 
million for Michigan drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater 
infrastructure upgrades. Essential. I can think of places to 
put that just within Michigan 3.
    Everyone deserves access to clean water, but we know well 
in Michigan that aging infrastructure has not been replaced at 
the rate that it needs to, and can lead to really detrimental 
results. So, if you can stay on that theme a little bit and 
speak to specifically for clean water, drinking water, how will 
this impact these funds, the State, going forward?
    Ms. O'Leary. Sure. Well, we have done an analysis in our 
region where we need $3 billion a year for the next 20 years 
just to keep our infrastructure at a level of good service. So, 
that is not even managing the amount of new rainfall that we 
are seeing in the region and the improvements that you need to 
see at a wastewater treatment plant. That is $3 billion a year 
just in southeast Michigan. So, it is a huge investment that is 
needed.
    And in our State, the lack of being able to do stormwater 
utilities is a real challenge. And so, we are trying to address 
that at the State level. The program dollars through the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are unprecedented, but we need to 
remember a lot of those are loans, right? They go into the SRF 
program and they need to be paid back. And local governments 
sometimes don't have the ability to pay them back.
    Ms. Scholten. Yes.
    Ms. O'Leary. So, principal forgiveness is a big part of 
that.
    Ms. Scholten. Thank you. That is very helpful.
    I yield back.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for Mr. 
Baker.
    The Department of Transportation seems to be increasingly 
requiring applicants to focus on merit criteria, and this is 
like our President's climate equity and justice goals. And some 
of these are very woke. Would you say that these criteria are 
useful for evaluating funding for short line rail and regional 
rail applicants?
    And do you think the Department of Transportation's grant 
application process is intuitive for applicants?
    Mr. Baker. Well, answering the second question first, it's 
not intuitive. It's a big hurdle. I think we have talked a lot 
about that this morning already.
    For small applicants, particularly short lines who might be 
applying for one grant in the history of their company, it's a 
big hurdle to clear. And I think there is a lot of room for the 
process to be simplified. And I think that would be a ripe area 
for Congress to require in the next reauthorization.
    To answer your first question on the merit criteria, I 
would say a lot of that is not a real natural fit for a short 
line railroad application kind of one way or the other. And you 
do have to bend yourself into pretzels a little bit trying to 
apply.
    I will say, to be fair, it hasn't been a huge hassle at the 
end of the day for short lines. And there are some aspects of 
short lines where we serve rural and disadvantaged areas, and 
there are small companies that are good for the environment 
that are a reasonable fit. So, we've learned to live with it, 
but it's not a natural fit.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, what would you recommend to the 
Department of Transportation, just point blank?
    Mr. Baker. Thank you. I think there is a lot of room for 
improvement. I have hit on a few of them.
    I think for CRISI in particular, there is an opportunity to 
focus that program more on freight rail, with passenger rail 
having a dedicated access to the other $58 billion of the $66 
billion in rail from IIJA.
    I also think that predictable timing on the grant programs, 
where you would know in advance it is going to come out at the 
same time every year; doing one NOFO at a time, as opposed to 
the combining. The combining really creates kind of a lumpy 
program that is hard to predict and hard to plan on. And then I 
do think, from Congress' point of view, the advance 
appropriations really do help make the program function and 
make it predictable. Trying to count on a program that is at 
the vagaries of an annual appropriations process is going to 
be--it is just hard to make any long-term planning based on 
that.
    Mr. Burchett. It was stated in other earlier testimony that 
the expense of doing this seemed to be kind of exorbitant. How 
do you absorb that, or how do you prepare for that type of 
thing? Is that something you know in advance what it's going to 
cost you, the time it takes? Or is it just--it seems like a 
moving target.
    Mr. Baker. For me still?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, either one of you. I know Mr. Winders--
it looks like he is itching to answer.
    So, go ahead, brother.
    Mr. Winders. Thank you, Representative. Itching to answer 
may be a slight overstatement, but----
    Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Well, you were reaching 
towards the buzzer, so, I will----
    Mr. Winders [interposing]. Yes, sir, I was.
    Mr. Burchett. I will let you go, brother.
    Mr. Winders. Yes, sir, I was. The question was what can be 
done with the program, or how do we prepare for the costs. And 
the way we prepare for the cost is, we have to keep our costs 
down very low. We don't have the ability to throw a lot of 
resources for a grant program that, in our experience, the 
playing field is slanted against us, and we are probably not 
going to get anyway. So, it keeps us from being able to do 
that.
    When we do need to do that, our coalition--as when we did 
the benefit-cost analysis--was able to pool some resources and 
pay for that.
    Mr. Burchett. Do you have any way to share that information 
with, maybe not your competitors, but people in an area where 
you are not, and maybe figure something out?
    Because it just seems to me this is--these things are 
always--I guess they start out maybe in a good spot, but they 
always end up helping the big boys or somebody who is connected 
with somebody. And to me, that just stinks.
    Mr. Winders. Yes, yes, we would like to--we would 
definitely like the playing field to be competitive. We think 
our project and many others in rural America will compete as a 
road, but they won't necessarily compete on all the other 
criteria that you mentioned, Representative.
    Mr. Burchett. I always say we need to put the best players 
in, Coach. And if the NFL was Congress, Peyton Manning would 
probably still be waiting to get in. So, thank you all so much.
    I have 5 seconds, and I will yield that back to the 
committee because I am very generous like that, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, sir. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Payne for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our 
witnesses for offering their testimony today.
    Ms. O'Leary, in your testimony, you mentioned how the 
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments strategically works 
with the local partners to determine the best entity to apply 
for grant opportunities. Through this process, what have your 
local partners learned about the grant application process?
    And has this spurred them to pursue additional funding from 
the Federal Government?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Payne. For competitive grants. I am sorry.
    Ms. O'Leary. OK, thank you. I have a couple of examples.
    One is under our Safe Streets For All application. We 
brought together local communities to talk about what their 
projects might be in our region. And in that first round, we 
consolidated about 30 local governments to submit their ideas, 
and we vetted them through, and we also included safety audits 
from SEMCOG. And actually, that time we weren't successful in 
getting it. We received the money to do the safety audits, but 
not to be able to do those individual community projects.
    So, we had a conversation with the Federal Government about 
what was needed to improve our application the next time, which 
we did. And we were happy that we received $10 million that now 
we are able to pass through to our communities directly. So, 
that's one way we have brought them all together.
    The other is right now we are meeting with counties and 
cities together to apply for the Climate Pollution Reduction 
Grants, which I know is under the IRA. But we are bringing all 
of them together to look at what are the topics that are the 
most strategic to apply for, and we will be applying for a set 
of money as a region representing all of those entities again, 
and passing through to them.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you.
    Mr. Baker, I appreciated that your testimony refers to the 
need for funding predictability for rail. Thanks to the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we now are operating with 5 
years of guaranteed funding for freight and passenger rail.
    Unfortunately, we are still dealing with the 
unpredictability of the annual appropriations process. Thank 
goodness we were able to reject the 65-percent cuts to Amtrak 
funding, including a 93-percent cut to funding for the 
Northeast Corridor, along with elimination of certain grant 
programs that some Republicans initially proposed.
    What does that funding certainty mean for rail?
    Mr. Baker. Thank you for the question. The advance 
appropriations, I have said earlier, is a game changer for 
rail. We have never had that before for--obviously, I represent 
the freight rail side and the short line freight rail side, and 
I don't get to speak for my Amtrak friends, but I feel 
confident in saying everyone in the rail industry recognizes 
the total shift in reality that the advance appropriations 
allowed.
    And it's a long-term business. We are on year 197 of 
railroading in the United States. It's the kind of thing you--
we have rail in place from 1895, and we have locomotives that 
last 50 years long. It's big, heavy investments. They need to 
last a long time. They take long planning horizons. And waking 
up each year and seeing what the appropriations process 
provided is just not a realistic way to do it if you are 
serious about the program trying to be effective. So, the 
advance appropriations is a huge deal.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, yes, and these are the types of 
efforts that on this side of the aisle, we have tried to make 
in order to move everyone forward in a positive manner. And 
predictability is the key to saving money and having great 
success.
    So, with that, sir, I yield back.
    Mr. D'Esposito. The gentleman yields. The Chair now 
recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    I want to thank you all for being here this morning--I 
guess now this afternoon.
    Mr. Baker, short line railroads are important to this 
Nation. And Long Island, where I am from, is not excluded. The 
New York and Atlantic Railway provides freight services on 
lines owned by the Long Island Rail Road, transporting food 
products, building materials, waste and recyclables, among 
other products to and from local, critical, important industry.
    This railroad is vitally important to my district and the 
rest of Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the outer boroughs, 
as it forms a critical link connecting industries to the entire 
North American freight railroad network. The railcars that 
travel also remove over 120,000 heavy-truck trips from the 
roads and highways of New York City and reduce transportation 
emissions by 75 percent. It is important that short line 
railroads such as the NYA are supported and have access to 
expedient Federal funding.
    As you mentioned, short lines became eligible for the 
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements 
program administered by the Federal Railroad Administration to 
replace, upgrade, rehabilitate, and provide funding for 
countless other investments. Can you just explain why these 
grants are so critically important, and why we need to continue 
funding them?
    Mr. Baker. Thank you very much. The NYA is a unique short 
line, but at the end of the day, there are 600 short lines and 
they all have their own unique story. One of the things they 
have in common is they tend to be small businesses with a 
limited amount of customers, limited amount of revenue, but 
very, very expensive infrastructure to maintain.
    Blessedly, from the very beginning of the short line world, 
Congress--both sides of the aisle--has really seen the public 
policy benefit in helping support short lines and allow them to 
preserve and maintain that infrastructure, and CRISI has really 
taken that to a new level. We are very, very appreciative. I 
tried to start and end my testimony with that. We do have 
plenty of constructive suggestions for how it can work better, 
but CRISI is crucial to short lines, and the New York and 
Atlantic is a great success story, and you probably did my job 
better than I could do it with all those trucks off the road in 
such a busy area. It's a big success.
    Mr. D'Esposito. So, I think one of the criticisms that we 
have heard, and it is not just to this specific grant program, 
but I think grant funding programs, it is just--it is a 
problem--is the idea of when the grants are actually announced 
and when they are obligated or implemented. So, what can the 
DOT do better to make sure that that funding--like, so, when it 
is announced, the money is actually delivered much more 
expediently so it could be invested in infrastructure?
    Mr. Baker. Yes, the premise of your question is right on. 
It is an amazing delay. I mean, we have $6 or $7 million grants 
for basic track rehab, you know, replace ties and rail. And it 
can be 3 years later by the time you are done with getting a 
categorical exclusion from the NEPA process and getting a 
historic preservation review.
    And so, there are big opportunities for streamlining, and I 
think that would be a fantastic place for Congress to be pretty 
specific in the next reauthorization about mandating that 
streamlining.
    And I also think, as we spoke earlier, I think public 
accountability and transparency, putting these projects on some 
sort of dashboard, which I recognize would take a fair amount 
of work at FRA, and the staff would have to be paid for. But 
being public about where all these projects stand and what 
stage they are in, I think, would help. And people would say, 
why have some of them advanced and the rest are sitting around 
not moving?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
    And again, thank you all for being here. I now recognize 
Mr. Stanton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today.
    Successful implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law is our shared priority. And you, as key stakeholders, help 
us evaluate that effectiveness. So, it is appreciated.
    Arizona, my home State, has received millions and millions 
in discretionary competitive grants. We benefited from a $25 
million RAISE grant that is funding the construction of a Rio 
Salado bike and pedestrian bridge, allowing the community to 
cross the riverbed, an alignment with 3rd Street connecting our 
community, promoting sustainability, advancing our shared 
vision for Rio Reimagined.
    Recently, we had an even bigger win. In January, Arizona 
received nearly $100 million in a competitive INFRA grant from 
the U.S. Department of Transportation for major improvements to 
widen Interstate 10, a major corridor important not just to 
Arizona but to the entire country. The grant was awarded to 
improve the safety conditions on the 26-mile stretch of I-10, 
located entirely within the boundaries of the Gila River Indian 
Community.
    That is what I want to raise today: the experience of our 
Tribes and Tribal governments, our Nation and nation partners 
in the discretionary grant programs authorized by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Overall, the Department of 
Transportation has made improvements. There are over 155 grant 
programs that specifically make Tribal governments eligible for 
funding. These programs range from broadband, highway safety, 
clean power, and resilience.
    However, the discretionary grant system is set up in a way 
that does not always work well for our Tribal partners. Many 
grants, especially larger dollar grants like INFRA and Mega 
programs, are only successful when States make the application. 
Tribes can't make the application directly with the Federal 
Government. Tribal governments are our sovereign Federal 
partners. And despite the nation-to-nation relationship with 
our Tribes, Tribal governments often have to work underneath 
local and State governments to apply for these discretionary 
grants, even when they are technically eligible for the grant, 
they have the technical capability to apply for and implement 
the grant. Many matching grants create barriers. Sometimes 
there is a 20-, 25-percent match requirement with a minimum of 
$1 million or more. Tribal partners are deterred from applying, 
and even when they do have capacity and work with State and 
other partners, it is not always clear that the grant 
applications are made on behalf of the Tribe.
    In my State, the Gila River Indian Community applied for a 
different discretionary grant funding for the I-10 widening for 
years. Last year, when they were denied the Mega grant, it was 
in part because they scored low on the equity portion, despite 
being a Tribal government applying for these resources. 
