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






                                   

 
 OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

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

                                (118-29)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
             
           [GRAPHIC(S) 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 
 56-516               WASHINGTON : 2024                  
 
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington,             Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  Ranking Member                     Arkansas
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Daniel Webster, Florida
  District of Columbia               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Brian Babin, Texas
John Garamendi, California           Garret Graves, Louisiana
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiavid Rouzer, North Carolina
Andre Carson, Indiana                Mike Bost, Illinois
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Doug LaMalfa, California
Jared Huffman, California            Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Julia Brownley, California           Brian J. Mast, Florida
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey       Puerto Rico
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
  Vice Ranking Member                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Colin Z. Allred, Texas                 Vice Chairman
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Lance Gooden, Texas
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Burgess Owens, Utah
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
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


                                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...........................................     3
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6

                               WITNESSES

Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department 
  of Transportation, oral statement..............................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of March 23, 2023, to Hon. Toni G. Atkins, California 
  Senate President Pro Tem et al., from Louis S. Thompson, Chair, 
  California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, Submitted for the 
  Record by Hon. Troy E. Nehls...................................    30
Article entitled, ``Alliance Aims for Equitable Placement of EV 
  Chargers,'' by Taylor Wooten, Indianapolis Business Journal, 
  September 8, 2023, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Andre 
  Carson.........................................................    36
Article entitled, ``Twin Metals Says It Will Use an Electric 
  Vehicle Fleet; Opponents Aren't Swayed,'' by Walker Orenstein 
  and Yasmine Askari, MinnPost, August 12, 2021, Submitted for 
  the Record by Hon. Jared Huffman...............................    47
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Derrick Van Orden:
    Photograph...................................................   133
    Article entitled, `` `Here It Is Better Not To Be Born': 
      Cobalt Mining for Big Tech Is Driving Child Labor, Deaths 
      in the Congo,'' by Louise Boyle, The Independent, February 
      23, 2023...................................................   138
    Blog post entitled, ``The DRC Mining Industry: Child Labor 
      and Formalization of Small-Scale Mining,'' by Michele 
      Fabiola Lawson, Wilson Center, September 1, 2021...........   142
    Article entitled, ``The Dark Side of Congo's Cobalt Rush,'' 
      by Nicolas Niarchos, The New Yorker, May 24, 2021..........   143
Letter of September 20, 2023, 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.......   137

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, 
  U.S. Department of Transportation, from:
    Hon. Sam Graves..............................................   155
    Hon. Rick Larsen.............................................   160
    Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford...............................   162
    Hon. Brian Babin.............................................   163
    Hon. Garret Graves...........................................   163
    Hon. David Rouzer............................................   163
    Hon. Mike Bost...............................................   164
    Hon. Doug LaMalfa............................................   165
    Hon. Bruce Westerman.........................................   166
    Hon. Pete Stauber............................................   167
    Hon. Jefferson Van Drew......................................   167
    Hon. Troy E. Nehls...........................................   167
    Hon. Lance Gooden............................................   168
    Hon. Tracey Mann.............................................   170
    Hon. Rudy Yakym III..........................................   170
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton...................................   172
    Hon. John Garamendi..........................................   172
    Hon. Julia Brownley..........................................   173
    Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.....................................   174
    Hon. Mark DeSaulnier.........................................   177
    Hon. Greg Stanton............................................   180
    Hon. Seth Moulton............................................   182
    Hon. Mary Sattler Peltola....................................   184




                           September 15, 2023

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
    FROM:  LStaff, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
    RE:      LFull Committee Hearing on ``Oversight of the 
Department of Transportation's Policies and Programs''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will 
meet on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 
of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a 
hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Department of 
Transportation's Policies and Programs.'' The hearing will 
provide an opportunity for Members to discuss all aspects of 
the United States Department of Transportation (DOT or 
Department), including the Administration's actions to date 
implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
(P.L. 117-58). The Committee will receive testimony from DOT 
Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

                             II. BACKGROUND

DOT

    Pursuant to the United States House of Representatives Rule 
X(1)(r), the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
authorizes programs carried out by DOT modal administrations 
and offices including:
     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); and
     LOffice of the Secretary (OST).

    On December 15, 2020, President Biden nominated Pete 
Buttigieg to be the Secretary of Transportation. The Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a 
confirmation hearing on the nomination on January 21, 2021. The 
Senate confirmed Secretary Buttigieg on February 2, 2021, by a 
vote of 86-13.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Sen. Roll Call Vote No. 11 (Feb. 2, 2021) (on the 
Nomination of Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg, of Indiana, to be Sec'y 
of Transp.; confirmed 86 yeas to 13 nays), available at https://
www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/
vote_117_1_00011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

    The President's FY 2024 Budget requests $108.5 billion for 
DOT, an increase of $1 billion, or one percent, compared to FY 
2023 enacted levels.\2\ In addition, DOT will receive $36.8 
billion in advance supplemental funding from IIJA, bringing 
DOT's total FY 2024 budget resources to $145.3 billion.\3\ Of 
the requested funding, the President's budget proposes $19.8 
billion for FAA, $60.8 billion for FHWA, $17 billion for FTA, 
$4.8 billion for FRA, $1.3 billion for NHTSA, $951 million for 
FMCSA, $980 million for MARAD, $387 million for PHMSA, $40 
million for the GLS, $2.3 billion for OST, and $121 million for 
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).\4\ DOT's budget 
largely supports contract authority programs funded from the 
Highway Trust Fund and Airport and Airway Trust Fund, 
competitive grants, operations, and other modal administration 
spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ DOT, Budget Highlights 2024, 12, (2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-03/
BudgetHL2024_Mar09_3pm_508.pdf.
    \3\ Id. at 1.
    \4\ Id. at 7-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. IIJA IMPLEMENTATION

    On November 15, 2021, the President signed IIJA into law, 
representing the largest Federal investment in decades in the 
United States' infrastructure.\5\ This legislation authorized 
and appropriated a combined $1.2 trillion for infrastructure 
programs over the five-year period from FY 2022 to FY 2026, to 
sustain and modernize the Nation's infrastructure, including 
roads, bridges, transit, railroads, and airports, as well as 
energy and broadband.\6\ Of the total authorized and 
appropriated in IIJA, approximately $661 billion is 
administered by DOT.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, (2021), 135 Stat. 429 [hereinafter 
IIJA].
    \6\ FHWA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/ (last updated Mar. 20, 
2023).
    \7\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since IIJA's enactment, as of August 27, 2023, DOT has 
indicated it has announced $184 billion in IIJA formula funding 
and grant awards to states, local governments, transit 
agencies, airports, ports, and other project sponsors.\8\ FHWA 
has distributed approximately $125 billion under the highway 
program.\9\ Analysis of FHWA data by the American Road & 
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) indicates that 
States have used these formula dollars to support more than 
50,000 projects across the country, through June 30, 2023.\10\ 
Additionally, FTA has distributed approximately $41 billion in 
transit funding, FAA has announced nearly $10 billion in 
airport funding, and OST has announced approximately $6.6 
billion in grants for various programs.\11\ See appendix I for 
additional information on budgetary resources by modal agency 
provided by DOT. However, some stakeholders are concerned with 
the slow rollout pace at which IIJA funding goes out to bid 
once it has been apportioned by DOT to States and other project 
sponsors. A 2023 outlook survey of its member companies by the 
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), found that 
just five percent of companies responded they have worked on 
IIJA-funded projects to date, while six percent responded they 
had successfully bid on projects for which work had yet to 
begin.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See Appendix I--IIJA Financial Summary as of Aug. 27, 2023, 
Email from Staff, OST, DOT, to H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure 
Staff (Sept. 13, 2023, 10:08 p.m.) (on file with Comm.) [hereinafter--
IIJA Financial Summary as of Aug. 27, 2023].
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ ARTBA, Highway Dashboard, Tracking Infrastructure Investment & 
Jobs Act Highway and Bridge Resources, (last accessed Sept. 13, 2023), 
available at https://www.artba.org/economics/highway-dashboard-iija/.
    \11\ See IIJA Financial Summary as of Aug. 27, 2023, supra note 8; 
DOT, FTA, Table 1. FY 2023 FTA Appropriations and Apportionments for 
Grant Programs (Full Year), (Last updated Feb. 6, 2023), available at 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/table-1-fy-2023-fta-
appropriations-and-apportionments-grant-programs-full; DOT, FTA, Table 
1. FY 2022 FTA Appropriations and Apportionments for Grant Programs 
(Full Year), (Last updated May 4, 2022), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/table-1-fy-2022-fta-
appropriations-and-apportionments-grant-programs-full; DOT, FY 2022 
Mega Grant Awards, (last updated Jan. 30, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-01/
MEGA%20FY%202023%20Combined%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf; DOT, RAISE 2022 Award 
Fact Sheets, (last updated Sept. 20, 2022), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-09/
RAISE%202022%20Award%20Fact%20Sheets_1.pdf; DOT, RAISE 2023 Award Fact 
Sheets, (last updated June 30, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-06/
RAISE%202023%20Fact%20Sheets_2.pdf; Press Release, DOT, Biden-Harris 
Administration Funds Innovative Projects to Create Safer, More 
Equitable, Transportation Systems, (Mar. 21, 2023), available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-
administration-funds-innovative-projects-create-safer-more-equitable; 
DOT, SS4A 2022 Awards, (last updated Apr. 19, 2023), available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/2022-awards; DOT, FHWA, 
Culvert AOP Program Grant Recipients, (last updated Aug. 16, 2023), 
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/
culverthyd/aquatic/2022
recipients.cfm.
    \12\ AGC, Sage, High Hopes for Public Funding Amid Workforce and 
Supply Chain Challenges: The 2023 Construction Hiring and Business 
Outlook, (2023), available at https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/
users/user22633/2023_Construction_Hiring_and_
Business_Outlook_Report_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOT is responsible for implementing 103 programs and 157 
subprograms under IIJA.\13\ Some programs have not been 
implemented or took time to finalize. For example, the 
Department has not yet implemented provisions related to 
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), including establishing the 
alternative funding board that is a precursor to pursuing a 
National VMT pilot program.\14\ Following inquiries from House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam 
Graves and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 
Chairman Tom Carper, DOT committed to filing the charter and 
publishing a notice in the Federal Register for the Advisory 
Board by the end of September, finally initiating progress on 
this requirement.\15\ Further, the Administration released 
initial implementation guidance related to the Build America, 
Buy America Act (BABAA) on April 18, 2022, and on February 9, 
2023, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued proposed 
guidance.\16\ In the interim, FHWA issued Questions and Answers 
related to BABAA on February 1, 2023, and on February 7, 2023, 
FTA held a webinar on the applicability of the BABAA 
construction materials provision.\17\ However, the stakeholder 
community stated that it needed additional clarity and final 
guidance in order to ensure proper compliance with these 
provisions.\18\ On August 23, 2023, 15 months after releasing 
its initial guidance, final guidance related to BABAA was 
issued.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ DOT, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Dashboard, available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law-dashboard.
    \14\ IIJA, supra note 5, Sec.  13002 (g)(1).
    \15\ Letter from the Hon. Shailen P. Bhatt, Administrator, FHWA, to 
the Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure 
(Sept. 5, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
    \16\ See M-22-11, Memorandum From Shalanda D. Young, Dir., Off. of 
Mgmt. and Budget to Heads of Exec. Depts. and Agencies, (Apr. 18, 
2022), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/
04/M-22-11.pdf; Guidance for Grants and Agreements, 88 Fed. Reg. 8,374, 
(Feb. 9, 2023), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2023-02-09/pdf/2023-02617.pdf.
    \17\ FHWA, FHWA's Buy America Q and A for Federal-aid Program, 
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/
buyam_qa.cfm (last updated Mar. 20, 2023); FTA, Buy America Update, 
Construction Materials Waiver for Certain Contracts and Solicitations, 
FTA Internal Webinar, YouTube, (Feb. 7, 2023), available at https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=61UYE680by4.
    \18\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit. of the H. 
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023).
    \19\ Guidance for Grants and Agreements, 88 Fed. Reg. 162, 57750 
(Aug. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inflation reached a 41-year record high of 9.1 percent in 
June 2022.\20\ As of July 2023, the 12-month inflation rate had 
fallen to 3.2 percent.\21\ Additionally, in July 2023, producer 
prices--representing prices paid by businesses producing 
goods--increased 0.8 percent year-over-year.\22\ However, the 
prior month, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell remarked on 
moderated inflation rates and stated, ``inflation pressures 
continue to run high.'' \23\ This marks the 29th consecutive 
month that the rate remains above the two percent the Federal 
Reserve targets for a stable economy.\24\ While there has been 
a decrease in inflation compared to June 2022, inflation 
continues to be ``stubbornly high'' compared to the Federal 
Reserve's target.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See Press Release, United States Bureau of Labor Stat., 
Consumer Prices Up 9.1 Percent Over the Year ended June 2022, Largest 
Increase in 40 Years, (July 18, 2022), available at https://
www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/consumer-prices-up-9-1-percent-over-the-year-
ended-june-2022-largest-increase-in-40-years.htm; Press Release, United 
States Bureau of Labor Stat., Consumer Price Index Historical Tables 
for U.S. City Average, (last updated July 2023), available at https://
www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_
table.htm.
    \21\ Press Release, United States Bureau of Labor Stat., Consumer 
Price Index--July 2023, (Aug. 10, 2023), available at https://
www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htm.
    \22\ Press Release, United States Bureau of Labor Stat., Producer 
Price Indexes--July 2023, (Aug. 11, 2023), available at https://
www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm.
    \23\ Jeff Cox, Powell Expects More Fed Rate Hikes Ahead as 
Inflation Fight `Has a Long Way to Go,' CNBC, (June 21, 2023), 
available at https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/21/powell-expects-more-fed-
rate-hikes-ahead-as-inflation-fight-has-a-long-way-to-go.html.
    \24\ 12-Month Percentage Change, Consumer Price Index, selected 
categories, U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat., available at https://
www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-by-
category-line-chart.htm.
    \25\ Kevin L. Kleisen, Stubborn Inflation, Economic Resilience 
Major Themes in U.S. Outlook, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (June 
27, 2023) available at https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/
regional-economist/2023/june/stubborn-inflation-economic-resilience-us-
outlook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Within the construction industry, inflation can result in 
higher costs of construction materials and other resources 
necessary for project completion including higher costs of 
fuel, equipment, technology, labor, and transportation.\26\ In 
early 2022, the Eno Center for Transportation warned that if 
inflation for highway costs averaged higher than seven percent 
through 2027, the increased funding provided for highways under 
IIJA could be eliminated entirely.\27\ During a March 2023 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing, the witness from 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) also raised concerns about the ability of 
states to capitalize on IIJA funding due to inflation, and 
noted that in Texas the moving average had increased to 34.7 
percent whereas the IIJA funds only represented ``a six percent 
increase in Texas State DOT's overall funding.'' \28\ AASHTO 
previously indicated in June 2022 that ``[t]he cost of those 
projects is going up by 20 percent, by 30 percent, and just 
wiping out that increase from the Federal [G]overnment that 
they were so excited about earlier in the year.'' \29\ At the 
same hearing, testimony from ARTBA acknowledged the cost of 
construction inputs showed significant increases but noted 
variance in the extent of the problem by state, region, and 
project type including that ``we have seen a significant number 
of states in which project bids continue to come in below the 
initial engineer's estimates.'' \30\ Further, ARTBA noted that 
``any discussion about materials prices and inflation needs to 
also recognize that, without the infrastructure law, we would 
very likely be looking at a market contraction.'' \31\ As the 
most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) for August 2023 found 
that the all item index increased 3.7 percent, with the highest 
increase in the cost of gasoline, concerns remain that IIJA's 
purchasing power will be affected.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ See e.g., Evan McDowell, How Does Inflation Affect the 
Construction Industry?, Austin Nichols Technical Search, (May 1, 2023), 
available at https://www.austintec.com/
how-inflation-affect-construction-industry/
#::text=Additionally%2C%20raw%20materials
%20such%20as,companies%20who%20order%20from%20them; The Constructor, 
How Does Inflation Affect Construction Industry?, available at https://
theconstructor.org/construction/inflation-affect-construction-industry/
565090/.
    \27\ See Jeff Davis, How Much Could Inflation Erode IIJA Buying 
Power?, Eno Ctr. for Transp., (Apr. 27, 2022), available at https://
www.enotrans.org/article/how-much-could-inflation-erode-iija-buying-
power/; Julie Strupp, Inflation Could Sap Infrastructure Act's Buying 
Power This Year, Construction Drive, (Jan. 3, 2023), available at 
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/inflation-saps-infrastructure-
act-iija-buying-power/639518/.
    \28\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit. of the H. 
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023) 
(statement of Marc D. Williams, Member of the Board of Directors, 
AASHTO).
    \29\ David A. Lieb & Michael Casey, Inflation Taking a Bite Out of 
New Infrastructure Projects, Associated Press, (June 19, 2022), 
available at https://apnews.com/article/inflation-us-infrastructure-
projects-e89dcd5f3e623e532353f087265f9a63.
    \30\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit. of the H. 
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023) 
(statement of Paula Hammond, 2023 Chair, ARTBA).
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ See Press Release, United States Bureau of Labor Stat., 
Consumer Price Index--August 2023, (Sept. 13, 2023), available at 
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf. Jenni Bergal, Inflation 
is Cutting Into States' Big Infrastructure Windfall, The Pew Charitable 
Trusts, (Nov. 30, 2022), available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/
research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/11/30/inflation-is-cutting-
intostates-big-infrastructure-windfall; David A. Lieb & Michael Casey, 
Inflation Taking a Bite Out of New Infrastructure Projects, Associated 
Press, (June 19, 2022), available at https://apnews.com/article/
inflation-usinfrastructure-projects-e89dcd5f3e623e53
2353f087265f9a63; Jeff Davis, How Much Could Inflation Erode IIJA 
Buying Power?, Eno Ctr. for Transp., (Apr. 27, 2022), available at 
https://www.enotrans.org/article/how-much-could-inflation-erode-iija-
buying-power/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      IV. SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES

    The supply chain is a network comprised of the entire 
process of making and selling commercial goods, from the supply 
of materials, manufacture of the goods, through their 
transportation, distribution, and sale.\33\ Moving goods is 
critical to the success of this endeavor.\34\ A well-managed 
supply chain results in the efficient use of resources, reduced 
costs, a faster production cycle, and satisfied consumers.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See Jason Fenando, Supply Chain Management (SCM): How It Works 
and Why It Is Important, Investopedia, (July 7, 2022), available at 
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scm.asp.
    \34\ The Transportation Supply Chain, Supply Chain Drive, (Jan. 17, 
2021), available at https://www.supplychaindive.com/spons/the-
transportation-supply-chain/433934/.
    \35\ See Sean Harapko, How COVID-19 Impacted Supply Chains and What 
Comes Next, EY, (Jan. 6, 2023), available at https://www.ey.com/en_us/
supply-chain/how-covid-19-impacted-supply-chains-and-what-comes-
next#::text=The%20pandemic%20continues%20to,new
%20challenges%20for%20supply%20chains [hereinafter How COVID-19 
Impacted Supply Chains]; Jack Grimshaw, What is Supply Chain? A 
Definitive Guide, Supply Chain Digital, (May 17, 2020), available at 
https://supplychaindigital.com/supply-chain-2/what-supply-chain-
definitive-guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COVID-19 exposed fragilities in transportation networks, 
with a disruption in one part of the supply chain having a 
ripple effect across all parts of the supply chain, from 
manufacturers to suppliers and distributors.\36\ Weaknesses in 
the global supply chain were exacerbated by supply and demand 
imbalances, restrictions and regulations, and workforce and 
infrastructure challenges.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ See How COVID-19 Impacted Supply Chains, supra note 27; Peter 
S. Goodman, How the Supply Chain Broke, and Why it Won't Be Fixed 
Anytime Soon, N.Y. Times, (Oct. 21, 2021), available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/business/shortages-supply-chain.html 
[hereinafter How the Supply Chain Broke].
    \37\ See How COVID-19 Impacted Supply Chains, supra note 27; Chuin-
Wei Yap, William Boston, & Alistair MacDonald, Global Supply-Chain 
Problems Escalate, Threatening Economic Recovery, Wall St. J., (Oct. 8, 
2021), available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/supply-chain-issues-
car-chip-shortage-covid-manufacturing-global-economy-11633713877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, factories in Asia closed, and 
shipping companies cut schedules anticipating reduced demand 
for consumer goods.\38\ However, the rapid growth of e-commerce 
during the pandemic led to a surge in consumer demand that 
inundated the system, particularly for freight shipped from 
Asia into West Coast ports and transported through the rest of 
the country via truck and rail.\39\ The lack of available space 
onboard vessels, trains, and trucks; in distribution 
warehouses; and at ports, impacted industries, frustrated 
consumers across the country, and increased prices for some 
goods and commodities.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ See Simina Mistreanu, China's Factories Are Reeling from 
Forced Coronavirus Closures, Forbes, (Feb. 23, 2020), available at 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siminamistreanu/2020/02/23/chinas-
factories-are-reeling-from-forced-coronavirus-closures/
?sh=21d514eb73f2; see also COVID-19 Cuts Global Maritime Trade, 
Transforms Industry, United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development, (Nov. 12, 2020), available at https://unctad.org/news/
covid-19-cuts-global-maritime-trade-transforms-industry.
    \39\ Jessica Young, US E-Commerce Grows 32.4% in 2020, Digital 
Commerce 360, (Feb. 18, 2022), available at https://
www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/.
    \40\ How the Supply Chain Broke, supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supply chain challenges persisted throughout this year, as 
industries face tight labor markets, high fueling cost, and 
machine part shortages.\41\ In light of ongoing concerns 
related to supply chain challenges, the Committee passed 
several pieces of legislation aimed at strengthening the supply 
chain's resiliency. Given ongoing concerns, the Committee will 
continue to monitor these issues and propose solutions to 
ensure the flow of goods throughout the Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Lisa Baertlein, US Supply Chain Woes Shift and Persist in 
2023, Reuters, (May 17, 2023), available at https://www.reuters.com/
business/retail-consumer/reuters-events-us-supply-chain-woes-shift-
persist-2023-2023-05-17/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 21, 2021, Executive Order (EO) 14017, 
``America's Supply Chain'' was issued, directing Federal 
agencies to conduct a 100-day review of and report on the 
supply chain vulnerabilities associated with key imports.\42\ 
On the same day, the Administration announced additional plans 
to build long-term resilience in supply chains based on 
findings from the reports ordered by EO 14017.\43\ 
Additionally, on June 8, 2021, the White House announced the 
establishment of a Supply Chain Disruption Task Force (Task 
Force), led by the Secretaries of Commerce, Transportation, and 
Agriculture. The Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) 
initiative was announced on March 15, 2022, which includes a 
pilot effort to ``develop a proof-of-concept information 
exchange and operationalize it to support industry decision-
making.'' \44\ Participants include private companies, 
warehousing and logistics firms, ports, and others.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Exec. Order No. 14,017, 86 Fed. Reg. 11,849 (Feb. 24, 2021), 
available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-01/pdf/
2021-04280.pdf.
    \43\ Press Release, The White House, The Biden-Harris Plan to 
Revitalize American Manufacturing and Secure Critical Supply Chains in 
2022 (Feb. 24, 2022) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2022/02/24/the-biden-harris-plan-to-
revitalize-american-manufacturing-and-secure-critical-supply-chains-in-
2022/.
    \44\ Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information 
Collection: Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) Initiative, 87 
Fed. Reg. 42,796 (July 18, 2022), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2022-07-18/pdf/2022-15247.pdf.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, DOT has not implemented all Congressionally 
mandated policies designed to address supply chain challenges. 
For example, IIJA directed DOT to establish the Office of 
Multimodal Freight Infrastructure and Policy, it has not yet 
formally established the office or designated a leader.\46\ The 
Department has developed a draft mission, organizational 
design, and resourcing plan and provided a bipartisan briefing 
on that status of the office to Committee staff in June 
2023.\47\ Although historic backlogs are no longer the Nation's 
top supply chain concern, challenges remain within the network 
and addressing these issues will allow America to maintain 
economic competitiveness.\48\ The Office of Multimodal Freight 
Infrastructure and Policy will likely play a significant role 
in coordinating the Federal response to future supply chain 
challenges, as well as engage industry and States in addressing 
these issues.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ IIJA, supra note 5.
    \47\ Briefing by Office of the Sec'y of Transp. staff for H. 
Transp. and Infrastructure Comm. staff, (June 28, 2023).
    \48\ Letter from Agriculture Transp. Coalition, et al., to the Hon. 
Pete Buttigieg, Sec'y, DOT, (Aug. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               V. WITNESS

     LThe Honorable Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, United 
States Department of Transportation

                               Appendix I

    [Appendix I is retained in committee files and is available 
online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW00/20230920/
116312/HHRG-118-PW00-20230920-SD003.pdf.]


 OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. I call the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure to order, and I would ask 
unanimous consent that the chairman would be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing, and 
without objection, that is so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members want to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to [email protected]. 
If you need that repeated, just talk to staff, they've got 
that.
    I now recognize myself 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. I want to thank Secretary Buttigieg 
for being here today. We certainly have a lot to discuss, but 
thank you very much for coming in.
    As we near the 2-year mark since the passage of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, my focus remains on 
oversight of the funding and ensuring that it is implemented 
efficiently, effectively, and adheres to the letter of the law.
    Due to persistently high inflation, Americans continue to 
struggle to pay for food, clothing, gasoline, and other 
necessities with their hard-earned dollars. Companies that are 
working in the transportation space continue to face high 
prices on commodities and materials such as aggregates, 
asphalt, concrete, diesel--you name it.
    The August 2023 Consumer Price Index report found that the 
all-item index increased by 3.7 percent, with the highest 
increase in the cost of gasoline, once again raising concerns 
that IIJA's purchasing power is being eroded. That is why the 
Department and Congress have to ensure that every dollar from 
the IIJA counts and is directed towards projects that safely 
and efficiently move people, move goods, and prepare our supply 
chain for, obviously, the future challenges that we are going 
to have.
    However, many stakeholders have already expressed concerns 
about the implementation of the infrastructure law, including 
the pace of implementation and whether it is following the 
intent of the law. A 2023 AGC survey of its member companies 
found that just a mere 5 percent of companies who responded 
said that they have worked on IIJA-funded projects to date, and 
only 6 percent who responded indicated that they even 
successfully bid on projects for which work had yet to begin.
    We have to ensure that the regulatory burdens and confusion 
over guidance are removed in order to efficiently administer 
the infrastructure programs. According to the Department of 
Transportation, they have distributed or announced more than 
$184 billion in infrastructure funding. The DOT Office of 
Inspector General repeatedly recognized the risks of fraud, 
waste, and abuse that is associated with the IIJA funds.
    So, responding to the OIG's concerns, DOT indicated plans 
were in place for every program that received IIJA funding to 
complete a fraud risk assessment by the end of 2023, and we 
look forward to receiving those assessments on time.
    Furthermore, DOT has issued a number of grant requests and 
awards. As we've raised before, these grant programs should 
follow the intent of the law and focus on projects that 
actually improve infrastructure network and mobility and not 
use guidance that undercuts congressional direction just to 
accelerate projects that fit the administration's agenda.
    So, it's clear, we have work to do in managing current 
transportation policy and funding, but today, we are going to 
hear about fiscal year 2024 funding requests. After historic 
transportation funding increases from IIJA, the CARES Act, 
fiscal year 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the American 
Rescue Plan, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Department's 
2024 budget requests a 7-percent increase over 2023 levels.
    Notable increases include a 300-percent increase for the 
Thriving Communities Initiative, a 93-percent increase for the 
Office of Civil Rights, a 29-percent increase for transit 
Capital Investment Grants, and new funding for the DOT's EV 
fleet. Frankly, these requested increases seem a little ill-
advised and unjustified after the years of record spending that 
we have had.
    We are responsible for targeting infrastructure investments 
to programs and projects that improve and expand our 
infrastructure and supply chain network to safely and 
efficiently move people and goods. Now more than ever, this 
administration should be focused on real infrastructure 
improvements and policies that can help us get out of these 
crises.
    And with that, I, again, sincerely want to thank the 
Secretary for being with us today, and I look forward to a very 
productive hearing.
    [Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri, Chairman, Committee 
                  on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for being here today. We certainly 
have a lot to discuss.
    As we near the two-year mark since passage of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), my focus remains on oversight of this 
funding and ensuring it is implemented efficiently, effectively, and 
adheres to the letter of the law.
    Due to persistently high inflation, Americans continue to struggle 
to pay for food, clothing, gasoline, and other necessities with their 
hard-earned dollars. Companies working in the transportation space 
continue to face high prices on commodities and materials such as 
aggregates, asphalt and concrete, diesel fuel, and others.
    The August 2023 Consumer Price Index (CPI) report found that the 
all-item index increased 3.7 percent, with the highest increase in the 
cost of gasoline, once again raising concerns that IIJA's purchasing 
power may be eroded. That's why the Department and Congress must ensure 
every single dollar from IIJA counts and is directed toward projects 
that safely and efficiently move people, move goods, and prepare our 
supply chain for future challenges.
    However, many stakeholders have already expressed concerns about 
this Administration's implementation of the infrastructure law, 
including the pace of implementation and whether it's following the 
intent of the law. A 2023 Associated General Contractors (AGC) survey 
of its member companies found that just a mere five percent of 
companies who responded that they have worked on IIJA-funded projects 
to date, and only six percent who responded indicated they had even 
successfully bid on projects for which work had yet to begin.
    We must ensure that regulatory burdens and confusion over guidance 
are removed in order to efficiently administer infrastructure programs. 
According to DOT, they have distributed or announced more than $184 
billion in infrastructure funding. The DOT Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) repeatedly recognized the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse 
associated with IIJA funds.
    For example, my understanding is that in a memo to you, the 
Inspector General warned of ``significant implementation and oversight 
challenges'' presented by these funds. Responding to OIG concerns, DOT 
indicated plans were in place for every program that received IIJA 
funding to complete a fraud risk assessment by the end of fiscal year 
2023.
    We look forward to receiving those assessments on time.
    Furthermore, DOT has issued a number of grant requests and awards. 
As we've raised before, these grant programs should follow the intent 
of the law and focus on projects that actually improve our 
infrastructure network and mobility, and not use guidance that 
undercuts congressional direction just to accelerate projects that fit 
the Administration's own agenda.
    So it's clear, we have work to do in managing current 
transportation policy and funding. But today we also are going to hear 
about fiscal year 2024 funding requests. After historic transportation 
funding increases from IIJA, the CARES Act, FY 2021 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, the American Rescue Plan, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, the Department's 2024 budget requests a seven percent 
increase over 2023 levels.
    Notable increases include a 300 percent increase for the Thriving 
Communities Initiative, a 93 percent increase for the Office of Civil 
Rights, a 29 percent increase for transit Capital Investment Grants 
(CIG), and new funding for a DOT EV fleet. Frankly, these requested 
increases seem ill-advised and unjustifiable after years of record 
spending.
    We are responsible for targeting infrastructure investments to 
programs and projects that improve and expand our infrastructure and 
supply chain network to safely and efficiently move people and goods. 
Now more than ever, this Administration should be focused on real 
infrastructure improvements and policies that can help get us out of 
these crises.
    With that, I again want to thank the Secretary for being with us 
today and I look forward to a productive hearing.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. I think most of the fireworks are 
going to be down the hall and not in here; again, this is a 
work committee, not a show committee.
    Now, I want to 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, and I want to welcome Secretary Buttigieg 
and thank you in advance for what may be a long day to give 
every member of our committee the opportunity to ask you some 
questions.
    Given the pace with which the U.S. Department of 
Transportation has been getting Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
money into the hands of communities, we appreciate your time 
and know that you would be implementing the BIL and working on 
critical safety and consumer priorities if you weren't here 
today to answer our questions.
    Today, we are here to highlight how Federal infrastructure 
dollars, provided by Congress and distributed by the DOT, are 
benefiting communities and building cleaner, greener, safer, 
and more accessible transportation systems across the country.
    Last Congress, this committee answered the call of States, 
local and Tribal governments, transit agencies, railroads, 
airports, ports, labor, and other stakeholders to robustly 
invest in transportation infrastructure.
    Congress provided $660 billion in the BIL for roads, 
bridges, transit, rail, airports, buses, ferries, ports, 
pipelines, and other safety and infrastructure needs.
    The investment and number of new initiatives in the BIL far 
exceeds previous transportation bills. Congress handed DOT a 
tall order in implementing this legislation. I am pleased to 
say that the pace of funding distribution has been impressive.
    In the first 2 fiscal years of the BIL, the Department has 
distributed over $125 billion in highway funds--mostly directly 
to States, which States then paint with State money and we get 
no credit for the work--but the same with $39 billion in 
transit funds and nearly $10 billion in airport funds to States 
and localities.
    Funding has gone out under more than three dozen 
competitive grant programs, and more is on the way. As just one 
example, FRA plans to announce the availability of $14 billion 
under three rail grants by the end of this year.
    These dollars translate into projects on the ground and 
jobs for American workers.
    Through August 2023, BIL dollars administered by the DOT 
have supported over 50,000 highway projects alone, according to 
an analysis by the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association.
    There is at least one new project underway in every 
congressional district in the country. And thanks to the BIL, 
just as an example, in my district, WSDOT is investing nearly 
$12 million in Federal-aid highway funds to rehabilitate the SR 
529 Snohomish River Bridge in Everett.
    U.S. DOT has awarded $25 million in RAISE grants to Whatcom 
County to replace the 60-year-old Lummi Island Ferry. The city 
of Lynnwood will construct a new six-lane multimodal bridge 
over Interstate 5, which will reduce congestion and build a 
more accessible transportation system for everyone there.
    These projects in my State and across the country mean 
jobs. Jobs with good wages, benefits, and working conditions 
for transportation workers. The BIL means more jobs in the 
transportation construction, transit, trucking, aviation, rail, 
and maritime sectors.
    Congress did its job to give the transportation 
construction sector the long-term resources it needs. Without 
these investments, the economy would be in far worse shape 
today.
    Now, our job is to conduct fair oversight of implementation 
efforts by the DOT, State DOTs, project sponsors, and industry 
to ensure these projects are delivered quickly and effectively 
and that the law is implemented in line with our intent.
    Congress directed investments in the BIL for many things, 
including to address climate change and reduce carbon pollution 
and improve safety and equity outcomes in our transportation 
networks.
    Congress followed the example of States, cities, counties, 
and Tribes across the country who are working to modernize and 
transform the way people and goods move and to improve outcomes 
and experiences for the traveling public.
    The Federal policy changes are now in the hands of U.S. DOT 
to execute. I especially want to applaud the Department's 
efforts to date on this front and the steps taken to prioritize 
equity considerations in grants to ensure disadvantaged 
business enterprises reap the benefits of BIL funding as well, 
to address the spike in traffic deaths and to measure and 
reduce carbon pollution from transportation sources.
    We now have to build on the success of the BIL by enacting 
a strong FAA reauthorization. This House passed H.R. 3935, the 
Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act 
in July by a strong bipartisan 351 to 69 vote. It came out of 
this committee 63 to nothing.
    This bill is a bipartisan effort done in good faith to 
secure the future of the U.S. aviation system. It will help 
advance American leadership in aviation safety and aerospace 
innovation, strengthen and diversify our aviation workforce, 
improve consumer protections and accessibility, and make 
groundbreaking investments in sustainability and resiliency.
    I am sure, Mr. Secretary, the DOT is eager to see this bill 
enacted into law so you can begin implementing it as well. I 
urge the Senate to act as soon as possible so we can complete a 
final long-term reauthorization, and communities and the 
traveling public can reap that bill's benefits.
    But aviation is not the only mode in need of our attention. 
Rail incidents and accidents continue to occur around the 
country, endangering people and communities. In the 7 months 
since the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, there 
have been more than 500 train accidents, and yet, this 
committee has not yet held a rail safety hearing. I urge the 
committee to take this long overdue action on rail safety.
    We are soon, as well, expected to act on a pipeline safety 
authorization bill next week. According to the Pipeline Safety 
Trust, pipeline incidents and accidents in vulnerable areas 
have risen over the past 20 years, highlighting the need for 
Congress to enact additional pipeline safety measures.
    So, I hope today's hearing can be an acknowledgment and 
celebration of the infrastructure benefits each of our 
districts and constituents are reaping.
    The committee continues delivering bipartisan solutions for 
all Americans, thanks to the leadership of Chair Graves. This 
stands in contrast to the chaos we are seeing right now in FY 
2024 funding talks that are threatening to end in a self-
inflicted Government shutdown, which I hope we can avoid.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your steady hand in guiding 
the Department and the priorities Congress has asked you to 
implement. I look forward to today's discussion.
    With that, I yield back.
    [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.
    Welcome, Secretary Buttigieg, and thank you in advance for what may 
be a long day to give every Member of our committee an opportunity to 
ask questions.
    Given the pace with which the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) has been getting Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) money into 
the hands of communities, we appreciate your time and know that you 
would be implementing the BIL and working on critical safety and 
consumer priorities if you were not here today to answer our questions.
    Today, we are here to highlight how federal infrastructure dollars, 
provided by Congress and distributed by DOT, are benefiting communities 
and building cleaner, greener, safer and more accessible transportation 
systems across the country.
    Last Congress, this Committee answered the call of states, local 
and Tribal governments, transit agencies, railroads, airports, ports, 
labor and other stakeholders to robustly invest in transportation 
infrastructure.
    Congress provided $660 billion in the BIL for roads, bridges, 
transit, rail, airports, buses, ferries, ports, pipelines, and other 
safety and infrastructure needs.
    The investment and number of new initiatives in the BIL far exceeds 
previous transportation bills. Congress handed DOT a tall order in 
implementing this legislation.
    I am pleased to say that the pace of funding distribution has been 
impressive.
    In the first two fiscal years of the BIL, the Department 
distributed over $125 billion in highway funds--mostly directly to 
states, which states then paint with state money and we get no credit 
for the work--$39 billion in transit funds, and nearly $10 billion in 
airport funds to states and localities.
    Funding has gone out under more than three dozen competitive grant 
programs, and more is on the way. As just one example, FRA plans to 
announce the availability of $14 billion under three rail grants by the 
end of this year.
    These dollars translate into projects on the ground and jobs for 
American workers.
    Through August 2023, BIL dollars administered by the DOT have 
supported over 50,000 highway projects alone, according to analysis by 
the American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
    There is at least one new project underway in every Congressional 
district in the country.
    Thanks to the BIL, in my district, WSDOT is investing nearly $12 
million in federal-aid highway funds to rehabilitate the SR 529 
Snohomish River Bridge in Everett.
    USDOT has awarded $25 million in RAISE grants to Whatcom County to 
replace the 60-year-old Lummi Island Ferry.
    The City of Lynnwood will construct a new six-lane, multimodal 
bridge over Interstate 5, which will reduce congestion and build a more 
accessible transportation system for everyone there.
    These projects in Washington state and across the country mean 
jobs--jobs with good wages, benefits, and working conditions for 
transportation workers. BIL means more jobs in the transportation 
construction, transit, trucking, aviation, rail and maritime sectors.
    Congress did its job to give the transportation construction sector 
the long-term resources it needs. Without these investments, the 
economy would be in far worse shape today.
    Now, our job is to conduct fair oversight of implementation efforts 
by DOT, state DOTs, project sponsors, and industry to ensure that 
projects are delivered quickly and effectively and that the law is 
implemented in line with Congressional intent.
    Congress directed investments in the BIL for many things, including 
to address climate change and reduce carbon pollution and improve 
safety and equity outcomes in our transportation networks.
    Congress followed the example of states, cities, counties and 
Tribes across the country who are working to modernize and transform 
the way people and goods move and to improve outcomes and experiences 
for the traveling public.
    The federal policy changes are now in the hands of USDOT to 
execute.
    I applaud the Department's efforts to date on this front and the 
steps taken to prioritize equity considerations in grants, to ensure 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises reap the benefits of BIL funding, to 
address the spike in traffic deaths, and to measure and reduce carbon 
pollution from transportation sources.
    We must now build on the successes of BIL by enacting a strong FAA 
reauthorization. The House passed H.R. 3935, the Securing Growth and 
Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, in July by a strong 
bipartisan 351-69 vote.
    This bill is a bipartisan effort done in good faith to secure the 
future of the U.S. aviation system. It will help advance American 
leadership in aviation safety and aerospace innovation, strengthen and 
diversify our aviation workforce, improve consumer protections and 
accessibility, and make groundbreaking investments in sustainability 
and resiliency.
    I am sure, Mr. Secretary, DOT is eager to see this bill enacted 
into law so you can begin implementing it as well. I urge the Senate to 
act as soon as possible, so that we can complete a final long-term 
reauthorization and communities and the traveling public can begin to 
reap the bill's benefits.
    Aviation is not the only mode in need of our attention. Rail 
incidents and accidents continue to occur around the country, 
endangering people and communities. In the seven months since the 
Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, there have been more 
than 500 train accidents and yet this Committee has not held a rail 
safety hearing. I urge the Committee to take long overdue action on 
rail safety.
    The Committee is soon expected to act on a pipeline safety 
authorization bill. According to the Pipeline Safety Trust, pipeline 
incidents and accidents in vulnerable areas have risen over the past 20 
years, highlighting the need for Congress to enact additional pipeline 
safety measures.
    I hope that today's hearing can be an acknowledgment and 
celebration of the infrastructure benefits each of our districts and 
constituents are reaping.
    This Committee continues delivering bipartisan solutions for all 
Americans, thanks to the leadership of Chair Graves. This stands in 
strong contrast to the chaos in FY2024 funding talks that threaten to 
end in a self-inflicted government shutdown.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your steady hand in guiding the 
Department and the priorities Congress has asked you to implement. I 
look forward to today's discussion.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thanks, Rick.
    I would ask unanimous consent that the witness' full 
statement be included in the record, and without objection, 
that is so ordered.
    So, with that, Mr. Secretary, you are recognized. Again, 
thanks for being here.