Eventually, the Arizona Department of Transportation, working 
with many partners in the State, was able to secure an INFRA 
grant. But there is still much work to do to ensure our Tribes 
and Tribal governments, our Nation and nation partners, are 
front and center as we evaluate a discretionary competitive 
grant.
    So, the bottom line is the system does not work as well as 
it could for Tribes. I know that the self-governance of Tribes 
works. I see it in my State over and over and over again, as we 
have more than 20 outstanding Tribes that do great work, 
professional work, and they deserve that support. We don't have 
a witness here speaking on behalf of Tribes today, but some 
stakeholders like the National Association of Counties, I want 
to give them a shout out. They work hard to bring Tribal 
partners on their boards, on their working committees, et 
cetera.
    But ultimately, we need to do more, and I hope I can work 
with my colleagues here and stakeholders in front of us today 
to improve the system, make sure we evaluate the needs and 
sovereignty of our Tribal partners, and make sure the grant 
program works better for them.
    With that I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ezell [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair 
recognizes Sheriff Nehls.
    Sheriff.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 
here.
    Mr. Baker, Mr. Perdue--Mr. D'Esposito just talked about 
grants, how we can--you mentioned streamlining grants, 
transparency, efficiency. Mr. Perdue, we talked a little bit 
about that with some of the other--this is Congress. This is 
Washington, DC. Those words really don't exist in Washington, 
DC, talking about streamlining and transparency, and it 
certainly doesn't exist with this administration.
    Mr. Winders, you oversee National Association of Counties, 
right? How many counties in this great country of ours? I have 
an idea, but why don't you share with us?
    Mr. Winders. About 3,000----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. 3,000? That's exactly right, 
3,000 counties across the entire country.
    Did you know that in 2020, Joe Biden won 509 of them, 16-
point-something percent, 16 percent of counties? I think it 
would be good food, good thought here to--would you get back 
with me and let me know about these grants and how many of 
those grants, these grants that people are applying for, are 
going to the 509 counties? The lowest number ever, ever, ever a 
President wins the election. He won it with just 509 counties, 
16 percent. I am kind of curious what it would look like to see 
where these grants, these discretionary grants are going. Maybe 
you can help me out with that a little later on.
    I will tell you, Mr. Baker, I thank you for being here. I 
chair the railroads, right, the Subcommittee on Railroads, 
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. And I love it. I love CRISI 
grants. I think they are good. I believe it helps the Class 
II's, the Class III's, and I like that robust funding. I have 
spoken to Administrator Bose on this, and I support that 
because I think that it's all about safety.
    But we don't talk too much about the grade crossing 
elimination act. You know, the grade crossing. Now, how much 
money is in there for the grade crossings?
    Mr. Baker. The grade separation program has $600 million a 
year, guaranteed.
    Mr. Nehls. $600 million. Is that enough?
    Mr. Baker. That would do about 20 or 30 a year.
    Mr. Nehls. Yes, yes, yes.
    Mr. Baker. And there are thousands that----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Listen, I had a hearing on this 
about a month or so ago. We were talking about--and I hear from 
all the individuals involved, and they said that is where the 
real danger lies, in cars, people going through the gates, some 
of them don't have gates, individuals being run over by trains, 
all sorts of issues at these grade crossings. So, I like the 
idea, and I am assuming you would support that.
    Maybe even you, Ms. O'Leary, that we need to do something 
about actually addressing an issue, and the issue is I think 
there are 220,000 grade crossings across the entire country, 
so, we should be addressing those. We should be really, really 
passionate about that. Would you all agree with that?
    Mr. Baker. I would certainly agree with that. About 95 
percent--and I know you know this--about 95 percent of the 
fatalities on the rail industry are grade crossings and 
trespassing. And it is unfortunately expensive. So, it is a 
real challenge for the country. But separating the crossing--
the safest crossing is one that doesn't exist.
    Mr. Nehls. I am with you.
    Ms. O'Leary, what do you think?
    Ms. O'Leary. I agree with you.
    Mr. Nehls. Oh, thank you so much.
    Ms. O'Leary. You are welcome.
    Mr. Nehls. Mr. Perdue, I am from the great State of Texas, 
buddy. Did you say you are getting 1 percent? Is it a little 
over 1?
    Mr. Perdue. That is correct. Just over 1 percent of the 
distribution.
    Mr. Nehls. Yes. You know where we are, the great State of 
Texas? A lot of people come to us too, buddy. A lot of people--
--
    Mr. Perdue [interrupting]. It is not much higher than that.
    Mr. Nehls. Ah, a little less than 2, a little less than 2. 
We gained two seats in the House because everybody is leaving 
these other States, coming to your great State, coming to my 
great State. They are fleeing the oppression.
    And our formula is around 10 percent, and we are getting 
less than 2. How do you feel about that? Do you think that DOT 
is distributing these grants fairly? Would you say they are 
distributing them fairly?
    Mr. Perdue. I would say thus far it's certainly not 
commensurate with population, lane-miles, vehicle-miles 
traveled. Definitely not. Our formula allocation is around 5 
percent, and we have only seen 1 percent of grant awards.
    Mr. Nehls. Yes. Well, I appreciate all the panel for being 
here. And it would just be a treat for the American people to 
see Congress working for them.
    We talked about cost overruns. I think Mr. Rouzer was 
talking North Carolina, about--let's just say a $1 million 
project. Now, after 3 years, all the redtape, NEPA, all this 
other stuff, environmental impact, it is $1.2 million. Who 
covers the other $200 million? In your testimony I think it is 
the State DOTs and the local stakeholders. Is that right?
    Mr. Perdue. Yes, Congressman. That is exactly right.
    Mr. Nehls. Yes.
    Mr. Perdue. I mean, State DOT, we have to cover the cost 
increases and balance our finances.
    I would say for local governments, local communities, other 
entities that are much smaller, it is very difficult to 
manage----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I would make an assumption, 
because of the inefficiency, some of the projects they say we 
can't do it anymore. We can't afford to come up with the over 
cost overrun. Can't do it.
    Mr. Perdue. That has happened.
    Mr. Nehls. Just eliminate it. Shameful. We can do better.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Menendez for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate all the 
witnesses for appearing here today, and their thoughtful 
testimony.
    I am proud to say that my district has received over $11 
billion in discretionary grants from the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act. And after the prior testimony, I would 
just remind everyone that there is a project in every single 
congressional district, red and blue States, rural and urban, 
that is funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 
So, we are putting this money to work across the entire 
country, regardless of whether those Members voted for the bill 
in the 117th Congress.
    These funds are being used for several exciting projects in 
my district, including improving and updating the Bayonne 
Drydock, electrifying ferries in Elizabeth, improving road 
safety in Jersey City, and for the Gateway Program. The Gateway 
Program is the most urgent infrastructure project in the entire 
country. The Northeast Corridor is the most heavily used 
passenger rail line in the United States. The section that goes 
through my district, New Jersey's Eighth Congressional 
District, handles 450 trains per day and over 200,000 daily 
Amtrak and New Jersey transit passenger trips. This project is 
important not just for my district, but for the New Jersey-New 
York metropolitan region and for anyone traveling on the 
Northeast Corridor.
    Ms. O'Leary, your testimony touches on the importance of 
INFRA and RAISE grants. As I just mentioned, our district has 
benefited from these programs, and the funds will go towards 
critical infrastructure projects. Can you talk more about the 
importance of consistency in funding these programs?
    Specifically, how does consistency impact regions and 
States' ability to plan for large projects such as the Gateway 
Program?
    Ms. O'Leary. Thank you. Yes, consistency is very important 
with these programs.
    And I would say in Michigan, or at least in southeast 
Michigan, prior to BIL, our ability to receive a lot of the 
RAISE funding and the predecessor names of that funding was 
more limited. The increased funding that has been available now 
through INFRA and RAISE has led to more projects in our region, 
one being the largest project on Mound Road, which I spoke to 
in my testimony, is the largest nonstate-funded project in the 
country, at $100 million, to upgrade the transportation along 
the economic development corridor of the defense industry.
    Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that. How would making these 
programs mandatory or formula-based impact planning for large 
projects?
    Ms. O'Leary. I am sorry, could you repeat----
    Mr. Menendez. Sure. How would making these programs 
mandatory or formula-based impact planning for large-scale 
projects?
    Ms. O'Leary. Well, what we see is, with the formula funds, 
there is not enough of them to be able to do these large 
projects in our region. So, I don't know if there is ever going 
to be enough formula funds to be able to do the kinds of 
projects that INFRA and RAISE are able to do.
    And so, knowing that there is--even though they are 
discretionary, they are consistently coming out at a certain 
amount of money every year gives us the consistency that we 
need and the reliability to be able to get ahead of applying 
for them a couple of years down the road, so that we are 
properly prepared with our applications.
    Mr. Menendez. Sure, I appreciate that. And how does 
operating under a continuing resolution impact these projects, 
specifically as it relates to planning and cost?
    Ms. O'Leary. Operating under the continuing resolution has 
been a challenge more for the communities that have combined 
these ideas with congressionally directed spending projects, 
and not being able to move on those, and trying to figure out 
if those projects are really going to go or not go, and if they 
should apply for grant funds instead.
    So, the continuing resolution has been difficult in the 
planning for all infrastructure projects, especially--you are 
playing the waiting game for projects that are in the 
congressionally directed spending right now.
    Mr. Menendez. Right, and it is an allocation of time and 
resources, and thinking through what the different funding 
opportunities are, and not having that confidence makes you 
sort of question which path you should go. And that makes--I 
imagine it makes it more difficult to plan, especially on these 
large-scale projects.
    Ms. O'Leary. Yes, agreed.
    Mr. Menendez. All right. I appreciate it.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Yakym.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    It is an important hearing that we are having today on the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, which 
represented over $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, with a 
dramatic increase in discretionary spending.
    But each hearing examining IIJA, I only grow more concerned 
that the American people aren't getting enough bang for their 
buck. I can tell you that in my home State of Indiana, we 
certainly aren't. We rank dead last on a per capita basis in 
securing IIJA discretionary grants. And that's not just behind 
all States. It's behind all Territories, too, including Guam 
and American Samoa. Apparently, the Hoosier State just needs a 
few more friends at the Department of Transportation.
    I have been working with State and local officials to get a 
better understanding of why that is, but I am also getting an 
earful on the grants that they do manage to win. For example, 
let's talk about a lack of clarity. In an attempt to be 
helpful, the DOT created a calendar of Notices of Funding 
Opportunity, or NOFOs. Despite these good intentions, however, 
agencies have missed their own deadlines, which has left at 
least one project in my district in a funding lurch.
    Let's talk about complex applications. Local stakeholders 
are trying their best to keep things ``in house,'' with limited 
resources. But the lack of success caused some of them to weigh 
the expanded expense of consultants who hopefully know the 
secret sauce or buzzwords to get their projects noticed. Others 
just aren't bothering to try applying for these funds.
    Let's talk about maddening feedback. I appreciate that the 
DOT will sit down with those who aren't yet awarded a grant, or 
who don't get a grant application. But the feedback can be 
exasperating. One local stakeholder whose application was 
denied for a planning grant to study a potential grade 
separation had a debrief with DOT in which they told them that 
they ``might have scored higher if they had included a plan to 
add EV charging,'' because what better place to charge an 
electric vehicle than under a railroad crossing?
    Let's talk about grant agreement delays. For the lucky who 
win a grant, the splashy press release goes out but then they 
wait 6 to 8 months to finalize the grant agreement. In the 
meantime, no work can be done. Then again, it sounds like maybe 
they are getting off easy. But the average wait time for a 2021 
RAISE grant was nearly 16 months to get an agreement.
    And finally, let's talk about inflation. As we all know, 
time is money. These delays come at a time of very high 
inflation. And let's be clear. The DOT's inflation index for 
highway construction is still hitting new highs, meaning 
project costs are still ballooning. One locality told me that 
it recently won a grant. They are actually giving the money 
back to the DOT. Because in all the time that it took to go 
through the bureaucracy, the cost of the project tripled.
    I know communities and States across the country, including 
our witnesses here, are facing the same issues. I hope that we 
can look forward to the successor to IIJA as we heed the 
experiences and place a renewed emphasis on formula dollars 
over discretionary grants. Let's get money to the States who 
know which projects need funding, and then get the money out 
the door as quickly and efficiently as possible.
    I want to return briefly to the topic of discretionary 
grants. According to DOT figures, only 93 of 418 grant 
agreements have been secured for RAISE grants awarded between 
fiscal years 2021 and 2023. And this question is for any 
witness. Can you just describe what are the bottlenecks? And 
what would you do to speed up the process?
    It's like third grade school. So, you can either answer, or 
I will start calling on you. So, go ahead, Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. That ratio sounds similar to the program I am 
most familiar with, which is CRISI. It's slow. It has always 
been slow, and it's probably slower now than it used to be, as 
the program has gotten bigger as far as getting from 
announcement to actual agreement.
    How exactly to speed it up inside is a little bit opaque to 
grantees on the outside and myself. But I think, frankly, 
Congress could essentially just tell them to do it in a future 
bill, just mandate that it go quicker. And I think, again, 
public transparency, putting it on a dashboard, explaining 
what's happening and why. And if it's not done on a certain 
timeline, let's say why. And sometimes it's the applicant's 
fault, and that's OK. But I think sunshine would fix that, too.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
    And finally, I do just want to say that in order to get 
these grants, we have to certify compliance with 75 Federal 
laws and regulations plus 12 Executive orders before being 
awarded a grant. That seems maddening and dizzying to me. I 
think we can do better.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
DeSaulnier for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request 
unanimous consent to enter into today's hearing record four 
documents supporting my colleague, Congressman Garamendi's, 
questioning today.
    Mr. Ezell. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
News release entitled, ``Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Largest Tax Relief 
 Package in Florida's History,'' by News Releases by Staff, flgov.com, 
     May 6, 2022, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mark DeSaulnier
  Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Largest Tax Relief Package in Florida's 
                                History
by News Releases by Staff

May 6, 2022
https://www.flgov.com/2022/05/06/governor-ron-desantis-signs-largest-
tax-relief-package-in-floridas-history/

    Ocala, Fla.--Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 7071 
which provides more than $1.2 billion of tax relief for Floridians. The 
bill provides for ten sales tax holidays for a variety of items 
commonly purchased by Florida families, including fuel, diapers, 
disaster supplies and, tools. A one-pager on the bill can be found here 
[https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/5.6-Sales-Tax-
List.pdf].
    ``Florida's economy has consistently outpaced the nation, but we 
are still fighting against inflationary policies imposed on us by the 
Biden administration,'' said Governor Ron DeSantis. ``In Florida, we 
are going to support our residents and help them afford the goods that 
they need. Florida has been fiscally responsible, so we are in a good 
position to provide meaningful relief for families, right now.''
    ``The Florida House's tax package--the largest middle-class tax 
relief package in the history of the state--is now the law of the 
land,'' said Speaker Chris Sprowls. ``A bill like this has never been 
more needed than it is right now. Reckless federal spending sent 
inflation rates spiraling higher than we've seen in generations, and 
Floridians are feeling the impacts. From tools to diapers to books for 
summer reading, this billion-dollar tax package includes something for 
every Floridian, and that's what I'm most proud of. Thank you to Chair 
Bobby Payne, the Ways and Means Committee, and to Senate President 
Simpson and our Senate counterparts for your leadership and commitment 
to keeping money in the pockets of hard-working Floridians.''
    ``Florida cannot independently fix or outrun all of the problems 
leading to the cost increases that are wreaking havoc on families, 
especially our most vulnerable,'' said Senate President Wilton Simpson. 
``However, we are working to ease the pain with broad-based sales tax 
relief and a month-long gas tax holiday. This bill supports growing 
families, Floridians looking to prepare their homes for severe weather, 
and the blue collar working men and women of our state who are trying 
their best to get by amid record-high gas prices and inflation that 
many of us have not seen in our lifetime. We are increasing the length 
of sales tax holidays for hurricane season and back-to-school, and also 
creating new short-term and long-term sales tax relief on key items 
needed by families.''
    ``This year's tax package was truly an effort to benefit every 
Floridian in some way,'' said Representative Bobby Payne. ``Giving 
people more control over their hard-earned money is the kind of work 
that makes me proud to serve in the Florida House. I want to thank 
Speaker Sprowls for his support and the opportunity to create the 
largest tax exemption package in Florida's history. Additionally, I 
want to thank our Senate colleagues and the Governor for his leadership 
and for signing this bill today.''
    The 10 tax holidays are:
      A one-month Fuel Tax Holiday from October 1, through 
October 31, 2022, saving Floridians $200 million by lowering the price 
of gas by 25.3 cents per gallon.
      A 3-month sales tax holiday for children's books from May 
14 through August 14, 2022, providing $3.3 million in tax relief.
      A one-year sales tax holiday from July 1, 2022, through 
June 30, 2023, for baby and toddler clothes and shoes, providing $81.5 
million in tax relief.
      A one-year sales tax holiday from July 1, 2022, through 
June 30, 2023, for children's diapers, providing $38.9 million in tax 
relief.
      A 14-day Back-to-School sales tax holiday from July 25 
through August 7, 2022, for clothing, shoes, backpacks, and school 
supplies, providing $100 million in tax relief.
      A 14-day Disaster Preparedness sales tax holiday from May 
28 through June 10, 2022, for supplies such as flashlights, radios, 
tarps, batteries, and fire extinguishers, providing $25.6 million in 
tax relief.
      A 7-day Tool-Time sales tax holiday from September 3 
through September 9, 2022, for tools and other home improvement items, 
providing $12.4 million in tax relief.
      A two-year sales tax holiday from July 1, 2022, through 
June 30, 2024, for impact resistant windows, doors, and garage doors, 
providing $442.8 million in tax relief.
      A 7-day Freedom Week from July 1 to July 7, 2022, 
providing a sales tax exemption for specified admissions and items 
related to recreational activities, providing $70.6 million in tax 
relief.
      A one-year Energy Star Appliances sales tax holiday from 
July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, for washing machines, clothes 
dryers, water heaters, and refrigerators, providing $78.5 million in 
tax relief.