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, 
               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves 
and Ranking Member Larsen, and let me congratulate you as well 
on taking these well-deserved leadership roles since the last 
time I was here before this committee.
    And also, before starting, I want to take a moment just to 
send our heartfelt condolences to a member of this committee, 
Representative Mary Peltola, who lost her husband after a plane 
crash in Alaska last week. I know a lot of us have been in 
touch with her and our prayers are with her and with Gene's 
family and friends.
    To everybody on the committee, I want to thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today and for our ongoing partnership. 
The first time I came before this committee, we were making the 
case for an infrastructure package to address decades of 
underinvestment; to deal with clear risks on our roads, rails, 
and in our skies; and to confront a pandemic that shook 
transportation in every way.
    The second year I testified here, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law was a reality, and we were fast at work 
standing up new programs and preparing to get much needed 
funding out the door.
    Today, I am proud to report that the Biden administration 
has over 37,000 infrastructure projects moving forward in every 
State and Territory. Through those projects, we are making 
Americans safer; we are creating jobs and addressing 
transportation inequities in big cities and on rural main 
streets; we are making our infrastructure more resilient 
against extreme weather while reducing the transportation 
emissions that are contributing to climate issues; and we're 
strengthening supply chains to keep goods moving and reduce 
prices.
    Let me highlight just a few recent examples. Last week, I 
was outside of Salem, South Dakota, where we are helping to 
repair 28 miles of I-90, which is a major freight corridor, and 
adding new truck parking, which we consistently hear from 
truckers is their top priority to improve the safety as well as 
the quality of that job.
    In July, I was at the Lehigh Valley Airport in Pennsylvania 
where we celebrated an expansion and new security checkpoint to 
provide a faster, easier experience for travelers. And that was 
my first chance to be at a ribbon cutting on a project with 
funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    And a few weeks ago, I was in northern Indiana where we are 
helping to relocate a freight rail interchange that is going to 
improve a rail crossing that is a problem for hundreds of kids 
getting to high school, while supporting goods movement for the 
many manufacturers in that area, and helping to improve the 
safe transport of hazardous material that sometimes passes 
through the community of Elkhart.
    Individually, every one of those projects is a big deal for 
its community. Collectively, they add up to a national 
undertaking that is giving American families, workers, and 
businesses the foundation to succeed well into this century.
    But I want to be clear about how much work remains on 
reducing roadway deaths, on making our rails and our skies 
safer, on strengthening public transit and helping it adapt to 
post-pandemic changes, and more.
    That is why even as we keep full speed ahead to deliver 
good infrastructure projects, we also seek your further 
partnership in two critical areas. One, ensuring that our 
transportation safety work can continue by preventing a 
Government shutdown. And two, delivering further improvements 
that are achievable only through legislation.
    To that end, I want to praise this committee for your 
leadership in advancing an FAA reauthorization bill that keeps 
the momentum for this important legislation.
    We are making good progress with the authorities we 
currently have. For example, we hit our goal for air traffic 
control hiring this year with a total of 2,600 ATCs now in 
training; we have helped airlines lower cancellation rates from 
their pandemic highs down to 1.6 percent this year, which is 
actually below 2019 rates; and we have a wave of new rules 
underway to protect passengers when flights are delayed or 
canceled and to get rid of junk fees for things like being 
seated next to your kids.
    But we are counting on an FAA reauthorization bill that 
ultimately passes to provide additional crucial authorities and 
resources needed to keep our airports and communities safe, and 
we ask Congress to get it to the President's desk.
    Meanwhile, America needs the same bipartisan leadership you 
have shown on aviation when it comes to rail safety. Freight 
rail safety legislation proposed by Democrats and Republicans 
together after the Norfolk Southern derailment in East 
Palestine has yet to advance.
    For the safety of thousands of communities that are hosts 
to rail lines, we need your help getting that legislation over 
the finish line.
    Again, the DOT is doing what we can. We have proposed 
requiring at least two crewmembers on trains and are right now 
working to finalize the rule establishing minimum crewmember 
requirements.
    We're conducting more than 6,000 focused inspections on 
routes over which high-hazard flammable trains travel. We are 
making the biggest investment in rail infrastructure in modern 
memory and more, but if America is going to see a day when 
1,000 derailments a year is no longer just accepted as the cost 
of doing business, we need new authorities to better hold 
railroads accountable, which this legislation could provide.
    I believe the 2020s will be known not just for those early 
years when the pandemic upended transportation, but for the 
years we're entering now where transportation gets safer, more 
affordable, and more efficient.
    With tens of thousands of projects underway, President 
Biden has begun literally laying the foundation for that, and 
with further partnership with Congress, we can maintain this 
new momentum and ensure that the transportation laws protecting 
Americans are modernized, just like the physical transportation 
infrastructure we all count on.
    Thank you again, and I am looking forward to the questions.
    [Secretary Buttigieg's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, 
                   U.S. Department of Transportation
    Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, congratulations on taking 
up these well-deserved leadership roles since I last was before this 
committee.
    And before I start, I want to take a moment to send our most 
heartfelt condolences to a beloved member of this Committee, 
Representative Peltola, who lost her husband after a plane crash in 
Alaska last week. Our prayers are with Mary and their family and 
friends.
    To all committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today and for your ongoing partnership.
    The first time I came before this committee, we were making the 
case for an infrastructure package to address decades of 
underinvestment, deal with clear risks on our roads, rails, and skies, 
and confront a pandemic that upended transportation in every way.
    The second year I testified here, the historic Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law was a reality, and we were fast at work standing up 
new programs and preparing to get much-needed funding out the door.
    Today, I'm proud to report that the Biden administration has over 
37,000 infrastructure projects moving forward in every state and 
territory. Through these projects: we're making people safer; we're 
creating jobs and addressing transportation inequities in big cities 
and on rural main streets; we're making our infrastructure more 
resilient against extreme weather while reducing the transportation 
emissions that are contributing to those issues; and we're 
strengthening supply chains to keep goods moving and reduce prices.
    I'd like to highlight just a few examples I've seen recently.
    Last week, I was outside of Salem, South Dakota, where we're 
helping repair 28 miles of I-90--a major freight corridor--and adding 
new truck parking, which we consistently hear from truckers is their 
top priority to increase the safety and dignity of the job.
    In July, I was at the Lehigh Valley Airport in Pennsylvania, where 
we celebrated an expansion and new security checkpoint to provide a 
faster, easier experience for travelers--my first chance to be at a 
ribbon cutting on a project with funds from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law.
    And last month, I was in Northern Indiana where we're helping 
relocate a freight rail interchange, which will improve a rail crossing 
that is a problem for hundreds of kids trying to get to high school, 
while supporting goods movement for the many manufacturers in the area, 
and helping improve the safe transport of hazardous material that 
sometimes moves through the community of Elkhart.
    Individually, each of these projects is a big deal for the 
community. Collectively, they add up to a national undertaking that is 
giving American families, workers, and businesses, the foundation to 
succeed well into this century.
    But I do want to be clear-eyed about how much work remains--on 
reducing roadway deaths, on making our rails and skies safer, on 
strengthening public transit and helping it adapt to post-pandemic 
changes, and more.
    That's why even as we keep full speed ahead to deliver good 
infrastructure projects, we also seek your further partnership in two 
critical areas: one, ensuring our transportation safety work can 
continue by preventing a government shutdown; and two, delivering 
further improvements that are achievable only through new legislation.
    To that end, I want to praise this committee for your leadership in 
advancing a FAA Reauthorization bill that keeps up the momentum for 
this important legislation.
    We are making good progress with the authorities we currently have; 
for example, we hit our goal for air traffic controller hiring this 
year, with a total of 2,600 ATCs now in training. We helped airlines 
lower cancellation rates from their pandemic spikes down to 1.6% this 
year, which is also below 2019 rates. And we have a wave of new rules 
underway to protect passengers when their flights are delayed or 
canceled, and to get rid of junk fees for things like being seated next 
to your kid.
    But we are counting on FAA reauthorization legislation that 
ultimately passes to provide additional, critical authorities and 
resources needed to keep our airports and communities safe, and we ask 
Congress to get it to the President's desk.
    Meanwhile, America needs the same bipartisan leadership you've 
shown on aviation when it comes to rail safety.
    Freight rail safety legislation, proposed by Democrats and 
Republicans together after the Norfolk Southern derailment in East 
Palestine, has yet to advance. For the safety of thousands of 
communities that are host to rail lines, we need your help getting that 
legislation over the finish line.
    Again, the Department of Transportation is doing what we can. We've 
proposed requiring at least two crewmembers on certain trains and are 
right now working to finalize the rule establishing minimum crewmember 
requirements. We're conducting more than 6,000 focused inspections on 
routes over which high-hazard flammable trains travel; we're making the 
biggest investment in rail infrastructure in modern memory; and more.
    But if America is going to reach a place where 1,000 derailments 
per year is no longer accepted as the cost of doing business, we need 
new authorities to hold railroads accountable--which this legislation 
would provide.
    I believe that the 2020s will be known not just for those early 
years when the pandemic upended transportation, but for the years we're 
entering now, when transportation gets safer, more affordable, and more 
efficient. With tens of thousands of projects underway, President Biden 
has begun laying the literal foundation for that--and with further 
partnership with Congress we can maintain this new momentum, and ensure 
that the transportation laws protecting Americans are modernized 
alongside physical transportation infrastructure.
    Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    We will start. I will call on Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I am curious 
about the funding tables that were provided by your staff to 
our committee. It is six pages of spreadsheets here. I don't 
know if you have seen those or not, but they present a very 
incomplete funding picture as they only capture advance funding 
from IIJA and some supplemental funding from FY 2022 and FY 
2023, but besides that, we continue to hear the administration 
touting how much money is being invested in infrastructure. 
These tables actually indicate something different.
    You have obligated less than 30 percent of the total 
funding for the Federal Transit Administration. In fact, you 
have only outlaid 9.7 percent of that funding. Less than 3 
percent of the money for the Federal Railroad Administration 
has been outlaid, only 35 percent of the FY 2022 money for 
Federal-aid highways has been obligated, and only 11 percent 
has been outlaid.
    So, we continue to hear about the need for more money for 
infrastructure investment, but it seems that you are not 
spending the money that you have already. What is going on 
here?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I don't have the charts that you 
are describing at my fingertips, but I would refer you to the 
lifespan of a project. So, between the time that a project is 
identified for funding, when the project's sponsor is ready to 
execute the grant agreement, when the spending takes place, and 
then when the obligation and/or reimbursement take place.
    That is something that doesn't always happen within 1 or 
even 2 calendar years. Now, for our part, we want to do 
everything we can to make sure that any part of that timeline 
that's under our control is swift, but of course, that also 
depends largely on the readiness of project sponsors.
    So, there is often a lag. One, two, three, sometimes more 
years between when funding is appropriated and authorized and 
when those dollars had been assigned to a project.
    But again----
    Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. Yes, but in the interim, the 
obligation of those funds, which we are also seeing a 
significant amount of funds that aren't obligated, let alone 
outlaid. So, I understand the time lag and I get that 
completely, based on the timeline for appropriations versus the 
money actually being there. But I guess my question is, if you 
can explain all this taxpayer money that is sitting in your 
agency's bank account instead of being used where it should be 
obligated, not necessarily outlaid, but at least obligated to 
maintain pace with the kind of projects that you talked about 
in your opening statement?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, and again, I would describe, in 
terms of the pipeline of funding that moves through and the lag 
that is associated with that.
    So, nobody is sitting around and neither are the dollars, 
but the gap between the fiscal year in which it is authorized 
or appropriated and the moment when that construction takes 
place, that is very real.
    And of course it depends on the project, right? We can get 
something out through formula dollars often more quickly than a 
complicated project that involves perhaps multiple modal 
administrations or multiple project sponsors working across 
State lines.
    But you have my commitment that anything that is under our 
Department's control, we are going to move as swiftly as 
possible. I would not infer that the fact that it takes some 
time to spend those dollars is an argument for doing less in 
the future to improve our physical infrastructure.
    Mr. Crawford. Well, I think you missed the point of my 
question. So, a lot of times we hear from, for example, 
municipalities or county governments or State governments that 
say we could do a lot more with our money if we got it in a 
timely fashion.
    For example, the obligation of the funds can start things 
moving. If the funds aren't obligated, and as I indicated in 
these percentages, we are well into IIJA, for example, and we 
still have a significant amount of money that hasn't even been 
obligated, let alone outlaid.
    So, I hope you will consider that because the feedback that 
we get from home all the time is: Where is the money? And it 
appears that you have quite a bit of it in your account, based 
on the spreadsheets that your staff provided for us.
    But let me move on to something else. The Federal Highway 
Administration announced a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
require States and MPOs to establish a new performance measure 
with declining targets for carbon dioxide and to measure and 
report greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation 
under the Federal-Aid Highway Program.
    This was done despite the Department having no authority to 
impose such a requirement. In fact, a greenhouse gas 
performance measure requirement was specifically omitted from 
IIJA. How can you claim that imposing a GHG performance measure 
is consistent with the law or the intent of Congress, given 
that it was considered and specifically excluded from IIJA?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Because under the law, as written, we 
have the authority to implement performance measures and just 
because Congress did not require it of us does not mean that 
we're not able to do it.
    Now, we believe this is consistent with other instances in 
which the Federal Highway Administration or other operating 
administrations have developed performance measures, whether on 
safety or other domains.
    And I want to emphasize that this is not a mandate. It 
doesn't set a target for States. We're simply requiring that 
there be some kind of measurement of the performance of 
something that relates to the impact of how the Federal 
taxpayer dollars we're sending----
    Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. I would argue the fact that 
the States perceive that as a mandate based on your 
implementation of that, and what other action are they supposed 
to take given the fact that you don't have the authority and, 
yet, you are continuing to leverage that and put that on the 
States?
    My time is expired, so, I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thanks again for coming in. I want to start 
off with a question we have asked you about in the past, as 
well as when you visited Washington State 1\1/2\ years or so 
ago, and that is with regards to the culvert program.
    DOT announced $4 million that ended up in my district as 
well as other districts, but $4 million in my district to 
advance 11 culvert projects at 11 sites in Whatcom County to 
address fish passage.
    So, this is great news, and not that we aren't 
appreciative, but I was hoping you could help us understand 
when we can expect to see the next Notice of Funding 
Opportunity for the next round of culvert money.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. We're excited about this 
program. I will admit, it was not on the list of things I 
thought I would be working on when I first accepted this job, 
but having learned the economic as well as societal importance 
of anadromous fish passage, especially but not only in the 
Pacific Northwest, I know how important this program is.
    In our first year, we awarded over $195 million in grants 
for 169 passage improvement projects, including those 46 
passage improvements in Washington State. What I'll say, 
without having a date certain for the next round to be put out, 
is that this is one of many programs. It was really novel in 
kind, created by the infrastructure law that our Department 
stood up.
    So, it's safe to say that that first year, setting that 
program up for the first time, is more labor intensive than it 
will be getting it out the next time. We are always going to 
refine and tweak for the next NOFO based on the input we got 
from project sponsors, but I think it's safe to say that we 
will be able to spend less time getting the next Notice of 
Funding Opportunity out than we did getting the first one.
    I remember promising you that the first one would be out by 
the time the salmon were running. I didn't say where the salmon 
would be running, but they're beginning to be running in 
northern Michigan, and I take that as a reminder to get to work 
on getting that next round ready.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. And different salmon 
run at different times, as well. So, somewhat related to that 
is that a lot of these projects are in rural areas and helping 
local counties, rural counties make some changes.
    And I wanted to ask you, generally, about the Department's 
work to maximize the reach of the BIL, especially in rural 
areas.
    Secretary Buttigieg. One of the most rewarding things in 
this job has been visiting rural areas that are receiving 
grants where the dollar amount might not be the same as you 
would get on some of the largest, most complex projects, but 
that mean everything to the community they're in.
    I mentioned earlier my visit to South Dakota. Another thing 
we did was visit an airport there where with about an $800,000 
grant, we were able to help them take a facility that had 
been--the general aviation terminal was a mobile home 
basically, a dressed up doublewide trailer, not trailer, but a 
doublewide, and turn it into a permanent building.
    And what that means is not just important for the pheasant 
hunting that goes on, but for medevac missions, crop dusting 
that makes that small airport incredibly important to the 
people in and around Chamberlain.
    And so, with those kinds of projects in mind, we are 
working to make sure that we are serving rural areas well. One 
thing I am proud of is that we substantially exceeded the set-
aside required by Congress on the percent of INFRA dollars 
going to rural areas, just to take one example.
    The hard part is that often a small county or community 
won't have the same resources to even apply for or manage 
Federal grants that larger communities will have. We want to 
make sure that we are sensitive to that and responsive to that 
and more user friendly.
    That is why our ROUTES Team, which is dedicated to 
supporting rural communities, is active and that is why I have 
directed our Department to go out of its way to make our 
processes simpler and to render technical assistance where 
possible to smaller and frequently rural communities that are 
just as deserving but may not have the muscle memory of working 
with these Federal processes and our Department.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. That is good to know, as a Member 
with rural areas. I know some Members have nothing but a 
district which would qualify as rural. It is important, and we 
will hold you to that as well.
    I am glad to read about Chamberlain. I haven't talked to 
Representative Johnson from South Dakota, but my great 
grandparents made their way through Chamberlain many, many 
moons ago, so, I am happy to see that.
    Related to rural areas as just generally underserved 
communities, there are other communities--Tribal communities 
for instance, urban areas--that are maybe underserved in the 
past for certain reasons.
    Do you have any highlights you can help us with that we 
should be looking out for?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We are mindful that so many 
communities that are most needful of Federal support and 
dollars are also low-resourced communities that may again not 
have the sort of muscle memory of getting access to those 
Federal dollars when they need them.
    So, we have both worked to make sure that our practice and 
our funding recognizes those needs. We have worked with 
congressionally required frameworks that allow us to better 
perceive that, and we have initiatives like the Thriving 
Communities Initiative, that is part of the infrastructure law, 
that helps us render the kind of technical assistance to 
cohorts of communities that are often disadvantaged to make 
sure that they can best access and benefit from these Federal 
dollars.
    We are also conscious of the business and work 
opportunities that come with this, which is why we are 
maintaining rigorous DBE standards and both formally and 
informally engaging labor unions and others who are in a 
position to help bring more people into those good-paying 
construction jobs, don't necessarily require a college degree, 
do require a lot of skill and are a terrific pathway into the 
middle class for communities who have historically been 
excluded.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. It is good for Members 
to be reminded that there are tools in the BIL to implement, 
and for us to hold you accountable to implementing, as well as 
to reach out to your team, see how we can use those.
    Thank you for that, and I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Babin.
    Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
    Despite never-before-seen levels of funds going to your 
Department, our transportation does not seem to be safer today 
than it did just a few years ago.
    And while pumping billions into green energy and subsidized 
alternatives to gas-powered cars, we have also seen more major 
transportation disasters under the current administration than 
really in any administration that I can recollect.
    Record-level car fatalities; trains derailing; chemical 
accidents; sky-high gas prices; ports with record-breaking 
logjam delays, which I represent several; union strikes; 
workforce issues; delays at airports; near-misses on runways; 
grounded planes; systemwide failures; the terrible, horrible 
2022 holiday flight cancellations that saw so many American 
families separated on Christmas and New Year's.
    The list seems to go on and on. I understand that your 
relationship with Congress over the last 2\1/2\ years has been 
pretty favorable for you. You have gotten seemingly everything 
you have asked for and then some.
    Hundreds of billions in extra funding for DOT, thanks to 
the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act, so, what do you have 
to show for it? What impact has that money had on the average 
American?
    And I would ask that, before you start talking about 
climate victories and social justice achievements at the cost 
of billions of taxpayer dollars, please ask yourself this: Does 
that green subsidy, that solar R&D project, or that new mandate 
to go after oil and gas help anyone if Americans can't rely on 
safe, affordable transportation?
    And I am hopeful that you're taking your job of helping 
Americans get from point A to point B safely very seriously, 
but from what I can see, your office is simply writing blank 
checks to fulfill Mr. Biden's climate initiatives while leaving 
the average Joe in the dust.
    A few questions I would like to ask for the record. In 
2021, we started hearing reports that the Federal Government, 
under Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas, was inexplicably 
allowing scores of illegal immigrants into the country who 
ultimately boarded commercial aircraft without passports or any 
other type of identification to fly across the country.
    I wanted to ask you how you feel letting thousands of 
individuals without passports whose motives and backgrounds are 
unknown to us board domestic flights, and are these flights 
still occurring?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I don't know all the details of 
the Department of Homeland Security side of that, but I would 
point out that as a general rule, when you get on a domestic 
flight, you don't have to show a passport. That is true for 
anybody.
    As to the blank checks, I would argue that expenditures 
like the $18.3 million that I approved for the Bayport Terminal 
is not a random Biden administration priority, but something 
that benefits both your district and the American people.
    We are investing in roads and bridges, ports and airports, 
rail, transit, and I am also puzzled by the implication or the 
assertion that the rate of railroad accidents or other safety 
issues is higher under our administration than in previous 
administrations.
    One, that is simply not supported by the record. You 
mentioned flight cancellations, right now they stand at 1.6 