    Additionally, permanent tax relief provided in the legislation 
consists of various sales tax exemptions, corporate income tax credit 
expansions, and ad valorem tax and exemption provisions that will 
generate an additional $190 million in tax savings over two years and 
$140 million annually after that.
    You can find additional information about the tax holidays at 
floridarevenue.com/SalesTaxHolidays.

                                 
      Motor Fuel Tax Relief 2022, Florida Department of Revenue, 
  floridarevenue.com, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mark DeSaulnier
                       Motor Fuel Tax Relief 2022
                           October 1-31, 2022
For more information, visit https://floridarevenue.com/MotorFuel/Pages/
                              default.aspx
    The Florida Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act of 2022 reduces the tax rate 
on motor fuel by 25.3 cents per gallon. Passed by the Florida 
Legislature and signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, the tax rate 
reduction begins Saturday, October 1, and extends through Monday, 
October 31. The tax rate reduction applies to all gasoline products, 
any product blended with gasoline and any fuel placed in the storage 
supply tank of a gasoline-powered motor vehicle.
    Unlike sales tax, which is assessed on the taxable price of goods 
and services, fuel taxes are assessed on gallons when product is 
removed from a terminal or imported into Florida. These taxes are 
remitted to the state by licensed terminal suppliers and importers who 
then pass the fuel taxes down through the supply chain to the ultimate 
consumer at the pump. Under Florida law, all segments of the petroleum 
industry must pass along the reduced tax rate, so the consumer receives 
the full benefit of the tax suspension.
    Download a printable chart to see all modified tax, collection 
allowance, and refund rates.
Consumers
    During the 2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief period, all grades of motor 
fuel/gasoline are exempt from fuel tax.
    Have questions? The 2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act FAQs for 
Consumers might help.
Local Tax Governments and Mass Transit System Operators
    During the 2022 Motor Fuel Tax relief period, all grades of motor 
fuel/gasoline are exempt from fuel tax.
    For more information on implementing the tax exemption, please see 
the Department of Revenue's Taxpayer Information Publication on the 
2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act for Local Governments and Mass Transit 
System Operators or the 2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act FAQs for Local 
Governments and Mass Transit System Operators.
Retail Dealers
    During the 2022 Motor Fuel Tax relief period, all grades of motor 
fuel/gasoline are exempt from fuel tax.
    For more information on implementing the tax exemption, please see 
the Department of Revenue's Taxpayer Information Publication on the 
2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act for Retail Dealers or the 2022 Motor 
Fuel Tax Relief Act FAQs for Retail Dealers.
Terminal Suppliers
    During the 2022 Motor Fuel Tax relief period, all grades of motor 
fuel/gasoline are exempt from fuel tax.
    For more information on implementing the tax exemption, please see 
the Department of Revenue's Taxpayer Information Publication on the 
2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act for Terminal Suppliers or the 2022 Motor 
Fuel Tax Relief Act FAQs for Terminal Suppliers.
Wholesalers and Importers
    During the 2022 Motor Fuel Tax relief period, all grades of motor 
fuel/gasoline are exempt from fuel tax.
    For more information on implementing the tax exemption, please see 
the Department of Revenue's Taxpayer Information Publication on the 
2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act for Wholesalers and Importers or the 
2022 Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act FAQs for Wholesalers and Importers.
Promotional Materials
    [Editor's note: See https://floridarevenue.com/MotorFuel/Pages/
default.aspx for more information.]

                                 
  Gas Tax Holiday, Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, 
  myfloridalegal.com, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mark DeSaulnier
                            Gas Tax Holiday
                https://www.myfloridalegal.com/node/9372
Please Note:
    Interruptions to gas availability and supplies due to Hurricane Ian 
may impact pricing during the Gas Tax Holiday. If you believe that you 
witnessed motor fuel pricing that constitutes price gouging under the 
Hurricane Ian State of Emergency, please click here for more 
information on filing a price gouging complaint.
What is the Gas Tax Holiday?
    Pursuant to Florida law, the state gas tax will be reduced by 25.3 
cents per gallon on all sales of motor fuel during the month of October 
2022. Under this new law, it is unlawful for a terminal supplier, 
wholesaler, importer, reseller, or retail dealer of motor fuel to 
retain any part of the 25.3 cents per gallon tax reduction or to 
interfere with providing the full benefit of the tax reduction to the 
consumer.
What is the total amount of the tax reduction during the Gas Tax 
        Holiday?
    25.3 cents per gallon.
Does the Gas Tax Holiday apply to all fuel types?
    No. The Gas Tax Holiday does not affect the taxes imposed on diesel 
fuel, aviation fuel, or kerosene.
Will we see a 25.3-cent-per-gallon reduction of gas prices at all gas 
        stations starting on October 1, 2022?
    Not necessarily. Florida's tax on gasoline is only one of many 
factors that affect the price you pay for gas. Factors aside from the 
tax rate may cause the price of gas to fluctuate during the Gas Tax 
Holiday.
    Further, a gas station is only required to pass on the 25.3-cent-
per-gallon tax reduction to its customers if it purchased gas from its 
supplier at the tax-reduced amount. If a gas station does not purchase 
gas from its supplier for the tax-reduced amount, then it would not be 
required to apply a tax reduction to the price charged at the pump.
Is it possible that some gas stations will not decrease their prices at 
        all in October of 2022?
    Yes. Gas stations that do not purchase tax-reduced gas from their 
suppliers would not be required to pass on a tax reduction to their 
customers during the Gas Tax Holiday.
During the Gas Tax Holiday, is there a specific price that gas stations 
        must charge for gas?
    No. The Gas Tax Holiday law does not require that gas stations sell 
gas for a specific price. The law only requires those gas stations that 
buy gas from their suppliers at the tax-reduced amount to pass on those 
savings in their sale of gas to the consumer. Please note that market 
fluctuations could also affect gas prices at the pump throughout the 
Gas Tax Holiday.
If a gas station doesn't reduce the price of its gas in October of 
        2022, is it considered price gouging?
    No. The Florida price gouging law is only enforceable pursuant to a 
declared state of emergency in accordance with state statute and only 
applies to essential commodities needed as a direct result of the 
declared state(s) of emergency within the area for which the state of 
emergency is declared. If a state of emergency is declared during the 
Gas Tax Holiday (or at any other time) and you witness price gouging on 
any essential commodity, including gas, you can find instructions on 
how to file a price gouging complaint here.
If I believe that a gas station is violating the Gas Tax Holiday law, 
        what should I do?
    If you suspect a violation of the Gas Tax Holiday law, obtain as 
much relevant information as possible and file a complaint with our 
Office. Specifically, information regarding the prices being charged by 
the gas station, photographs of signs displaying the price(s) of all 
grades of gas being sold, and purchase receipts are pieces of 
information that could be helpful to our Office in reviewing and 
investigating Gas Tax Holiday complaints. Additionally, if you have 
information or documentation showing a substantial difference between 
the gas price you are reporting and price the gas station charged 
immediately prior to the Gas Tax Holiday or in the preceding 48 hours, 
please also include that information in your complaint.
    Please report any suspected violation online at MyFloridaLegal.com. 
Alternatively, if you do not wish to submit your complaint form online, 
complaints forms may be printed out and sent by U.S. Mail to: 
Department of Legal Affairs, Consumer Protection Division, 3507 East 
Frontage Road, Suite 325, Tampa, Florida 33607.
Where can I find additional information regarding the Gas Tax Holiday?
    If you have questions not addressed here, you may wish to visit the 
Florida Department of Revenue's website at floridarevenue.com or call 
Taxpayer Services (8 a.m. ET to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday) at 
(850) 488-6800 for additional information regarding the Gas Tax 
Holiday.

                                 
 Article entitled, ``Florida's Gas Holiday Ends Today. Consumers Saved 
   25 Cents per Gallon in October,'' by Cheryl McCloud, Tallahassee 
   Democrat, October 31, 2022, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mark 
                               DeSaulnier
 Florida's Gas Holiday Ends Today. Consumers Saved 25 Cents per Gallon 
                               in October
by Cheryl McCloud

Tallahassee Democrat, October 31, 2022
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/10/31/florida-
state-gas-tax-holiday-ends-oct-31-2022-ending-25-cent-savings/
10650537002/

    Thinking about topping off the gas tank after enjoying the weekend? 
Better do it today.
    Beginning at midnight, Florida's gas tax holiday will end. During 
the entire month of October, the state gas tax was reduced by 25.3 
cents per gallon, according to the Florida Office of the Attorney 
General.
    The tax rate reduction applies to all gasoline products, any 
product blended with gasoline and any fuel placed in the storage supply 
tank of a gasoline-powered motor vehicle.
More about Florida's gas tax holiday
      Florida gas prices dip slightly; spike possible as state 
gas tax holiday ends
    https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2022/10/24/florida-gas-
prices-may-rebound-after-slight-dip-tax-holiday-ends-expensive-
cheapest/10587043002/

      Pump prices jump: Florida gas tax holiday can't compete 
as OPEC slashes oil production
    https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2022/10/10/florida-gas-
prices-opec-tax-holiday/8233782001/

      As gas tax relief kicks in, Florida could see sub-$3 per 
gallon prices
    https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2022/10/03/gas-tax-relief-
kicks-florida-begins-hurricane-ian-recovery/8167503001/

      Florida gas tax holiday to go into effect Saturday--a 
month before the gubernatorial election
    https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2022/09/30/florida-gas-tax-
holiday-begins-saturday-during-hurricane-ian-recovery/10444556002/

    Here's what you should know about Florida's Motor Fuel Tax Relief 
Act of 2022:
What is the Florida gas tax holiday?
    The state gas tax was reduced on all sales of motor fuel in 
October. Under the law, it is unlawful for a terminal supplier, 
wholesaler, importer, reseller, or retail dealer of motor fuel to 
retain any part of the tax reduction or to interfere with providing the 
full benefit of the tax reduction to the consumer.
How much can consumers save from gas tax holiday?
    The state gas tax was reduced by 25.3 cents per gallon.
When is the Florida gas tax holiday?
    The tax holiday is in effect from Oct. 1 through Oct. 31.
Can you save at all gas stations?
    A gas station is only required to pass on the 25.3-cent-per-gallon 
tax reduction to its customers if it purchased gas from its supplier at 
the tax-reduced amount. If a gas station does not purchase gas from its 
supplier for the tax-reduced amount, then it would not be required to 
apply a tax reduction to the price charged at the pump.
Are gas stations required to charge a specific price?
    No. The tax holiday law does not require that gas stations sell gas 
for a specific price. The law only requires those gas stations that buy 
gas from their suppliers at the tax-reduced amount to pass on those 
savings in their sale of gas to the consumer.
What about diesel fuel or other types of fuel?
    The reduced tax rate does not apply to diesel fuel, aviation fuel 
or kerosene.
Did the price go down by 25 cents at the pump?
    Florida's tax on gasoline is one of many factors that affect the 
price consumers pay at the pump. Factors beyond the state's control may 
cause gasoline prices to go up or down during the tax reduction period.
What other tax holidays are there in Florida right now?
      Baby and toddler clothing and children's diapers. In 
effect until June 30, 2023.
    Purchases of children's diapers, and baby and toddler clothing, 
apparel and shoes are exempt from sales tax.

      Energy Star appliances. In effect until June 30, 2023.
    Appliances purchased for noncommercial use, including certain 
refrigerator/freezer units, water heaters, washing machines, and 
dryers, are exempt from sales tax.

      Home hardening. In effect until June 30, 2024.
    During this holiday, homeowners' purchases of impact-resistant 
windows, doors and garage doors are exempt from sales tax on retail 
sales.

    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
    First, I just want to make a comment. He is no longer here, 
my good friend, Mr. Nehls, and counties--Mr. Winders, having 
come from county government in the San Francisco Bay area where 
I was a county supervisor--Commissioner, this is just an 
observation. You don't have to respond.
    County officials get elected by county. Presidents don't. I 
have my own questions about the electoral college. So, his 
observation about 500 counties--your county, according to the 
website, is about 26,000 population. The county I represented 
for 14 years has about 1,000,002 people. So, I just want to 
make an observation, which is part of the challenge we have 
right here, is that we have this amazing infusion of public 
investment, the largest since President Eisenhower, in a 
country that has changed a lot since then, but still want to 
respect your community, my community, and doing that in a way--
and this is to Ms. O'Leary, and I would love to hear the 
secretary's response, too, because you have similar 
challenges--we do have similarities with Florida. We are both 
big States, California and Texas.
    In a world where you--having been on the MPO for the bay 
area for 10 years, and having been a county commissioner with 
local stuff, the idea in my perspective with this huge infusion 
is a huge challenge in a world that is changing. And then you 
overlay the requirements under the U.S. Clean Air Act signed by 
Richard Nixon, and California's was signed by Ronald Reagan.
    So, getting the RTP [regional transportation plan] passed 
with the State implementation plan, having this infusion of 
money, and having both the discretion of the mobility under the 
formula--and I agree with you on this--the formula is right, 
but you still want to have discretionary grants that anticipate 
the changes we are under.
    So, Ms. O'Leary, you come from a region that has changed a 
lot--differently than the bay area, for sure--but our big 
challenge now is COVID. And with the tech industry, 30 
percent--I would bet higher than that--vacancy rates in 
downtown San Francisco, so, our traditional commutes for my 
community, which has 4 of the 10 largest mega-commutes in the 
country, because of the cost of housing versus where the jobs 
are, we have a wonderful opportunity, but it's going to take us 
a long time, unfortunately, to respond to that change.
    So, you have some history in southeast Michigan of 
responding to private-sector changes in a different way. How do 
we stay--and we have this bothersome infrastructure for a 
reason. And it was largely Republican administrations who 
wanted to get rid of corruption that was delivered more on 
political relationships than on performance.
    So, this committee is supposed to be the least partisan. 
How do we get this money out the door, working with the 
administration and our Republican colleagues in a country that 
has such diversity but has incredible demands, to make it 
easier for people to get to work, whether it's in a rural 
community or an urban community?
    And by the way, those urban communities drive 65 percent of 
the GDP, gross domestic product, in this country. So, how do we 
keep that in this amazing opportunity, all those moving parts, 
and accelerate the RTP but still do it thoughtfully, without 
taking 20 years to get the research to validate what we are 
doing?
    Ms. O'Leary. You said a lot right there.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. I know. You have a minute to answer.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. O'Leary. And I will say what you are saying is true. 
This is a challenge. And we say it's a good problem to have, 
right?
    We know that our job as regions, and often, as counties and 
as the State, is to help our communities get ready. And so, 
yes, we are seeing this large influx and opportunity funds, 
many of them discretionary. And I feel personally that as 
regional leaders across the country, our job is to get our 
communities ready.
    You have seen a rebound and a resurgence in the Detroit 
area, the Detroit metropolitan area. If you haven't been to 
visit Detroit, you should be. It's the place to be. And 
infrastructure and what we are able to do there is a big part 
of it. And I would encourage people to look at what has 
happened in Detroit. The collaboration and the partnerships are 
a big part of the success that we are having.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Debbie Dingell is a good friend, so, I hear 
from her all the time.
    Ms. O'Leary. Is she? She is great.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Yes, she is.
    Mr. Perdue. Yes, thank you Congressman. And I would say 
that IIJA did bring record funding in terms of Federal 
authorization. And it's definitely good and something that 
should be continued into the future.
    With discretionary grants, the challenge is that we are 
being asked and expected to do more and to do more faster. It 
appears as though with discretionary grants, we are doing less 
and doing it slower. I think there are a lot of opportunities 
in formula distribution to really address that, because that's 
when the funds get pushed out and can actually go on to 
projects that are ready to be built.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Kean for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Baker, it's good to see you again.
    The IIJA authorized a new Railroad Crossing Elimination 
Grant Program. IIJA authorized $500 million annually in 
spending, subject to appropriations, and provided advanced 
funding of $600 million annually through fiscal year 2026. What 
has been your experience with this program, and do you have any 
recommendations for improvements?
    Mr. Baker. Thank you. The program is a new creation in 
IIJA. There has been one round of funding. We think it meets a 
pressing need. It's a program that public entities apply for. 
Railroads don't individually apply, but obviously it has to be, 
essentially, in partnership with a railroad. I think it's 
addressing a pressing issue.
    I mentioned earlier 95 percent of the fatalities on the 
rail system nationwide are either trespassers or grade 
crossings. And the busiest crossings, not only are they 
dangerous, but they also--they block traffic sometimes, and 
people get upset, and it delays motorists. And really, the only 
way to permanently solve that problem is make it a grade 
separation.
    And so, the program, it's a good idea. The challenge for 
the country is they are very, very expensive. You can be 
talking $20 or $30 million for one of these. So, $600 million a 
year guaranteed might get you 30 crossings, which is excellent. 
But there are 220,000 in the United States. So, I would say 
it's, like all these DOT grant programs, it has been slow to 
get started, they are slow to execute. But once it is getting 
going, I think people will like how it works, and I think that 
there will be an opportunity to increase that program even 
further in the next reauthorization.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Yes, thank you.
    Commissioner Winders, what are the barriers that keep local 
governments, especially those in rural areas, from applying for 
discretionary grants?
    Mr. Winders. Thank you, Representative.
    The key areas revolve around capacity, either the financial 
capacity to put together an application or the human capacity 
to wade through the notice of Federal funding opportunity, or 
the capacity to front the costs of a large project.
    So, the notices being complicated and the capacity that is 
necessary to wade through those and figure out what works for 
whom, and whether or not we actually have a chance at any 
particular grant, whether it's worth our effort to put forward, 
those are some of the major, major constraints, barriers.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. OK. Are there other things that 
Congress can do to help rural communities to secure DOT funding 
or for critical infrastructure? Any other recommendations?
    Mr. Winders. There has been discussion about direct funding 
to counties. There has been discussion about building capacity, 
helping to build capacity.
    From my perspective--and I believe from NACo's perspective, 
the National Association of Counties' perspective--if we can 
simplify the rules, make the goals of the program clear and 
more singular, not so many goals, then that would levelize the 
playing field.
    And what I mean by not so many goals is in the rating 
criteria. Different counties have different abilities to 
compete on such things as clean air. In my rural county, we are 
not going to get many points for our road project as it relates 
to clean air, but it is a definite safety need. It's a need for 
the State and national system. But we don't rate well on those 
criteria. So, maybe making sure that the criteria that the 
applications are rated on are the things that you, as Congress, 
want them to be rated on, not additional criteria.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you. Targeted investments 
allow for the effective use of taxpayer funds. If we could 
start with you, Mr. Perdue, and then Ms. O'Leary. Can you talk 
a bit about what the benefit would be to a State and then to 
municipal/regional governments, as well, what would your 
recommendations be?
    Mr. Perdue. I am sorry. Can you repeat that?
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. What would your recommendations be 
from a statewide perspective on what I was just talking to 
Commissioner Winders about, and then from a municipal/regional 
perspective to Ms. O'Leary. So, it is the same question from a 
statewide perspective, and same question on a municipal 
perspective.
    Mr. Perdue. Sure. In terms of discretionary grants, and 
specifically the NOFOs and the requirements in them, my 
suggestion or recommendation would be mainly focus the 
requirements in those NOFOs on the actual physical 
infrastructure and what it is meant to achieve.
    Moving people, moving goods safely and efficiently, 
bringing all these extra requirements in that some communities 
may be able to meet, others may not, as you have heard many 
times, makes it very challenging. I mean, it already takes a 
concerted amount of resources to pursue these grants.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you.
    Ms. O'Leary?
    Ms. O'Leary. I would say a couple of things.
    One, when it comes to the formula funds, the suballocation 
process works. It works on our TAP [Transportation Alternatives 
Program] funds, being able to suballocate down to major 
metropolitan areas, at least.
    And I think we had a good point earlier, where we work hand 
in glove with our DOT, where our part of Michigan gets a 
suballocation for some dollars, for TAP, but then the State 
works with the rest of the more rural areas to implement TAP 
programs across the rest of the State. So, suballocate where it 
makes sense.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Ezell. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
take us all to a small town in my district, Andover, 
Massachusetts, where last year, a beautiful 5-year-old girl, 
Sidney Olson, was waiting for a walk sign to cross the street. 
And when the walk light changed and she got the signal, she 
started out across the street, and a big semitruck which 
couldn't see her, started forward. It bumped her. She tried to 
get out of the way, and then it jerked forward again and ran 
over her, ending her life instantly in front of her entire 
family.
    Now, this, of course, has devastated her family, her 
brother, her mom and dad. It has devastated the truckdriver, 
who didn't even know what had happened until after it happened. 
It has devastated a community. And what is particularly amazing 
is that this entire accident could have been prevented with a 
$50 mirror installed on that truck so that he could see what 
was in front of him, the same mirrors that are installed on 
schoolbuses so they don't do the same thing.
    I just want to emphasize that the changes that we are 
talking about making, and more that are in the works, have real 
urgency. We shouldn't have 5-year-old kids in small towns in 
America dying because they crossed the street when they get a 
walk light.
    Ms. O'Leary, I know you spoke about the Safe Streets 
program and some of the impacts that it has had in the Detroit 
region. Could you speak a little bit more about what a 
difference this can make in your community?
    Ms. O'Leary. Absolutely. And I'm sorry that that happened. 
And I think sometimes we, as the planners and the engineers, we 
talk about fatalities, but it's about people, and we can't ever 
forget that. So, I am sorry to hear about that happening.
    The Safe Streets For All is kind of a new program for us. 
So, the first element of that is doing safety audits. We have 
been able to identify the most intersections and roadways that 
have the most injuries for pedestrians and bicyclists. And we 
are going there and we are doing the audits with this fund to 
figure out what is the next step, how do we fix those roads? 
And that's one of the roles that we play.
    The cities of Detroit and Dearborn both were able to 
receive actual construction funds. And so, one of our jobs 