percent. That is actually lower than they were in 2019, before 
the pandemic. I would be happy to provide further data to help 
clear up any of the inaccuracies----
    Dr. Babin [interrupting]. I see----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. In your question so that 
we can get to the most important facts about safety. Having 
said that, I don't believe that we should be satisfied with the 
current status quo on safety, which is why I would love to get 
you on the record in favor of that Railway Safety Act, 
Congressman.
    Dr. Babin. I would love to see those, Mr. Secretary, and 
the domestic flights allowing people on without passports who 
are foreign who have entered illegally doesn't seem to square 
with the security of our Nation.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Congressman, if you are of the opinion 
that every passenger boarding a domestic fight needs to produce 
a passport, I would be happy to refer that to the Department of 
Homeland Security, but that is not our jurisdiction at DOT.
    Dr. Babin. I understand.
    Members of this committee are very frustrated with the 
ongoing delays that applicants are experiencing by the Maritime 
Administration. I understand the need for a thorough evaluation 
process, but the current process has consistently failed to 
meet the 356-day statutory timeline for a record of decision.
    For example, of the 6 applications currently with MARAD and 
pending a record of decision, 2 of these applications are well 
past the 356-day statutory timeline: 1 nearing the 1,400-day 
mark and the other nearing an 800-day mark.
    Why are these pending applications experiencing such severe 
delays in the process and why is MARAD and DOT not doing more 
to help applicants through this process?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, Congressman, we are committed to 
helping project sponsors get their projects done, and one thing 
we are trying to make sure of is that the Federal process 
doesn't endanger the completion of the project.
    I know this is counterintuitive, but when you look at those 
longer timelines associated with some of those permitting 
processes, what is happening is that MARAD's interpretation of 
fidelity to the statute requiring 356 days can be met by 
stopping the clock if there is information that the project 
sponsor doesn't have ready. That way it gives them a chance to 
get that information in without there being a risk of the 
project getting killed just because they didn't meet the 356, 
if we had not interpreted that as business days or process 
days.
    If there are other steps we can take to make sure that 
working with those project sponsors we can have a smoother 
flow, we are always open to discussing that, because we want to 
make sure that whatever the nature of the project, while of 
course making sure that Federal law is met and that there is 
responsibility with taxpayer dollars, that there is no 
unnecessary delays and certainly that there is no unnecessary 
delays under our control.
    Dr. Babin. Well, we certainly hope so. I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mrs. Napolitano.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Secretary, as co-author and strong proponent of 
provisions of the BIL that provide much needed funding for 
railroad grade crossing projects, what is the status of 
railroad grade crossing safety programs and funding, and how is 
the Department ensuring railroad companies, State DOTs, and 
local governments are being effective partners to quickly 
implement railroad grade separation and grade crossing safety 
projects?
    Alameda Corridor-East is in my district, and it is of 
utmost importance.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we think that this railroad 
crossing elimination program is one of the most timely and 
needed things that was in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Everywhere I go, and I know we have spoken about this and 
you have shared how this is affecting your constituents, we 
talk to people who encounter safety hazards, inconveniences 
because of blocked crossings, and just to be clear, even that 
inconvenience is a safety hazard if there is an emergency 
vehicle, for example, waiting its turn.
    We were able to do, in that first round of railroad 
crossing elimination projects, that will benefit about 400 
crossings. Now, some of those are eliminated outright, others 
involve some other safety mitigation.
    But in every case, that crossing will be safer than we 
found it thanks to the funding that's in that law, and we are 
already getting ready to release the next round knowing that it 
will benefit communities like those that you serve.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Cities in my district have been 
most focused on safe routes to school and transit connection 
projects. The law provided funds for the projects in Duarte, 
Irwindale, Azusa, La Verne, El Monte, San Dimas, West Covina, 
and Covina.
    I do believe safe routes to school and the first- and last-
mile transit connection projects are so important to local 
communities, and what is the Department doing to support these 
projects in towns and cities?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I strongly agree, and going back 
to my days as a mayor, the Safe Routes to School funding was an 
important part of how we were able to improve the way that many 
kids were able to get to where they were going.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Safety.
    Secretary Buttigieg. And I mentioned briefly in my 
testimony, I was able to be in Elkhart, Indiana, where hundreds 
of students on foot need to cross what is currently a rail line 
that can be blocked by a train just to get to the high school 
there in Elkhart.
    One of the most rewarding grants that I was able to visit 
last year was where we are taking a road that students going to 
Etiwanda High School currently use doesn't even have a 
shoulder, let alone a sidewalk, competing with traffic at rush 
hour and making it safer for them to get there.
    We have several funding sources that can be used for this 
purpose. One I would mention, in particular, is the Safe 
Streets and Roads for All Program. That contains not only 
construction dollars but planning dollars because we know that 
some communities know that there is a problem, but they don't 
have a project fully baked and ready to apply for construction 
funding. We were able to fund hundreds of communities last year 
through those dollars provided by Congress and have more where 
that came from to help those projects get scoped in the first 
place, and then, of course, we hope to advance as many as 
possible towards completion.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Also, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law takes climate crisis seriously, providing 
$7.5 billion to address a large source of carbon pollution in 
the U.S.: our railroads, roadways. The National Electric 
Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program has potential to vastly 
expand availability of fast EV chargers and support adoption of 
clean vehicles.
    What progress are you seeing in the deployment of EV 
infrastructure, and what areas are you focusing on to get most 
of the funding?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, this is both an exciting and a 
challenging area for us, especially when it comes to EV 
charging infrastructure.
    I would liken this, if we were to use an analogy, to the 
period when the internal combustion was developing, to being at 
a state of play something like what we were in in 1915.
    Many of these technologies are relatively new, and we don't 
have the nationwide charging network yet that we know we are 
going to need, but that is exactly why we are working to build 
it.
    And what we found is that in addition to the tens of 
thousands of locations where there has already been a charger 
installed, often by a private operator making a profit, there 
are many more that need to be addressed for us to get to 
President Biden's goal of 500,000 chargers by the end of this 
decade.
    We have now been able to approve plans from every single 
State. They have all filed and been accepted, in terms of how 
they seek to use the formula dollars from NEVI, now they are 
getting to work actually putting those dollars to use, and I 
think soon we will see the first physical cases where those 
chargers are going up, funded through that particular source of 
funding.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Great. I hope California will be able to 
be in line for that because we have so much traffic, and it 
certainly would benefit, and I'd like to invite you to 
California to see some of the projects we have.
    Thank you, sir. I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Rouzer.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. As you know, it is 
no secret that China is engaged in a concerted surveillance 
strategy to infiltrate U.S. airspace and spy on our country. 
This includes the use of Chinese technology that targets 
critical infrastructure for surveillance such as drones.
    Additionally, under multiple administrations, the U.S. has 
identified this Chinese technology as a significant national 
security, cyber security, and human rights threat. As you 
probably know, or at least I hope you know, the FAA still uses 
drones made by Chinese companies allowing them to inspect the 
FAA's national infrastructure.
    And so, my question is very direct: Can you commit to 
reviewing this matter and ensuring that Federal taxpayer 
dollars are not used to fund the operation of these Chinese 
drones?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, you have my commitment that we 
will put American security first and ensure that there are no 
vulnerabilities that go unaddressed.
    Now, the challenge that any American industry or sector 
faces--aviation is not an exception--is what to do when there 
is no other way to get a piece of technology and how to make 
sure then, as we work toward what I like to call friendshoring, 
to source more of the equipment that we depend on domestically, 
if any element is made by a country of concern, that we have a 
handle on any and all potential vulnerabilities that could come 
with it.
    So, certainly we are continually reviewing this, and you 
have my commitment that we will do so anytime there is a 
concern about security.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, it seems pretty simple to me. Other 
agencies have banned it, and the Department of Transportation 
ought to ban it, too. I think that would be the vast majority 
opinion of Americans out there.
    I want to move on to another subject real quick. We hear 
all this talk about equity, and I am not exactly sure I fully 
understand what equity means. Do you have guidance that has 
been issued to your various agencies on equity, what that 
means?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. A good place to look would be 
the Notices of Funding Opportunity that we publish related to 
our discretionary grant programs. They lay out the kinds of 
things that we want project sponsors to consider when they are 
proposing a road or anything else, especially when it is an 
extremely competitive program.
    Part of how you can get our attention, I would say, is to 
demonstrate that that program is going to meet a need. I do see 
a lot of confusion around the meaning of equity. To me it means 
fairness.
    We see a lot of communities, a lot of people, a lot of 
neighborhoods, including but not limited to communities of 
color, rural communities, and Tribal communities that have been 
excluded from opportunity in the past.
    And if Federal dollars went into that exclusion, our view 
is that Federal dollars ought to go into something more fair 
this time around. That is my interpretation of equity.
    And we are going to continue being mindful of that because 
we have a once in a generation opportunity to do something 
different than what has happened in the past where Federal 
dollars sometimes contributed to segregation.
    I don't want us to act as though we have no responsibility 
to do better this time in the 2020s.
    Mr. Rouzer. That all sounds pretty subjective to me. The 
term ``equity'' is pretty much a subjective term, if you ask 
me, which is why I was wondering if it was specifically 
defined. Disadvantaged communities, that seems to be somewhat 
of a subjective area as well.
    So, I guess the fundamental question, and we all want to 
help those that need help, but we have scarce dollars, and the 
one concern I have is with all this focus on equity, how are we 
ensuring that American's taxpayer dollars are going to the most 
important projects that support everyone, that support all of 
society, including, obviously, disadvantaged communities, no 
matter how that may be defined?
    I think that is a real public policy question that needs to 
have more of a definitive answer.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think any time our values meet our 
criteria, we have to be as transparent and objective as we can, 
without pretending that everything can be reduced to a 
mathematical formula.
    And so, we have sought to include as many objective 
criteria as we can make clear, and sometimes, of course, those 
are provided by Congress in the frameworks like those that call 
for us to identify what are defined as areas of persistent 
poverty, just to take one example.
    But I think also, as we are applying American values to our 
overall work, there is an element that can't simply be computed 
in a formula, and I think that is why we have human beings 
rather than computers making some of these decisions.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, my time's expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Pete, welcome to the committee. Thank you for 
being here. Thank you for all the work that you all have done 
to implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, little more 
bipartisan than the other Chamber than this one, but still 
bipartisan, and it is delivering billions in much needed 
funding to all of our districts.
    We had, in Memphis and Shelby County, we had two RAISE 
grants, $25 million for MATA, our public transit, which was 
important for its Crosstown Corridor Safety and Multimodal 
Enhancement Program and another $13 million for Eliminating 
Barriers on North Watkins. Those will be helpful.
    These projects include many Complete Streets elements to 
ensure safety and accessibility for all road users. This will 
transform the community and make it much safer to get around.
    That is one of the areas I put a lot of emphasis on in 
getting the bill passed was Complete Streets. Memphis has 
recently been named the third deadliest city for pedestrians; 
ranked first as the city with the worst drivers, based on 
traffic fatalities; and the least bike friendly in the Nation.
    The city was recently awarded a Safe Streets and Roads for 
All award of $640,000 to assist in the development of 
comprehensive action plans to significantly reduce those 
fatalities, but the statistics I mentioned are staggering, they 
are all across the country, and much needs to be done to reduce 
those deaths.
    What can the Department do to increase the efficacy of the 
Safe Streets and Roads for All Programs, and how is it helping 
advance the Nation's goal of zero roadway deaths?
    Secretary Buttigieg. First of all, Congressman, let me 
applaud and identify with your stated goal of zero roadway 
deaths. I think that's the only acceptable number.
    Right now we are at more like 40,000. The first step in 
reversing the rise of roadway deaths is to see it stop. We 
think it has stopped, but we are a long way from having cause 
to celebrate.
    One of the pillars of the National Roadway Safety Strategy 
that we put out, alongside things like safer vehicles and safer 
people, safer speeds, better post-crash care, is safer streets, 
and that is why we have embraced a Complete Street strategy.
    We launched a Complete Streets initiative in March of 2022. 
We have delivered a report to Congress called ``Moving to a 
Complete Streets Design Model'' to try to encourage designs 
where across the streetscape and sidewalk, cyclists and 
pedestrians, and vehicle traffic can transit and everything 
else can coexist peacefully.
    But we know that there needs to be not just moral support 
but funding. That is where the $5 billion in that Safe Streets 
and Roads for All Program is so important, though I should 
emphasize that is not the only source of Complete Streets' 
funding.
    You mentioned some of the benefit coming to your district 
from the RAISE Program, and as we look at the RAISE Program, 
about $1.1 billion of the awards we announced this year are for 
projects that are going to improve safety.
    You mentioned improving efficacy. And so, the other thing I 
would point to is that in that Safe Streets for All work we are 
doing, we are going to gather a level of data that is just 
never been accessible to us before.
    So many places that are getting the treatment, so to speak, 
of this kind of funding and these kinds of improvements, and I 
think that will help us refine our understanding of what works 
best and what works most effectively and target the dollars to 
where we know it can save the most lives.
    Mr. Cohen. I would--and I know you know this, but the facts 
are, in minority communities, it is more likely that they are 
not going to be sidewalks. It is more likely that they are 
going to not have median strips that help, crosswalks for 
people to get across and pedestrian passing, and that is one of 
the reasons we have so many high deaths of pedestrians and even 
bicyclists, and that just needs to be rectified and go back in 
those communities and give them the opportunities to have 
foliage and the different things that make for safer streets.
    We have to incentivize our State governments, too, because 
they put out a lot of these grants, and can you do things to 
incentivize the State governments, kick them in the rear or 
something?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I don't think we have 
congressional authorization to kick anyone in the rear, but we 
do work with State DOTs knowing that we all share in principle 
a commitment to safety, but believing that there are specific 
interventions that would make the biggest difference. We, of 
course, have a great deal of regard and respect for the 
division of labor and the separation of responsibilities that's 
there. What we are trying to do is draw attention to the 
eligibility of formula funds that the States are going to 
decide what to do with, but they may or may not be cognizant of 
just how many ways they could use that to the benefit of 
safety.
    I will give you another example that I touched on briefly 
in my remarks: truck parking. This is something that I am not 
sure all States are aware they can apply Federal-aid highway 
formula dollars to help solve----
    Mr. Cohen [interrupting]. Let me--I am about to lose my 
time. I appreciate that. Rail, passenger rail is important. I 
would like to see Memphis to Nashville, or the State 
recommended something, Nashville to Atlanta, Chattanooga to 
Atlanta, if you could get Memphis to Nashville in there and get 
all that together.
    And I just want to remind you, your mantra should be: 
Memphis is the center of the country, we have got the bridge 
that goes across the Mississippi River, we have got commercial 
aviation, we have got FedEx, what's good for Memphis is good 
for America.
    I yield back my time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Understood, sir.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Bost.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Objection.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I will 
actually, once my statement is done and my question is asked, I 
will let you finish an earlier thought that you were having 
there.
    I saw that you took a trip to highlight the infrastructure 
projects related to truck parking. One project you visited was 
10n additional spots, which is helpful, although the money came 
from our infrastructure funds. In addition, your Department 
announced 86 new grants last week and of those 86 grants, only 
4 even mention truck parking, and they have to do with IT 
systems at the truckstops.
    Now, my question is, based on the information that I have 
just given, you have created zero additional truck parking 
locations even with the record amount of money that was given 
to you in the infrastructure bill that we passed. You haven't 
done anything substantial to expand new truck parking 
locations, so, the problem still exists.
    What do you plan to do about fixing the problem, instead of 
just continuing to talk about it?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, we are funding projects 
that are both increasing the physical availability of truck 
parking by adding truck parking spaces and helping to optimize 
the parking that's there.
    So, when you hear about an IT-oriented project, what we are 
trying to do is correct the fact that in addition to there just 
plain not being enough spaces out there--which is certainly a 
problem that won't be solved by 10 spots here or 12 spots 
there--that we are also giving truckdrivers better access to 
insights about where the spaces are going to be. Because what 
we hear a lot, when I am talking to drivers, is they will be 
over the road, they will have a look at their electronic 
logging device, they know they are coming into that last hour, 
and now they are faced with the choice of either giving up 
income and not going as far as they feel they ought to or even 
as far as their employer expects them to, because they know 
there might be a space, or pressing forward, taking a bit of a 
gamble on whether there is going to be a space nearer to where 
they will be to when they time out.
    And so, if they have more reliable information--and a 
number of States, Florida's DOT is one that is working on this, 
and I think Tennessee has done some work on this, too--if they 
can provide better information--it could be a relatively low-
tech solution like a webcam, could be something a little more 
sophisticated giving them a live tracking update--they can get 
better certainty there.
    It's about recognizing that we are not going to address the 
physical side overnight, even though we are working hard to do 
that. We are trying to balance that with optimizing what is 
there and adding to what is there.
    Mr. Bost. I understand that. I have been in the trucking 
business all my life, and I can tell you that the problem 
really is not enough spaces available. I am going to switch 
gears if I can.
    Mr. Secretary, you were made aware in November of 2021 by 
MARAD that issued a decision that they would allow foreign 
companies to enter into our long-term charter agreement with 
domestic vessels for the purpose of operating commercial inland 
river cruises.
    MARAD reaffirmed the decision in March of 2022, under the 
premise that the domestic companies would continue to own and 
operate the vessels under the charter. That vessel is operating 
on the Mississippi River today.
    Unfortunately, in reaching this decision, MARAD 
inappropriately chose to apply existing time charter rules for 
fishing vessels operating in foreign waters to the inland 
passage service fleet.
    This misguided decision ignores the foreign company 
actually controls the vessel, from selling tickets through the 
website to seeing the ports of call, all while the profits are 
sent overseas.
    In addition, the hospitality cruise would be supplied by 
the foreign companies, which I believe significantly causes a 
safety issue. This action raises some significant concerns with 
the Jones Act community and has a real possibility of extending 
well beyond passenger cruises to all inland operations that 
utilize long-term charters.
    What can you tell us about this decision and whether your 
office is going to take a closer look? For an administration 
that supports the Jones Act, this was a highly troubling 
decision.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you noted, we support the 
Jones Act and MARAD always works to the best of their ability 
and judgment to apply the law as written. I welcome your 
invitation to pay closer attention to this specific matter, 
especially if there's a concern in your view that it is either 
not playing out as expected or that there is a discrepancy, in 
terms of viewpoints on how that conforms to the legislative 
guidance that MARAD has and would welcome the chance to follow 
up with your office further on that.
    Mr. Bost. And I wish that you would do that because the 
reality of it is is that the Jones Act is in place for a 
reason, that's to keep foreign enemies from working inland into 
our United States, and the Mississippi River would allow that, 
and with that, my time is expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you.
    Let's see, Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, you are doing one hell of a job.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. I recall our early hearings in this 
committee as we developed the transportation infrastructure 
bill, you were right there. You provided us with key 
information that we needed, and now you are into the 
implementation stage.
    Thank you. Thank you for the two grants that we have 
received in my district for electric buses to replace old 
diesel buses that are breaking down, and by the way, those 
buses are going to be made in America.
    So, this is just one piece of a very important project. You 
are in a position to provide this Nation with a significant and 
extraordinarily improved infrastructure. You've got a big 
challenge out ahead.
    You are hearing from my colleagues over there on the right 
side basically whining about this or that and not one of them 
voted for the bill, so, they want the dough without the vote, 
which is not uncommon around here, but the reality is, we are 
making progress.
    All of us have things that we would like to see done 
faster, better, and I have my list, too. I could probably go 
through them here, and I probably should, but I am going to 
simply put it this way: You're doing one great piece of work.
    There is more to be done. We are going to pressure you on 
those things, the TIFIA for airports, yes. We don't like the 
way you have written the rules. Talk to your general counsel 
and tell them: Wait, listen to what we have actually put into 
the law, not what they think it ought to have been.
    So, yes, if you'll pay attention to that one. Thank you. I 
know you are going to have a challenge out ahead providing the 
rest of the money that is out there. I was looking at that 
chart that was mentioned earlier. Obligations, money actually 
flowing, we need to understand indepth how that works.
    I want to give you a chance to go back over that again if 
you would. Please do so now.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. So, one thing that we are 
working to do is make sure that every stage between the moment 
we identify that a project has successfully been chosen for 
funding and the moment we get to cut the ribbon, even if it is 
a future Secretary who gets to do the honors, that we can----
    Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. And there will be a 
Republican there also----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. They are more than 
welcome.
    Mr. Garamendi. That is important.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That we compress anything that can be 
responsibly compressed without sacrificing fidelity to the 
checks and balances that are very important about the use of 
Federal taxpayer dollars that are in there.
    To take one example, historically, the amount of time 
simply between when a grant award announcement is made and when 
a grant agreement is signed can be a year or longer. Now, that 
is not because people at U.S. DOT are just sitting around. 
Often that is a result of the back and forth making sure that 
all Federal requirements are met.
    But I do think we have a responsibility to help project 
sponsors do that more quickly. That is just one of the steps 
that is needed in order for that obligation to happen.
    I would also argue that even when the obligation has taken 
place, which may be traditionally is when the U.S. DOT would 
have imagined that its responsibility is complete, that we stay 
in touch with the project sponsor to make sure that the 
delivery is going well and to identify any nationwide issues 
around construction that could affect project timelines.
    And again, we are happy to be as transparent as we can 
about the data and the dollars and the numbers as they move.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    There is a little matter out there about Buy America, a 
1983 waiver that was granted by the then Transportation 
Department, that is still in place. That waiver deals with 
manufactured products that would be used in the Federal-Aid 
Highway Program. It's extremely important that that waiver be 
eliminated.
    I know that you are working on it. I bring it to your 
attention. I bring it to the attention of my colleagues here, 
but the Buy America provisions in the current law are being 
pushed aside because of that 1983 waiver. To say that it's out 
of date is insufficient description of that waiver.
    So, if you would pay attention to that? If you want to make 
a comment on that, I would welcome it, but mostly I would like 
you to get that waiver killed.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I recognize your 
attention to this and would add that my boss is, of course, 
very focused on making sure that products and projects that are 
funded with taxpayer dollars are built with American labor and 
materials.
    Right now, the Federal Highway Administration is in the 
process of reviewing all of its existing general applicability 
Buy America waivers that are not product specific and will 
publish in the Federal Register a determination on what to do 
next taking into account comments received.
    As you know, the Federal Highway Administration published 
its first review via a request for comment in March and 
reviewed all the comments that came through that. The next step 
will be to move forward on that rulemaking, and we will keep 
you posted on that.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, your boss and our President's goal of 
making it in America and buy America is going to be thwarted, 
stopped, and otherwise harmed by a 1983 waiver. Kill it. Get it 
done. Thank you, I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Understood.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Secretary. I 
represent northeastern Minnesota, Minnesota's Eighth 
Congressional District. A couple questions: Do you know the 
average temperature in a Minnesota winter?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I know it's pretty cold, but I 
wouldn't know the number.
    Mr. Stauber. It's 12 degrees, although some of my 
constituents saw temperatures as cold as 42 below last year. 
Mr. Secretary, how many States have an average winter 
temperature of below freezing? It's half the country. Does cold 
weather affect an EV's battery life? Yes or no?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, it does.
    Mr. Stauber. How much can an EV battery life be reduced by 
cold weather?
    Secretary Buttigieg. It depends on the chemistry of the 
battery and the model that you're in, but it's a substantial 
percentage of the----
    Mr. Stauber [interposing]. Yes.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. EV battery life.
    Mr. Stauber. It's 50 percent or more. And how long does it 
take for frostbite to kick in if an individual is out in the 
cold? Let's say their EV has run out of battery on northbound 
35 between Minneapolis and Duluth?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I once got stuck on northbound 35----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. It's about 30 minutes. It's 
about 30 minutes before frostbite. Mr. Secretary, do you know 
the average household income in the district that I represent? 
You probably don't, so, I'll tell you. It's $69,000. And do you 
know what the average price of an EV vehicle is?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. I pulled the latest numbers. The 
models are starting around $30,000 for sedans. They're getting 
into the 40s for----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. According to Kelley Blue Book, 
the average price for electric cars was over $53,000 last July.
    Secretary Buttigieg. But surely you're aware they start 
closer to $30,000, right?
    Mr. Stauber. My constituents would have to work a full year 
to pay for this unreliable car and would barely have enough 
left over to care for their family. What is the average median 
income of a single individual EV buyer? It's $150,000.
    Secretary Buttigieg. As of when?
    Mr. Stauber. It's $150,000.
    Secretary Buttigieg. As of when? I'm just asking because 
that number is going down each passing year.
    Mr. Stauber. This month.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Stauber. This month, and how much of a taxpayer-funded 
subsidy is given to those high-income earners to purchase their 
EV?
    Secretary Buttigieg. As you may recall, the Inflation 
Reduction Act----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. You should know this.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Was set in such a way 
that there was an income cap on how you could benefit from it, 
so that the wealthiest people----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. $7,500.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing] Are not able to take 
advantage of that, but we do wish we had your support----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. Mr. Secretary, don't you----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. In lowering the cost of 
EVs.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Secretary, would you agree it's $7,500?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Say again?
    Mr. Stauber. Would you agree it's $7,500?
    Secretary Buttigieg. $7,500 is the maximum credit that is 
eligible, and we think that making EVs cheaper----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. For the--for the elites to----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. For working families to--
--
    Mr. Stauber [continuing]. Buy their luxury vehicle. It's--
--
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. The tune of $7,500 is a 
good break.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Secretary, excuse me. Do you think that 
it's fair for your administration to force constituents to 
purchase these electric vehicles when they're not working in 
especially northern Minnesota?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the premise of the question is 
false because we're not forcing anybody to purchase any 
technology. Can you refer to any particular policy that forces 
anybody to----
    Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. By 2035----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Purchase a new vehicle?
    Mr. Stauber [continuing]. By 2035, you want two-thirds of 
Americans to be using electric vehicles. They don't work in 
northern Minnesota in the cold weather today, and I want to 
just share something with you.
    Mr. Garamendi, and I agree with him, buy American. Last 
July, you sat in this same spot and answered our questions, and 
I told you about a concern that I have with child slave labor 
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I told you that we 
could mine these critical minerals needed for EVs in the 
district that I represent under the best labor and 
environmental standards in the world.
    But you and the administration went ahead with an MOU at 
the DRC in January of this year, well documented child slave 
labor in the DRC, hardly any environmental standards, and your 
administration chose to enter MOUs with the Congo where 15 of 
the 19 mines are owned by the Communist country of China where 
they use slave laborers.
    It's unbelievable that you chose other workers over the 
American worker, and it's unbelievable that you and your 
administration won't allow mining here in Minnesota and the 
United States.
    Your Secretary of Energy, Secretary Granholm, came to the 
Western Caucus, and I happened to ask her, I said: Do you know 
the only nickel mine in the United States today? She couldn't 
answer that. Do you know where it is?
    Secretary Buttigieg. No, I don't.
    Mr. Stauber. It's in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the 
Eagle Mine. It's the gold standard, and she's our Energy 
Secretary. And do we need nickel, cobalt, and copper for these 
electric vehicles as we transition? The answer is yes. We need 
to mine here in America with American miners, American labor.
    We can do it. The biggest copper and nickel find in the 
world, and your administration just banned it. Union labor, Mr. 
Secretary, that we want, and your administration took the union 
labor off mining, and not only in northeastern Minnesota, but 
across this country, because today this administration, they 
cannot give one example of allowing a mine to be opened in this 
country, and I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Secretary Buttigieg, is 
there anything that you would like to say in response to any of 
the questions and comments that have been made today that 
you've not had the opportunity to respond to?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. Had there been more 
opportunity to respond to Representative Stauber, I would have 
mentioned the work that we are doing to onshore, reshore, and 
friendshore the supply chain for electric vehicle batteries.
    We have been doing that with funds that we wish that we had 
had more votes from the other side of the aisle on, but got 
done through the Inflation Reduction Act, and are going to help 
make sure more of this material is produced and refined here on 
American soil by American workers.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, thank you. I also want to 
thank you for appearing before the committee today, and also 
for your hard work in making sure that $6.7 billion in 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding has been announced that 
is headed to Georgia with over 309 specific projects identified 
for funding, $1.3 billion having already been spent to connect 
people in my State to high-speed internet, and as of today, 
more than 656,000 Georgia households are already saving their 
monthly internet bill.
    I want to thank you for that, and also I might ask you in 
response to the question of the previous gentleman on the other 
side. He asked you about EV vehicles and the average price 
being about $50,000, as he said. You said $30,000, he said 
$50,000, but are you aware of the cost of an F-150 Ford truck 
these days?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I know that it's gone up. They entered 
the market--well, the electric F-150 model entered the market 
around $40,000 at----
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia [interrupting]. Well, I'm talking 
about the big gas-guzzling model.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Oh, I haven't checked the gas version 
lately.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It's about $50,000, I understand.
    Secretary Buttigieg. How about that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mm-hmm. But at any rate, I'd like 
to ask you a question. When will the DOT bump up the personal 
net worth eligibility criteria so that it's adjusted for 
inflation while also pegging the personal net worth to 
inflation thereafter? When will you all do that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for the question, 
Representative. We know that that personal net worth cap puts 
many business owners of DBEs in the position of being, as one 
business owner said to me, too big to be small for Federal 
purposes, but too small to be big and grow the way that you're 
supposed to.
    So, we have issued an NPRM to modernize and improve the 
program, including updating the personal net worth and program 
size thresholds for inflation, and a number of other 
flexibilities. I can tell you that we are close to finalizing 
that rule, having reviewed the comments that have come in, and 
we recognize the importance of that step.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right, great. When will the DOT 
consider excluding retirement savings from its personal net 
worth limits?
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is also under active 
consideration and part of what will be addressed in the 
rulemaking.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK, thank you. Considering the 
recent report by the New York Times highlighting a significant 
increase in dangerous close calls between aircraft, what 
specific measures is the Department of Transportation 
implementing to improve warning systems at airports across the 
U.S. so as to mitigate these alarming incidents?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. This 
is something that has a great deal of attention and focus both 
at the FAA and in the front office at the Department of 
Transportation, and we recognize that a number of specific 
steps can help.
    Some of them are steps to build awareness and readiness 
among everybody who has a piece of the puzzle when it comes to 
aviation safety via controllers, pilots, or ground crews, which 
is why there's been a focus on things like situational 
awareness, communications and readbacks, and sterile cockpits.
    But some of this is also a matter of having the right kind 
of infrastructure, and we're making sure that we're engaging 
with airports on that through, among other mechanisms, runway 
safety, action team meetings that take place at airports, and 
the work that the FAA does generally to make sure the latest 
technologies are available.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK, great.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I must add--sorry.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interposing]. Go ahead.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia [continuing]. This quick question 
about the hiring of the 1,500 air traffic controllers to meet 
the 2023 goal that is needed to rebuild the training pipeline. 
Can you tell us how that is moving forward?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I'm pleased to say that we hit 
our target of 1,500 this year to be hired, and we have about 
2,600 air traffic controllers in the pipeline. But I would also 
be remiss if I didn't mention that a Government shutdown would 
stop us in our tracks when it comes to hiring and growing the 
ATC workforce at exactly the wrong moment. While those who are 
qualified controllers in the tower would be permitted to 
continue working, it would stop training at just the moment 
when we're finally trending positive again in terms of the 
number of people ready to take those seats.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. It looks like we're barreling 
towards a Government shutdown, unfortunately, and I hope that 
we can avoid it. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Nehls.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Mr. 
Secretary. You have $66 billion--66 with a B, for rail in IIJA. 
That's a lot of money at your Department's discretion.
    The California high-speed rail project started 15 years 
ago. Big, big promises on that project. It was supposed to be 
the next best thing in transportation in America. And for the 
record, I just want to let you know and everybody to know that 
I support high-speed rail in America.
    I just don't support this project, and here's why. I have a 
document here. It's the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review 
Group letter from March 23rd, 2023, and I'd like to submit it 
for the record.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
  Letter of March 23, 2023, to Hon. Toni G. Atkins, California Senate 
  President Pro Tem et al., from Louis S. Thompson, Chair, California 
  High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                             Troy E. Nehls
                                                    March 23, 2023.
The Honorable Toni G. Atkins,
Senate President Pro Tem,
State Capitol Building, Room 205, Sacramento, CA 95814.
The Honorable Anthony Rendon,
Speaker of the Assembly,
State Capitol Building, Room 219, Sacramento, CA 95814.
The Honorable Brian Jones,
Senate Republican Leader,
1021 O St., Suite 7640, Sacramento, CA 95814.
The Honorable James Gallagher,
Assembly Republican Leader,
State Capitol Building, Room 4740, Sacramento, CA 95814.
    Dear Honorable Members:
    The Peer Review Group created by Proposition 1A is required to 
report to the Legislature on selected reports and documents produced by 
the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In this letter we provide our 
comments on the 2023 Project Update Report (2023 PUR) issued by the 
Authority on March 1, 2023.
    Since its inception in 2008, the Group has issued 18 letters and 
members have testified before Legislative and Congressional committees 
15 times. In reviewing past letters and testimony, a consistent theme 
emerges: 1) project costs, schedules, and ridership estimates are 
uncertain and subject to significant risk of deteriorating, a typical 
experience for mega-projects; 2) the project is underfunded, and its 
financing is unstable, raising costs and making effective management 
difficult if not impossible; 3) more legislative oversight is needed. 
This letter reinforces the message, but with a sense of urgency over 
the ever-higher stakes.
    In our discussions, the Authority has argued that the 2023 PUR is 
the most complete--and honest--picture to date of the project and the 
challenges and choices that the State now faces. We agree and we 
compliment the Authority's efforts. We also acknowledge the experience 
the Authority has gained, some of it the hard way, in dealing with the 
immensely complex issues of an ill-defined, technically difficult 
megaproject impacting many common and often conflicting public and 
private interests. We are concerned by the picture that emerges.
                       Assessment of the 2023 PUR
    Project costs. Project costs have risen year after year, and they 
continue to rise with no clear end in sight. The current contract 
values for Construction Package One (CP1), CP2/3, CP4 and the State 
Road 99 relocation are 97 percent higher than the original award 
values, up from an 86 percent increase a year ago. The Phase I system 
cost at the 50 percent probability (P50) level grew from $68 billion in 
the 2012 Business Plan to $92 billion in the 2022 Business Plan and to 
$106 billion in the 2023 PUR. This is a 56 percent increase from the 
2012 to 2023 (in YOE $), and a 15 percent increase from 2022 to 2023. 
Comparison with other megaprojects does show that the Authority's 
experience is not out of line. It also shows that all megaprojects can 
be expected to have large delays and overruns; there is no reason to 
conclude that the Authority's problems on the project are over.
    Schedules. Schedules continue to stretch out. CP1, awarded in 
August of 2013, was to be completed in March of 2018, but the current 
completion is December of 2026. CP2/3, awarded in February of 2013, was 
to be completed in December of 2018, but has a current completion of 
March of 2026. CP4 was awarded in February of 2016 with original 
completion scheduled for June of 2019, and the current completion date 
is July of 2023. The SR-99 relocation contract was awarded in February 
of 2013, the original completion was December of 2018, and it was 
completed in May of 2019. Completion of the Merced to Bakersfield 
section is now scheduled for some time between 2030 and 2033. There is 
no longer a projected completion date for the full Phase I system 
because there is no funding on which to base a credible schedule.
    Ridership. Demand forecasts have fallen. The forecast ridership in 
the 2009 Business Plan was 41 million. In the 2012 Business Plan it was 
37 million, in the 2022 Business Plan it was 38.6 million, and in the 
2023 PUR it is now foreseen as 31.3 million. These changes have come 
about partly because of a change in the model used to forecast 
ridership and partly because of changes in the economic and demographic 
factors that generate ridership.
    Confidence in forecasts. While the Authority argues that the cost 
forecasts for the 119-mile Madera to Poplar Avenue section meet the 65 
percent (P65) confidence level, this may not be the case for the Merced 
and Bakersfield add-ons because there has been no bidding for the civil 
work in these sections, nor is there any bidding experience for 
trackwork, electrification or rolling stock. The work in the Central 
Valley was originally supposed to be the ``easy'' part, but contracts 
have overrun by 97 percent so far. Of the total (P65) estimated cost of 
the Phase I project of $127.9 billion, approximately $115.6 billion 
(Tunnelling, Track and Systems, Stations, and essentially all of the 
work outside the Central Valley), is only at the 15 to 30 percent (or 
less) design stage and there has been no bidding experience. The unbid 
part of the project, especially tunneling and electrification, is 
likely to be the hardest and most technically challenging part of the 
project, but the risk and cost analysis may not fully reflect the more 
difficult engineering and construction issues involved.
    Inflation. The impact of inflation has been and will continue to be 
significant. The values used: 2023, 5.31%; 2024, 3.61%; 2025, 3.24%; 
2026, 3.14%; 2027-2030, 2.00%, are based on the best available official 
sources, but necessarily require forecasts of events that are hard to 
predict. In particular, the estimates for the Southern California 
segments of the project have not been updated for inflation and cost 
experience. These segments cover approximately 41 percent of the total 
cost of Phase I and updating them will add billions of dollars to the 
expected cost.
    Meeting local requests. Completion of environmental approvals and 
agreements with local authorities has typically added desirable but 
unanticipated scope and costs, such as the elevated stations in Merced 
($.96 billion) and Bakersfield ($1.195 billion). Existing litigation 
and the need for local buy-in may well bring more such increases.
    The MOU. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of November, 2020, 
among CalSTA, the Authority and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 
is a necessary step in the right direction but it remains vague as to 
funding responsibilities and does not fix responsibility in a situation 
in which incremental revenues from operation of the high-speed services 
would not cover incremental costs--which is more likely now that demand 
forecasts have fallen.
    New Federal money. The total award target of $8 billion in new 
Federal grant funding is speculative. The total potential Federal 
``pot'' may be significant, and it has many components, but it also has 
many claimants. While California will surely receive some of the money, 
the outcome is unpredictable, especially year-to-year. More important, 
we would like to underline the fact that this kind of unreliable and 
fluctuating, year-to-year funding is not compatible with the stable and 
predictable funding that the management of a large infrastructure 
project must have.
    The unfunded gap. The unfunded gap is growing. In fact, there has 
always been an unfunded gap between identified credible sources of 
funding, on the one hand, and project costs on the other. In the early 
years, the Authority argued that State funds of $9 billion would be 
combined with Federal, local and private sources to finance the 
project. The 2009 Business Plan argued that there would be no need for 
State funding beyond the $9 billion in Prop 1A funding. Since then, the 
gap has grown with every Business Plan.
    The 2023 PUR now shows that for the Merced to Bakersfield section 
the unfunded gap (P65) is between $2.5 and $10.5 billion, depending on 
the success in meeting the $8 billion Federal funding target. More 
important, the 2023 PUR shows a Phase I unfunded gap of $92.6 billion 
to $103.1 billion between estimated costs and known State and Federal 
funding, again depending on success with meeting the $8 billion target 
for new Federal grants.
    The dilemma. The dilemma that the project now poses is that, given 
the expected cost increases, delays and demand decreases for the Merced 
to Bakersfield segment, there are few who would argue that completing 
this section, by itself, at a cost of up to $35 billion, can be 
justified. Rather, it would make sense only in the context of a 
commitment to building the complete Phase I system. At the same time, 
completing the full Phase I system poses a growing financial challenge 
for the State because the gap is already large, and costs have been 
increasing faster than identifiable potential financing while forecast 
ridership has fallen.
                   Considerations for the Legislature
    The Phase I system as envisioned in the 2023 PUR is not the same as 
the system approved by the Legislature and the voters in Proposition 
1A. While the Authority still envisions connecting San Francisco with 
Los Angeles and Anaheim as required, it will cost at least three times 
as much and take 15-20 years longer, will not meet the trip times 
envisioned, and will carry only 75 percent of the passengers. Very 
explicitly, the economic and financial performance of the 2023 PUR 
system cannot be as favorable as originally projected, and the 
tradeoffs between the investment in high-speed rail and alternative 
State needs must necessarily be different and more difficult that they 
appeared in 2009. Given what we know of the project today, and given 
the financial demands facing the State, the Legislature may want to 
commission an independent review of the economic and financial 
justification for the project, including the ability to operate without 
subsidy as required by Proposition 1A, before recommitting to the full 
Phase I system.
    The Legislature may also want to:
      Request that the selection and appointment of the 
Inspector General (OIG) be given high priority. Some of the actions 
suggested below should be addressed by the OIG when the office has been 
fully staffed.
      Request the Authority to issue updated dashboard 
information in the format used for the ARRA dashboards so that the cost 
and schedule experience of awarded contracts can be easily evaluated 
and updated.
      Review the reports by the Authority on the award of all 
large new contracts (track and systems, rolling stock, stations, and 
the Merced and Bakersfield extensions) showing the contract value and 
expected completion time as compared with the 2023 PUR's values.
      As proposed by the Authority, limit (``phase'') contract 
awards outside the 119-mile Madera to Poplar Avenue section in accord 
with actual availability of funding.
      Request development (by LAO or another appropriate 
agency) of an analysis with options and tradeoffs available to the 
Legislature for how to fund the gap for completion of the Merced to 
Bakersfield section and the gap between this section and the remainder 
of the Phase I system. It is critical that any funding approach be 
fully funded and stable and predictable from year to year.
      Request the Authority to assess changes that could be 
made to reduce costs in the Merced to Bakersfield section pending 
decision by the Legislature whether to authorize extension outside the 
Central Valley. An assessment would be useful because the State still 
has the option to limit the project to the 119-mile Madera to Poplar 
Avenue section or to limit the project to a revised form of the Merced 
to Bakersfield section if the evaluation of Phase I is unfavorable.
      Request the Authority to identify options for 
reorganizing the project into more manageable parts. For example, 
create a separate agency to award and manage tunnel construction to 
meet specifications set by the authority.
      Request the Authority to assess the current staffing and 
organizational structure of the Authority to determine if the staffing 
level and organizational structure match future project requirements, 
given possible changes in delivery systems, program schedule (including 
more concurrency of projects), funding conditions and other 
circumstances.
      Commission an independent study of the experience of the 
project and the lessons the State should learn that must be applied to 
future megaprojects the State undertakes.