right now is while they just received the funding is to try and 
line up their funding on the safety side with the other funds 
that they have received for the repaving of the road, for 
example. And so, that's not always an easy task. So, we are 
making sure, as the MPO, that we are aligning all of those 
projects together.
    And we know we need to make a difference, and that's why 
safety is our number-one concern in our region when it comes to 
our transportation network.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, I just think that we talk a lot about 
congestion and travel speeds. And everyone seems to be eager to 
add a lane to another highway, despite the enormous amount of 
empirical evidence that that doesn't decrease congestion or 
travel times. But we often forget the fact that these roads are 
going through communities. They are going through communities 
with people, people that we are encouraging to walk because 
it's good, it's healthy.
    Of course, we would have a lot fewer road fatalities and 
traffic deaths in America if we had a better rail system. It's 
a safer way to transport goods, it's a safer way to transport 
people. In the rest of the world, it's a nicer and faster way 
to get around the country, as well, although we have a very 
antiquated rail system in the United States.
    One thing I have never really understood, Mr. Baker, is 
when we have these Railroad Crossing Elimination Programs, why 
is it always rail funding? Why does it always fall on the 
railroads to eliminate crossings, when in most parts of the 
country, the roads came after the railroads? The roads are the 
ones that have the problem with crossing. So, why are highway 
funds not used to close crossings?
    Mr. Baker. It's a fair question. And to be fair, the 
traditional section 130 program is actually highway money, but 
it's only $200 million a year, which is not even a drop in the 
bucket as far as 200,000 crossings.
    The Railroad Crossing Elimination Program is a big increase 
in that, and I think a step in the right direction. But it 
actually sounds to me sort of promisingly like a bipartisan 
area of agreement where there is clearly interest on both sides 
in really increasing that. And some of these crossing 
fatalities are the most stubborn part of rail safety. They are 
extraordinarily frustrating for us in the industry, and 
obviously devastating every time there is an accident there. We 
would love to see more crossings closed and work with 
communities if they can access the funds to do it.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that 
communities will consider using funds to make safety 
improvements like the Safe Streets, like eliminating crossings, 
instead of just adding more lanes to highways. Thank you.
    Mr. Ezell. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Perdue, some of the largest grants that we have seen--
they were found at the Department of Transportation--were the 
electric vehicle charging station grants. Two of these grant 
programs can be found in the IIJA, which were authorized at the 
tune of $7\1/2\ billion. And I know, to Florida, that's still a 
lot of money. In Missouri, that's a lot of money.
    We can talk all day about the issues with electric 
vehicles, but with our limited time, I wanted to ask you if you 
think that these charging station grants were actually good for 
the States.
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Congressman.
    So, in Florida, we are proud of the fact that the private 
industry has always done a great job of fueling vehicles. I do 
not believe it should be any different for the power that it 
takes to charge electric vehicles. This is just one more type 
of transportation, it's one more fuel type. We encourage fuel 
freedom. We would like to see the development of all fuel types 
and all alternative fuels. And we believe the private sector 
can really meet that mark.
    With regards to IIJA, there is actually--there is 
discretionary grant money for electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure. There is also a new required formula program 
that was rolled out, and we received roughly $198 million over 
5 years. We have taken those funds and developed a plan and 
identified gaps in locations. But there are still major hurdles 
and challenges and concerns to get over before we actually roll 
that program out. I know several States have already begun 
implementing it. It's looking like--and this is public 
funding--and it's looking like every location, based on the 
requirements in the program, are costing around $750,000 to $1 
million per site. So, it's a significant investment.
    One big question we have in Florida, our adoption rate for 
EVs right now is around 1.3 percent. And so, this is public 
money building public infrastructure. Assuming our adoption 
rate continues to move that slowly, is this a wise investment 
of public infrastructure dollars?
    Mr. Burlison. Yes, and the other question, Mr. Perdue, is, 
is there the infrastructure to support it?
    There was an article that came out today from the 
Washington Post. The title of the article says, ``Amid 
Explosive Demand, America is Running Out of Power.'' It 
continues to say that ``vast swaths of the United States are at 
risk of running short of power as electricity-hungry data 
centers and clean-technology factories proliferate around the 
country, leaving utilities and regulators grasping for credible 
plans to expand the nation's creaking power grid.''
    In Georgia, the demand--I am going to paraphrase this--is 
so high that the expectations are now 17 times the current need 
that they have today. In other States, they are saying that 
they would have to scramble to implement numerous nuclear 
powerplants just to accommodate the planned infrastructure 
growth of the data centers and all of these.
    And with that in mind, would you agree with me that this is 
the Federal Government pouring gasoline on the fire of 
something that is probably already a crisis in America?
    Mr. Perdue. I would say that it's definitely not 
sustainable to focus all of your efforts on just one fuel type.
    Again, having a diverse portfolio in transportation is 
truly how you are sustainable for many, many years to come. 
Electric vehicles are just one type. A lot of people in Florida 
are still choosing gas and diesel. I personally drive a truck 
with a diesel engine, and I will drive that for the rest of my 
life. And I am a Floridian, I am American. I have the right to 
do that.
    And so, I think developing that infrastructure out in a way 
that that is diversified and really brings all of the 
alternative fuels to the table is the best path forward.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Perdue. I agree with your 
comments. This is why I sponsored a bill here in Congress 
called the UNPLUG EVs Act, which will eliminate our taxpayer 
funding for these charging stations, which, as you mentioned, 
the private sector has been doing for quite some time.
    Thank you, and I yield the rest of my time.
    Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. I now recognize myself for 
the next several minutes, since I have the total captive 
audience here. So, thank you very much.
    Secretary Perdue and all of you, I have really learned a 
lot this morning. So, thank you for what you have done and for 
being here today. But I am sure that you understand as well as 
anyone that once DOT announces a grant award, the process is 
far from over. There was a city in my district that received a 
BUILD grant, but is now, unfortunately, experiencing how 
frustrating the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, review 
process can be.
    In this case, the NEPA process took 2 years before the city 
could even submit the proposed environmental assessment, which 
then took another 5 months before it was approved by the 
Federal Highway Administration. I couldn't agree more with your 
testimony that wasted time is wasted money.
    Can you please share some advice that I may pass on to my 
community as to how to help navigate this process?
    Mr. Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And yes, delivering 
infrastructure with Federal funds is a very complex process. It 
takes a lot of resources, a lot of expertise.
    At FDOT, we are happy to partner with our local 
communities. There is a major challenge for the direct 
recipients of these grants, if they are local governments and 
communities that are not accustomed to delivering 
infrastructure with Federal funds. NEPA is one of those. 
Florida is one of the few States that has NEPA delegation in 
partnership with FHWA, and we have done a great job with that. 
We recently renewed our MoU with FHWA, but NEPA can take up to 
4 years, depending on how complex the project is. This is one 
of the reasons why we really believe, even with discretionary 
grant programs, the requirements and the NOFOs and the things 
that you are asking for out of those that are applying for 
grants should be focused on the actual hard infrastructure and 
what it is trying to achieve.
    Moving people, moving goods safely and efficiently, this is 
the fundamental tenet of all transportation infrastructure. 
That is really where it should be focused. When you do that, 
the actual grant applications and the grants you are applying 
for and the projects you are trying to move forward are those 
projects that local communities have been planning for the last 
15 to 20 years.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Baker, we have several companies, including the 
Mississippi Export Railroad, which are independent short rail 
lines that employ many individuals in my district. I also 
understand that several times Congress has directed the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, ACHP, to issue a 
final exemption for active rail corridors under NEPA and 
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This is 
similar to the interstate highway exemption.
    However, several years have passed and the ACHP still has 
not implemented this guidance. Why do you think railroads are 
not treated the same as highways under these exemptions?
    Mr. Baker. It's a great question. I don't know why they are 
not.
    I also--and I am not an expert on ACHP and congressional 
oversight of it, but I don't know why it's OK or how it's OK 
that they refuse to do what Congress pretty clearly told them 
to do, which is also a commonsense fix, is to not treat the 
entire rail corridor as a historic item. If they want to 
designate specific sections, that would be OK, just like they 
do with the highway system, but it results in some crazy 
stories. We don't have time for me to repeat all of them, but 
there is a railroad in Massachusetts told me about a bridge 
that took them a year of historic review to get through, and 
then it took them 4 hours to replace the bridge.
    Mr. Ezell. Does this impact project cost and how quickly a 
railroad can fulfill a project obligation?
    Mr. Baker. It does. It causes huge delays. It causes some 
funny stories, the one I just mentioned. A railroad up in 
Minnesota just told me about a wooden bridge that they just 
needed to replace one support beam with a big concrete beam, 
and they eventually got approval to do it, but they were told 
they have to paint the concrete beam the color of wood to get 
it done.
    And so, sometimes they are a little silly. But again, time 
is money. We have said it ad nauseam this morning, and ACHP 
should really--they should do what Congress asked.
    Mr. Ezell. Agreed. Do you see DOT working to reduce NEPA 
reviews to help projects get done any faster, or are there any 
improvements you can recommend?
    Mr. Baker. We have not seen a huge amount of progress on 
making the NEPA and environmental process move faster. There 
are a lot of good intentions when we talk to people at FRA. 
They want to move projects quickly, just like we do. But it 
hasn't really seemed to happen yet.
    From a short line point of view, the vast majority of our 
projects end up getting categorical exemptions. But even that 
process is slow. And it's very frustrating. If you are just 
replacing wooden ties on an existing rail corridor, an existing 
active rail right-of-way, it's sort of blindingly obvious to 
everyone that that's going to end up with a categorical 
exemption. And I don't understand why we couldn't just start 
tomorrow and let's just start building, right? Let's not wait 
around for the obvious answer that takes sometimes 6 months, 8 
months, 1 year.
    Mr. Ezell. Exactly.
    Mr. Winders, in the time that I have left, which I have run 
over, if you could expand some of the issues you may have faced 
on a county level trying to raise non-Federal match funding 
while waiting for DOT to announce grant awards.
    Mr. Winders. I am sorry, Representative. Trying to raise 
what?
    Mr. Ezell. Non-Federal match funding.
    Mr. Winders. Non-Federal match funding is an issue for 
Audrain County, for the Highway 54 Coalition, and for many 
rural counties. Particularly, the RAISE grant has an exemption 
for rural counties that does not require match. However, it's 
questionable as to whether or not your application will be 
competitive without match.
    At this point, given our experience with the RAISE program 
and our inability to get a grant, we have not tried to set 
aside match money for something that we're just not sure we're 
going to get.
    Mr. Ezell. Right. Thank you.
    Are there any further questions from any members of the 
committee who have not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would 
like to thank each of you for your testimony today.
    The committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]