    Please do not hesitate to let me know if the Group can provide 
further information or answer any questions you may have.
            Sincerely,
                                         Louis S. Thompson,
               Chair, California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group.

cc: Hon. Lena Gonzalez, Chair, Senate Committee on Transportation
    Hon. Roger W. Niello, Vice Chair, Senate Committee on 
Transportation
    Hon. Laura Friedman, Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee
    Hon. Vince Fong, Vice Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee
    Toks Omishakin, Secretary, California State Transportation Agency
    Gabriel Petek, State Legislative Analyst
    Samuel Assefa, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
    Tom Richards, Chairman, California High-Speed Rail Authority
    Brian Kelly, Chief Executive Officer, California High-Speed Rail 
Authority
    Members, California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group

    Mr. Nehls. Are you familiar with this document, sir?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I can't recognize it at a distance.
    Mr. Nehls. That's OK. I'll make sure----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. But I'm aware that----
    Mr. Nehls [continuing]. You get one.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. There's been a lot of 
reporting.
    Mr. Nehls. Fair enough.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Nehls. This document is nothing more than--it's an SOS 
warning to cancel the California high-speed rail project 
because it's riddled with billions in cost overruns. The 
numbers in this document almost make it seem criminal, and I'm 
going to quote directly from the letter written to the board 
members.
    ``The peer review group created by Proposition 1A is 
required to report to the legislature on selected reports and 
documents produced by the California High-Speed Rail 
Authority.''
    In this document, the peer review group says, since 2008, 
``a consistent theme emerges. (1) Project costs, schedules, and 
ridership estimates are uncertain and subject to significant 
risk of deteriorating . . . (2) the project is underfunded, and 
its financing is unstable, raising costs and making effective 
management difficult if not impossible.'' Most importantly, 
``(3) more legislative oversight is needed.''
    In the peer review 2023 project update report, it states 
that project costs continue to rise with no clear end in sight. 
The current contract values are 97 percent, Mr. Secretary, 
higher than the original award values. Phase 1 grew from $68 
billion in 2012 to $92 billion in 2022, and now projected to be 
$106 billion in 2023.
    The scheduling on the costs, it says a construction project 
was awarded in August of 2013 and it was to be completed in 
2018. This is before COVID, don't use COVID as an excuse, and 
now they say the current completion is December of 2026.
    Ridership, big idea, 2009, big business plan, 41 million 
people. Now do you know what they project for 2023? Down to 31 
million people. Why do they have 10 million less? I don't know. 
But the report--and you need to get this, sir, because you need 
to see it. The report recommends that the legislature may want 
to request the selection and appointment of the inspector 
general be given high priority. This project needs to be looked 
at. This is billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
    It's my understanding now they want $3 billion more from 
the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail 
Grant Program, and I want to make sure, sir, that we're not 
throwing good money after bad. The letter highlights that even 
if the project gets $8 billion, they will still be short of at 
least another $2.5 billion, even after the State of California 
funds are included. Have you visited the project, sir?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I haven't been to the construction.
    Mr. Nehls. Oh, you've got to get there. You've got to get 
there, sir. This is billions and billions of dollars. Are you 
willing to invest more taxpayer dollars on this project, which 
seems highly unlikely to succeed, versus sending that limited 
money elsewhere?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I want to take care--let me 
start with where we agree, which is support for high-speed rail 
in general, and supporting high-speed rail in general doesn't--
--
    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. I'm with you.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Necessarily mean that one 
would support a particular project, because this particular 
project is in active application for some processes----
    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Yes.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. That are underway, I want 
to be careful not to prejudice that----
    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. I got it.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Process. What I will 
say----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. And listen, I appreciate you, 
sir, and I think this is what we should do. I think we should 
work together, you and I, conduct a full audit of the project 
before any high-speed grant decisions are made. Maybe you can 
call me up one day, we get on the jet, and we go fly out there 
and take a good look at it, how is that? You want to go look at 
that? Because I'm telling you, this gives high-speed rail a bad 
look. It's just costing billions of dollars, and they're going 
to come to your office, and they're going to request more. I've 
got to move into something else, because I have 29 seconds.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Nehls. Do we have a pilot shortage, my friend?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Pilot availability is certainly----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Wait, do we have a pilot 
shortage? I fly around a lot of times, cancel, cancel, cancel. 
Do you believe that at a certain age that people should be 
forced to retire, this arbitrary age of 65? Do you think that's 
fair, or that's right?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Nehls. You do? How about having people in the highest 
office in our Nation over 80?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think most of us can agree that----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I'm asking you a question.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Certain professions 
like----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Should we--should we----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Flying an aircraft are 
different than----
    Mr. Nehls [continuing]. Force to retire as the President of 
the United States at 80?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think there are a lot of folks here 
who could do a great job regardless of their age, but----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Let's keep our----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. I wouldn't necessarily 
want them flying my----
    Mr. Nehls [continuing]. Experienced pilots----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Airplane.
    Mr. Nehls [continuing]. In the air, sir. Let's keep them in 
the air. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Let's see, who is next? Mr. Carson.
    Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's a tough 
performance to follow. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to 
welcome you back, sir, to T&I. First, I want to thank you for 
traveling back to your home State, the great Hoosier State, and 
the city of Indianapolis, last month to examine some of our 
transformational investments in our Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, and that includes the $25 million RAISE grant to make our 
downtown streets safer.
    You and I, sir, spent some time at the sheet metal workers 
local apprenticeship and training program to learn firsthand 
how a new generation of tradesmen and tradeswomen are learning 
their crafts.
    Mr. Secretary, what is the Department doing to expand these 
kinds of programs, sir, and how are you working to strengthen 
the transportation workforce with diverse participants, 
including minorities, disadvantaged, or underemployed 
individuals and returning citizens, and how can this committee 
help expand the Department's work?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks, Congressman, for the 
question and thanks for a great visit to the Indianapolis area. 
I was really moved by what I saw in terms of the work that is 
going on to prepare those workers of the future for all of 
those jobs that are now materializing, and it's an 
extraordinary thing to have gone from not that many years ago 
wondering where all the work was going to be to now being more 
concerned about where the workers are going to come from, but 
that's certainly where we are right now.
    And we are actively working through a number of funding 
streams and programmatic authorities at the Department of 
Transportation to do our part to help with the workforce issue. 
I'll offer just one example that's included in the IIJA that I 
think is instructive, which is that there is a requirement in 
the programming that we use to acquire low- and no-emission 
buses for transit agencies, that at least 5 percent of that 
funding be put toward a workforce program, whether it's in 
partnership with the labor union, a community college, or 
another entity, in order to make sure that those workers who 
are qualified to repair and maintain diesel buses are ready to 
work on those low- and no-emission buses.
    That's just one example, but another thing we're doing is 
urging project sponsors like State DOTs to recognize the 
availability of formula dollars often for workforce purposes, 
and I know that you have been a leading voice in advocating for 
attention to those excluded and minority workers who have not 
historically had as much of a role in the building trades, but 
are of course as capable as anybody of delivering that next 
generation of transportation infrastructure.
    We've enjoyed working with a number of entities from 
transit agencies to labor union locals that have been taking 
steps forward to include people who may not have that 
multigenerational background in the building trades, but can 
get on those ladders to the middle class and bring good incomes 
to their families through those good-paying jobs.
    Mr. Carson. Sir, and lastly, Mr. Secretary, how can 
disadvantaged communities get better connected and plugged into 
EV infrastructure? Indiana was awarded $100 million, but the 
Capital City only received $15 million, and I'm going to offer 
for the record an op-ed from our State NAACP describing our 
concerns for your review.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
    Article entitled, ``Alliance Aims for Equitable Placement of EV 
Chargers,'' by Taylor Wooten, Indianapolis Business Journal, September 
         8, 2023, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Andre Carson
          Alliance Aims for Equitable Placement of EV Chargers
by Taylor Wooten