                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


 Letter of March 7, 2024, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick 
Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
  from Kristen Swearingen, Vice President, Legislative and Political 
Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors, Submitted for the Record 
                           by Hon. Sam Graves
                                                     March 7, 2024.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chair,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
    On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national 
construction industry trade association with 68 chapters representing 
more than 22,000 members, I write to comment on the U.S. House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearing titled 
``Department of Transportation Discretionary Grants: Stakeholder 
Perspectives.''
    As the committee continues to lead Congress' oversight of the DOT, 
including the hundreds of billions of dollars Congress has allocated to 
modernize our nation's most critical infrastructure, ABC will comment 
on how the DOT has deviated from bipartisan Congressional agreements by 
incorporating partisan language into discretionary grant programs--
language rejected by the House and Senate--that hinders the success of 
these investments.
                               Background
    While Congress allocated DOT discretionary grant funding in a 
bipartisan manner, the DOT has imposed unlawful federal requirements on 
states and localities by promoting project labor agreement mandates, 
which limit recipient flexibility. These mandates discourage the 89.3% 
of the private construction workforce that do not belong to a union and 
experienced nonunion contractors from competing to win taxpayer-funded 
contracts to rebuild their communities. This action significantly 
exacerbates the ongoing construction workforce shortage, limits 
potential infrastructure investment by raising costs by 12 to 20% per 
project, and discriminates against nearly nine out of 10 construction 
workers who o not belong a union. Additionally, for the rare nonunion 
construction workers permitted to work on a PLA project, provisions in 
PLAs result in the confiscation of 34% of a nonunion construction 
worker's compensation package unless they join a union and become 
vested in union plans.
    ABC has expressed concerns about the DOT's administrative actions, 
including efforts to impose unlawful and overly burdensome policies and 
restrictive labor requirements on key federal infrastructure funds and 
projects. As the committee considers stakeholder feedback on DOT 
discretionary grants, ABC writes to highlight partisan policies 
advanced by the department and make recommendations to ensure taxpayer-
funded construction contracts are awarded through fair and open 
competition.
         Application of Restrictive Requirements on DOT Grants:
    Despite the needlessly increased costs and chilled competition PLAs 
promote, ABC has identified a significant number of Biden 
administration federal agency grants--totaling more than $260 billion 
for infrastructure projects procured by state and local governments--
subject to language and policies promoting PLA mandates and preferences 
that will increase costs and reduce competition on federally assisted 
construction projects.
    The DOT, which has oversight over the vast majority of IIJA 
funding, has played a key role in pushing these costly and unnecessary 
agreements. ABC has identified over $214 billion in DOT grant programs 
impacted by language preferring PLAs.
    For example, in the fiscal year 2023 Rebuilding American 
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity grant program DOT Notice 
of Funding Opportunity, the department included pro-PLA preferences for 
contractors, which were not included in the IIJA.
    The RAISE grant program provides federal assistance to state and 
local government entities for the purpose of major surface 
transportation infrastructure projects, making at least $2.275 billion 
in funding appropriated by the IIJA and other funding sources 
available.
    However, the impact of this funding is undermined by language in 
the NOFO that attempts to steer these funds toward applicants that 
require PLAs on their projects. The NOFO includes specific language 
indicating that PLAs will increase applicants' scores for ``partnership 
and collaboration,'' improving their chance of receiving RAISE funds.
    Likewise, according to U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration data 
released March 1, 2024, in response to an ABC FOIA request, state and 
local lawmakers mandated PLAs on 344 state and local construction 
projects (totaling an estimated $10.67 billion) that received federal 
assistance and formal approval from the FHWA during from Jan. 2021 to 
Jan. 2024.
    ABC expresses concern with language contained in DOT grant 
opportunities that encourages state and local government grant 
applicants to support PLA requirements in their application for federal 
grant funds. This PLA ``encouragement'' language could have a chilling 
effect on otherwise qualified contractors bidding on projects in their 
communities, limiting competition and increasing costs.
                            Recommendations
    ABC has urged the DOT to abandon its exclusionary and inflationary 
policies and instead welcome the entire construction workforce to 
participate in rebuilding America's vital infrastructure. ABC 
recommends that the committee closely examine the DOT's policies 
favoring PLAs to ensure the DOT is maximizing the return on the massive 
investment of taxpayer dollars represented by the IIJA, which ABC 
believes should be awarded through fair and open competition--
guaranteeing the best value for hardworking taxpayers while prohibiting 
a rigged federal procurement process that discriminates against many 
small construction businesses. This is critically important as federal 
agencies begin to implement hundreds of billions in federal dollars for 
infrastructure construction projects authorized through the IIJA and 
ARP, which notably did not have any mention of PLAs, let alone mandate 
them on federal projects.
    Further, ABC urges members of the committee to support the Fair and 
Open Competition Act (H.R. 1209), which would prevent federal agencies 
and recipients of federal assistance from requiring contractors to sign 
controversial PLAs as a condition of winning a federal or federally 
assisted construction contract. This bill would ensure that taxpayer-
funded construction contracts are awarded through fair and open 
competition--guaranteeing the best value for hardworking taxpayers 
while prohibiting a rigged federal procurement process.
                              Conclusion:
    ABC encourages the committee to promote inclusive, win-win policies 
that welcome all of America's construction industry to compete to 
rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure, increase accountability 
and competition and reduce waste and favoritism in the procurement of 
public works projects to better ensure the stewardship of taxpayer 
dollars.
    Ultimately, in order to successfully implement this investment of 
taxpayer funds into high-quality infrastructure at the best price 
possible for Americans, Congress must ensure the door is open to all 
qualified contractors, including those composing the vast majority of 
the industry and provide them with a fair chance at competing on 
government funded projects.
    ABC and our members are committed to building taxpayer-funded 
projects with the highest standards of safety and quality. ABC members 
stand ready for the opportunity to build and maintain America's 
infrastructure to the benefit of the communities it serves. ABC 
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the committee's important 
work to improve our nation's infrastructure.
            Sincerely,
                                        Kristen Swearingen,
                 Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs,
                               Associated Builders and Contractors.

                                 
 Statement of Dennis J. Newman, Executive Vice President, Strategy and 
 Planning, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Submitted 
                   for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
    On behalf of Amtrak, I am submitting this Statement for the Record 
of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's March 7, 
2024, hearing on ``Department of Transportation Discretionary Grants: 
Stakeholder Perspectives.'' Amtrak's statement addresses two of the 
matters discussed during the hearing: Consolidated Rail Infrastructure 
and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grants and the importance of multi-year 
funding for rail programs.
       The Importance of CRISI Grants to Intercity Passenger Rail
    Although Amtrak and its partners have received relatively few CRISI 
grants, CRISI is an important source of funding for Amtrak and 
intercity passenger rail projects, particularly for safety and 
workforce development projects that are not eligible for other 
competitive grant programs.
    Providing funding for intercity passenger rail projects was one of 
Congress's major objectives when it enacted CRISI as part of the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act). The discussion 
of the FAST Act's ``Intercity Passenger Rail Policy'' provisions in the 
Explanatory Statement of the Conference Committee identified CRISI as 
one of the Act's ``provisions to improve the Nation's rail 
infrastructure and its intercity passenger rail service . . .,'' and 
stated that CRISI's purpose was ``to support a broad array of rail 
projects and activities.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. House. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 22 (FAST Act) 
(H. Rpt. 114-357), p. 511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Explanatory Statement also indicated that CRISI was intended to 
replace a number of grant programs that the FAST Act repealed. One of 
those programs was the Congestion Grants Program established by Section 
302 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 
(PRIIA) to provide grants to Amtrak and states to reduce congestion in 
high-priority rail corridors. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (IIJA) made no substantive changes to CRISI other than broadening 
the types of projects--currently sixteen--eligible for grants.
    Amtrak and intercity passenger rail projects have received a 
relatively small percentage of recent CRISI grant awards. In the most 
recent (Fiscal Year 2022) round of CRISI funding, for which awards were 
announced last September, Amtrak received four grants for:
      A Northeast Corridor (NEC) Fencing Project that will 
support Amtrak's efforts to install fencing along portions of the NEC 
to address trespassing that has claimed too many lives: 23 in Fiscal 
Years 2021-2023 alone;

      A Grade-Crossing Improvement Project on an Amtrak long-
distance route in Louisiana and Mississippi that Amtrak is undertaking 
in collaboration with the host freight railroad that owns the line;

      A Workforce Development Apprenticeship Training Program, 
developed in collaboration with the labor union that represents 
Amtrak's maintenance-of-way (MOW) employees, that will support a 
comprehensive training program for the track foremen who supervise MOW 
employees and the track inspectors who ensure the safety of the NEC and 
other Amtrak-owned and operated rail lines; and,

      The Gulf Coast Corridor Improvement Project that will 
allow reinstitution of Amtrak service between New Orleans, Louisiana, 
and Mobile, Alabama while also improving freight capacity and safety 
along this route.

    In addition to the CRISI grants awarded to Amtrak, Amtrak's state 
partners received four grants for:
      The Franconia-Springfield Bypass Project, which will 
reduce congestion that impacts Amtrak, commuter, and freight trains, 
and provide capacity for service expansion along a portion of the 
Washington-to-Richmond, Virginia rail corridor by constructing 
additional tracks to separate passenger and freight operations;

      Construction of additional tracks to increase capacity 
and facilitate increased, state-supported, Amtrak service on:
      +  the Capitol Corridor between Sacramento and Roseville, 
California; and
      +  the West-East Rail Corridor between Springfield and Worcester, 
Massachusetts; and

      The Penn-Camden Line Connector Project in Baltimore, 
which will reduce congestion and increase capacity on the NEC by 
constructing a new connection so that empty MARC commuter trains will 
not have to operate over the NEC between Baltimore and Washington to 
access MARC mechanical facilities and a new yard that will eliminate 
the need to store MARC commuter trains on NEC tracks at Baltimore Penn 
Station.

    As the descriptions above demonstrate, the eight Amtrak and state-
led intercity passenger rail projects that received Fiscal Year 2022 
CRISI grants will enhance safety, alleviate rail line congestion, 
support workforce development, and facilitate improvement and expansion 
of Amtrak service. These are exactly the types of projects, identified 
in 49 U.S.C. 22907(c), that Congress intended to enable when it 
established the CRISI grant program.
    CRISI also plays an important role in supporting freight railroad 
investments in infrastructure and safety. The majority (47) of the 70 
Fiscal Year 2022 CRISI grants went to Class II and Class III railroads, 
who also received more than half of the funding awarded. (Class I 
railroads are not eligible for CRISI grants unless they apply with 
another eligible entity.) It bears noting that, unlike Amtrak and its 
state partners, the Class II and III freight railroads that receive 
CRISI grants are private, for-profit entities which earn operating 
profits that can be used to fund many of their capital investment 
projects. They also receive the benefit of the Section 45G Short Line 
Tax Credit that Congress made permanent in 2020.
    Were it not for the CRISI program, many of the intercity passenger 
rail projects that have received CRISI grants would not be moving 
forward. By law, the supplemental funding the IIJA provided to Amtrak 
is reserved for expenditures related to specific kinds of capital 
projects, such as acquiring new fleet, replacing aged bridges and 
tunnels, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance work at 
stations throughout Amtrak's network. Because of restrictions on what 
projects are eligible for other competitive rail grant programs, CRISI 
is the only grant program that can provide funds for many vital safety 
projects and other projects. Projects that could not be funded under 
other competitive grant programs include the NEC Fencing and Workforce 
Development projects described above and the Targeted Grade Crossing 
Enforcement Partnership, a collaborative effort of Amtrak and local 
police departments to improve grade crossing safety for which Amtrak 
has sought CRISI funding.
    As discussed at the hearing, commuter rail projects are generally 
ineligible for CRISI grants. That is appropriate because, while freight 
and passenger railroads are funded through rail grant programs, which 
are administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, commuter 
railroads receive substantial federal funding from the Federal Transit 
Administration through federal transit programs for which Amtrak is 
ineligible. However, many of the intercity passenger rail projects for 
which Amtrak and its state partners have received CRISI awards, 
including the Franconia-Springfield Bypass, NEC Fencing, and Penn-
Camden Line Connector Projects described above, benefit commuter 
railroads that share rail infrastructure with Amtrak.
    Freight railroads also benefit from CRISI grants awarded to Amtrak. 
Amtrak has partnered with four Class I freight railroads on 
applications for CRISI grants for which those railroads would otherwise 
be ineligible. Seven of the eight intercity passenger rail projects for 
which Amtrak and its state partners received Fiscal Year 2022 CRISI 
grants will benefit freight railroad-owned lines or will improve safety 
or increase capacity on Amtrak-owned lines over which freight railroads 
operate.
                  The Importance of Multi-Year Funding
    As discussed at the hearing, predictable, multi-year funding for 
rail capital projects is essential. Assurance of multi-year funding is 
of particular importance for Amtrak and intercity passenger rail.
    The advance appropriations for intercity passenger and other rail 
programs that the IIJA provided have given Amtrak what nearly every 
other transportation mode has long enjoyed but Amtrak had previously 
been denied: substantial, assured, multi-year funding for major capital 
investments. That funding is allowing Amtrak to advance vital, long-
deferred generational--and in some cases, once every 100 or more 
years--capital projects that include:
      Replacement of the 150-year-old Baltimore & Potomac 
Tunnel;
      Construction of the Hudson Tunnel, part of the Gateway 
Program that will increase the number of tracks on the most heavily 
used portion of the NEC between Newark, New Jersey and New York City 
for the first time since 1910; and,
      The replacement of the 40- to 50-year-old passenger car 
fleets that Amtrak acquired in its first decade.

    The multi-year funding the IIJA provides is what makes it possible 
for Amtrak and its partners to finally move forward on long overdue 
projects like these. Major railroad capital projects require very large 
expenditures and take many years--often a decade or more--from 
initiation of planning until completion of construction. Such projects 
cannot be funded through uncertain, widely fluctuating annual 
appropriations under any circumstances. That is particularly true when, 
as was the case this year, there is enormous uncertainty about the 
level of annual appropriations Amtrak will receive that is not resolved 
until almost halfway through the fiscal year.
    The IIJA's advance appropriations were a major first step in 
providing long needed and essential multi-year funding for Amtrak and 
intercity passenger rail capital projects. However, the advance 
appropriations extend only through Fiscal Year 2026. In order for 
Amtrak and our partners to continue vital capital investments on the 
NEC and our National Network, the next surface transportation 
reauthorization must also provide substantial, assured, multi-year 
capital funding for Amtrak and intercity passenger rail.
                                 * * *
    Amtrak remains grateful for the historic investments in Amtrak and 
intercity passenger rail provided by the IIJA's advance appropriations. 
I thank the members of the Committee for their interest in and support 
for Amtrak, and I appreciate this opportunity to make known Amtrak's 
views on the important issues your recent hearing addressed.


                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Hon. Jared W. Perdue, 
         P.E., Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation

    Question 1. I understand Florida reduced state taxes on gasoline 
for part of 2022. Can you please further explain why this decision was 
made?
    Answer. Governor DeSantis signed a temporary gas tax holiday in 
2022, lowering the tax rate on motor fuel by 25.3 cents per gallon, not 
to zero as originally suggested by a member of the Committee. That tax 
rate reduction was effective from October 1, 2022 until October 31, 
2022 and allowed drivers to get relief at the pump when federally-
induced inflation and gas prices were skyrocketing.

    Question 2. When a project you submitted a discretionary grant 
application for is not awarded, has the U.S. Department of 
Transportation provided helpful feedback regarding how your application 
can be more successful in the next round of awards?
    Answer. While the opportunity to receive feedback from USDOT on an 
unsuccessful grant application initially seemed beneficial in order to 
strengthen the chances for a future award, our experience with the 
debriefs have been anything but.
    A perfect example of this would be FDOT's Miami River-Miami 
Intermodal Center Capacity Improvements (MR-MICCI) project, which we 
applied for 4 times through 4 different funding opportunities. Keep in 
mind, this project had strong bipartisan support from South Florida's 
Congressional delegation as well as local stakeholders.
    USDOT recommended the MR-MICCI project and scored it ``very 
strong'' in several merit criteria sections including safety, 
environmental, and partnership. Other sections had either zero or minor 
comments. According to the 2022 Federal-State Partnership debrief, the 
only USDOT suggestion for improvements was to obtain a letter of 
support from Amtrak. Not only did the 2023 Federal-State Partnership 
application provide a letter of support, but it also provided $1M in 
matching funds from Amtrak. The application was not selected for an 
award.
    On 2/29/2024, FDOT received a debrief for the most recent submittal 
of MR-MICCI and non-selection. USDOT's policy has long been to provide 
verbal feedback only and have previously provided specific feedback for 
each section including scores and comments. This year, however, they 
said they could not provide scoring information, feedback on sections, 
or comments on the benefit-cost analysis (BCA), but only had general 
notes. According to USDOT:
      This year, FDOT's budget format was ``difficult to 
follow'', despite the fact that FDOT's budget format was the same as 
the three previous years and USDOT never expressed concern with those 
being ``difficult to follow''.

      Opposite feedback was provided stating that the 
application was strong in technical merit and ``made sense'' but was 
too technical.

      In 2022, the roles of FDOT, SFRTA, Amtrak, and CSX were 
``very clear what roles each had''. This year, the application included 
an MOU between FDOT and SFRTA and were paired with letters of support 
from CSX and Amtrak. The debrief this year provided opposite feedback 
stating that the roles of each were ``unclear''.

      In 2022, it was recommended to ``add benefits from the 
BCA into the merit criteria''. The debrief this year provided opposite 
feedback stating there were too many references to the BCA, and it was 
recommended to move the BCA references to the appendix ``for the 
economists''.

    It's frustrating when you are consistently told a project is 
``strong'' and even recommended by USDOT, only to apply unsuccessfully 
3 more times, unnecessarily utilizing a great deal of department 
resources and time. FDOT spends up to $150,000 per grant application, 
meaning FDOT has spent approximately $600,000 in grant applications for 
this project alone. Additionally, we have set aside millions in match 
dollars since 2021 for a single project. Instead of inspiring false 
hope in applicants with inconsistent recommendations, USDOT should 
provide open, transparent, written, and detailed scoring feedback in 
their debriefs.

                                 [all]