Indianapolis Business Journal, September 8, 2023
https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/alliance-aims-for-
equitable-placement-of-ev-chargers

Indianapolis, IN.--A group of Black civil rights organizations is 
amping up its call for racial equity to be taken into account as state 
and city leaders decide where to place chargers needed to support the 
growing number of electric vehicles.
    The push comes as Indiana government officials decide how to spend 
at least $100 million in federal funding on the state's EV 
infrastructure, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission creates new 
EV policies, and the city of Indianapolis seeks a $15 million federal 
grant to install its own charging stations.
    The Indiana Alliance for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion of 
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Economic Opportunities--a coalition 
of 25 organizations--formed in early 2022 to help ensure that federal 
funds were used by the state in an equitable manner and that EV 
chargers are placed in underserved communities.
    Group members were unhappy with what they considered a lack of 
engagement with the Black community on Indiana's federally funded 
charger placements. The state says the process is ongoing, with six 
public meetings in July held in or near underserved communities and 
plans to create equity goals and engage minority-owned businesses.
    Now the alliance believes it has another chance to influence the 
process by participating in a utility review and policy-creation 
process for EVs held by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The 
IURC will set EV policies to be followed by AES Indiana in 
Indianapolis, CenterPoint Energy in Evansville, Duke Energy in 
Plainfield, Indiana Michigan Power Co. in Fort Wayne, and Northern 
Indiana Public Service Co. in Merrillville.



    The IURC will issue a final order in about three months. Stephanie 
Hodgin, executive director of strategic communications for the IURC, 
said the order will then be voted on at a yet-to-be-scheduled public 
meeting.
    The alliance is urging the IURC ``to make sure that all utilities 
will promote affordable and equitable electric vehicle charging options 
for residents [and for] commercial and public electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure; improve the experience and association with electric 
vehicle charging; and accelerate third-party investment in electric 
vehicle chargers,'' said state Rep. Carolyn Jackson, a Gary Democrat 
and member of the equity alliance.
    Douglas Everette, an attorney with Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP 
representing the alliance, said the commission can look to other U.S. 
cities for examples of how to motivate electric utilities to prioritize 
disadvantaged communities. One such example is Portland Electric in 
Oregon, which has a program that provides subsidies for charger 
placement.
    Denise Abdul-Rahman, the environmental climate justice chair for 
the Indiana NAACP, said the equity alliance was unhappy with the 
state's previous efforts to develop a plan for federal grant money 
because early events were hosted in nearly all-white municipalities 
during working hours, and because a survey of 2,000 people did not keep 
data on race and ethnicity of those surveyed.
    Ultimately, the state's grant plan was approved by the federal 
government over the coalition's objections. Bid awards for charger 
installation will be announced early next year, with the first stations 
expected to be operational by early 2025, Indiana Department of 
Transportation spokeswoman Natalie Garrett wrote in an email to IBJ.
    Garrett said INDOT will create an equity engagement plan for the 
remainder of the five-year grant program. Equity considerations also 
will be taken into account when installers for the charger system are 
selected. The agency has hosted networking events in Indianapolis, 
Evansville, Fort Wayne and Gary to connect minority-owned contractors 
to bidders.
    The city of Indianapolis has applied for a $15 million federal 
grant to install its own electric charging stations. The U.S. 
Department of Transportation has said it will award the first round of 
funding from the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary 
Grant Program this fall.
    Indianapolis has nearly 2,700 registered electric vehicles, with 
the Office of Sustainability aiming for 3,040 by 2025. Nationally, the 
number of EVs on the road is expected to grow to 26.4 million by 2030.
    Community grants from the charging and fueling infrastructure 
program provide chargers to urban and rural communities in publicly 
accessible locations. Those locations include both downtown areas and 
other neighborhoods, particularly in underserved and disadvantaged 
communities, according to the Transportation Department.
    About $1.25 billion in such grants will be awarded nationwide over 
five years (with another $1.25 billion distributed to what the 
Transportation Department calls ``alternative fuel corridors''). 
Indianapolis is seeking the maximum community award of $15 million and 
would be required to match 20% of that, according to the Transportation 
Department.
    Office of Sustainability Senior Project Manager Mo McReynolds said 
the city's application includes an emphasis on economic feasibility, 
community engagement and workforce development. But the federal grant 
limits the amount that can be spent on community engagement and 
education to 5% of the total award, or about $750,000 if the city 
receives the full $15 million, McReynolds said.
    Much of the criticism of the state's federal grant expenditures has 
centered on a perceived lack of engagement with Black communities. City 
officials, in partnership with the alliance, said they hope for 
thorough community engagement despite the restrictions of the grant 
they're applying for.
    ``We're a little disappointed about that regulation, but we'll do 
what we can with the budget if we are allotted any,'' McReynolds said.
    If the city receives the grant, staff will first conduct a 
feasibility study, she said. Taking into account chargers funded by 
grants the state receives and by other sources, the Office of 
Sustainability will decide where gaps remain.



    The city of Indianapolis made an early foray into electric vehicles 
with BlueIndy rental cars. The $6 million project launched in September 
2015 and was shuttered in May 2020. The city issued a request for 
information the following month for suggestions on what to do with the 
nearly 90 BlueIndy charging stations with underground power. In August 
2022, the city issued an RFP on the same topic that closed later that 
month. Officials have not yet announced next steps for the program.
    These spots could be used for electric vehicle charging stations, 
for e-scooter and e-bike charging, for rideshare services, or for 
placemaking efforts like food trucks.
    Abdul-Rahman of the NAACP said she is hopeful the Federal Highway 
Administration will fund Indianapolis and other Indiana communities, to 
``give us some assurance that equity will bend in our direction.''
    For Abdul-Rahman, that means ensuring that Black contractors are 
trained to install the chargers, that Black businesses are awarded some 
of the work and that charging stations are installed near Black 
churches and businesses.
    Letters of support from Democratic U.S. Rep. Andre Carson to the 
FHA give the alliance hope the grant will be approved, Abdul-Rahman 
said. Carson serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee.

    Mr. Carson. I understand, sir, there are some discretionary 
funds available to help fill those gaps. Can you give us an 
update on how those gaps are being filled, sir?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, thank you. This is one of the 
primary purposes for the community infrastructure element of 
the electric vehicle charging funds that were included in the 
IIJA, and in addition to those formula dollars--which, by the 
way, are subject to title VI and other requirements that the 
States follow through on their civil rights obligations. But we 
also have these discretionary dollars that we can use to plug 
those gaps.
    Often, it is disadvantaged communities who could in theory 
benefit the most from the fuel savings that come with an EV but 
only if two other things are true. One, that they can afford 
access to the EV in the first place, which is one of the 
reasons why those tax credits and moves in the IRA to cut the 
sticker price are so important, and two, that they have access 
to chargers, including in places where it might not yet be 
profitable for corporations to install them. That's where we 
believe policy can make a difference, and that's where we're 
going to be targeting many of these funds.
    Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, 
Chairman.
    Mr. Perry [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The 
Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Secretary, thank 
you for coming. Thanks for listening to our questions.
    I want to pick up where we left off in July of 2022 
regarding what I view as the administration's antimarket 
policies in regard to EVs. They are expensive.
    The grid is not--we're building a second grid, I guess, on 
top of the grid we already have, which is a huge cost, and 
people are paying for that in their electric bills. The 
batteries have limited range, and despite the subsidization, 
the market is literally not adopting EVs, regardless of what we 
want to believe or what you want to say.
    There is significant inflationary pressures and a glut of 
electric vehicles well beyond demand. And so, if we considered 
the current UAW strike, the cost of living has eaten away at 
these folks' ability to pay their grocery bill and their gas 
bill, so, they're obviously and righteously and rightfully 
upset, and the administration's subsidization of the electric 
vehicles is killing their jobs. They know this.
    On the second point related to EVs, I think it's important 
to quote the UAW president, Shawn Fain, directly, and I quote, 
``not only is the Federal Government not using its power to 
turn the tide, they're actively funding a race to the bottom 
with billions in public money.''
    Now, you've recently moved to Michigan, I understand it, 
and I just wondered what you have to say to Michiganders who 
feel the Federal Government is using their very tax dollars to 
destroy their industry and their jobs.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, one of two things is going to 
happen, Representative. Either the EV revolution is going to be 
made in China, or it's going to be made in America. So, I have 
to say----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. But right now, it's destroying 
their jobs.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. To workers is that we are 
working to make sure that it's made in America.
    Mr. Perry. It is being subsidized, which is destroying 
their jobs. So, is your position that we're going to lose all 
these jobs, that's what has to happen, or China is going to 
build all these vehicles. Is that the position?
    Secretary Buttigieg. One of the reasons we've seen 
manufacturing jobs grow so much in this administration compared 
to the manufacturing recession under the last administration is 
that we are investing in American manufacturers and adding----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. You're investing----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. These new jobs.
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. With our money in things that we 
don't want. You realize that forcing car companies to make 
these vehicles at a loss at about $60,000 per vehicle sold is 
damaging to the UAW jobs. In fact, I'm going to just look at 
Ford.
    I hate to call them out, but their electric vehicle unit is 
expected to lose $4.5 billion this year, which is up from $2.1 
billion in losses last year. There's a 92-day supply of 
electric vehicles, which is twice that of the current average 
of the internal combustion or traditional car, and I would just 
remind everybody that electric vehicles were one of the first 
vehicles on the market back in the early 1900s, but they were 
replaced by better technology--by better technology then.
    Now, the average new vehicle transaction price is about, I 
don't know, I just heard one of my colleagues say $50,000. I've 
got $48,763, which is up $10,000 since your boss became the 
President and the average used vehicle price is $26,510. Mr. 
Secretary, the people I work for, my bosses, can't afford what 
you're forcing on them.
    These are not market forces. This is the Government funding 
the destruction of our own automotive industry, and I hope you 
know that approximately two-thirds of EV owners make over 
$100,000 a year. My bosses don't make that. I don't know if you 
can justify or how you justify forcing my constituents to pay 
for EVs and EV infrastructure for coastal elites and wealthy 
people, but somehow you do.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I need to point out that wealthy 
people were specifically excluded from the Inflation Reduction 
Act.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I just gave you----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. We wish we could use--
--
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. The number. Do you----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. [Inaudible] on cutting 
the cost of EVs.
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. Dispute that two-thirds of EV 
owners are owned by people that make over $100,000. Do you 
dispute that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly, yes, the first EVs of 
course were----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Do you dispute that?
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Acquired by more--no----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I mean----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. But that number is going 
down.
    Mr. Perry. Those are the facts. It doesn't matter if 
they're going down now.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Then why were you----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. My--the folks that I----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Against cutting the price 
of EVs?
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. Represent can't afford them today, 
sir.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Why were you against cutting their 
costs?
    Mr. Perry. All the factors--I'm not against cutting their 
costs. The market should do it, but you want the Government--
you want my taxpayers to pay to cut the cost which isn't 
cutting the cost, it's----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. If you were of the 
view----
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. Subsidizing the cost.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Respectfully, 
Congressman, if you were----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Sir, with all these----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Of the view that there 
should be no subsidy----
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. Factors combined----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. To propulsion vehicles, 
then are you against oil and gas subsidies?
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. Mean that--mean that for every EV 
sold, sir----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Do you believe that oil 
and gas subsidies----
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. At a loss, that the cost of the--as 
my--as my colleague on the other side, the gas-guzzling pickup 
truck is higher now to pay for the loss, as you kill--your 
administration and you in particular kill the auto industry, 
and I'll remind you in 2008 after the financial crisis, the 
Federal Government bailed out this industry. So, while you're 
here today, will you commit and will you pledge to oppose any 
effort to bail out the auto industry after you force it into 
bankruptcy again? Would you do that today, sir?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Congressman, I got started in politics 
when----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I guess the answer is no.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. An Indiana factory----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I yield the----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Was at risk of being shut 
down because an elected official in my State tried to block the 
administration from saving Chrysler. I got involved and stood 
with the UAW to save those jobs, and I'll always be with auto 
jobs being preserved.
    Mr. Perry. I stand corrected. The gentlelady from Nevada.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, would 
you like to finish your statement?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure, thank you. And I'll try to be as 
concise as I can. There are some people who I suppose believe 
there should be no subsidies for anything involving 
transportation, and I assume in the spirit of philosophical 
consistency they would be against subsidizing oil and gas, as 
well as being against subsidizing Americans being able to 
afford an EV.
    There are others who believe that we should force Americans 
to be in the technology of the past forever, and then there's 
this administration, which recognizes that the world is moving 
to EVs, with or without us, and those EVs are either going to 
be made by Chinese workers or they're going to be made by 
American workers.
    And we respect the UAW standing up at the dawn of a new 
chapter in the automotive industry that created my hometown to 
make sure that those are not just American jobs, but good-
paying American jobs.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I apologize for having 
stepped out, but I went to speak to over 200 members of the Las 
Vegas Chamber of Commerce--Southern Nevada Chamber of Commerce 
who are in town, and told them I was coming back to see you, 
and they just said, well, tell him thank you for partnering 
with us for all the infrastructure funding that has come to 
southern Nevada.
    We've gotten about $3 billion already, $120 million for the 
airport, it's everything from safe streets for the kind of 
underrepresented areas of the community, mass transit, all of 
those we think are great investments and help business come 
back in southern Nevada.
    Our airport is also coming back, and we had a record 52.7 
million passengers through the gates last year, and we're on 
track to go back to pre-COVID times. So, I wonder if you would 
talk a little bit about the shutdown and how it's going to 
impact air traffic controllers and the progress that we've made 
so far, and maybe set back our very vital travel and tourism 
industry.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, Representative, for 
the question. We're proud to see so many great projects taking 
shape in your region of Nevada, and it's a region that reminds 
us just how important the aviation sector is to the American 
economy.
    Even if you don't work in aviation, so many people who 
work, for example, in Las Vegas, in tourism and travel-oriented 
industries depend on aviation to be in good shape. It's one of 
the reasons why we viewed the cancellations and disruptions 
last year as unacceptable, and it's why we're pleased to see 
the numbers getting better, but we know that there is more work 
to be done.
    Part of that work is having the air traffic control 
workforce that we need. We estimate that there are about 3,000-
plus more people we need qualified than we have today, and that 
deficit didn't build up overnight. We're not going to be able 
to address it overnight, but we now have 2,600 air traffic 
controllers in training.
    A Government shutdown would stop that training. Even a 
shutdown lasting a few weeks could set us back by months or 
more because of how complex that training is, and we cannot 
afford that kind of politically driven disruption at the very 
moment when we finally have those air traffic control workforce 
numbers headed in the right direction.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. We're very concerned about that, 
because that is the lifeblood of southern Nevada. We're 
becoming a big sports center now as well as entertainment. 
We're going to have the Super Bowl, we're going to have F1. If 
those air traffic controllers aren't out there, we're in big 
trouble.
    Speaking of people coming into the State, I want to ask you 
about the super-speed train. If there are any other projects 
besides the Brightline project from southern Nevada to southern 
California that are as far along in the process as we are with 
labor agreements, with environmental studies completed. We 
think we're real competitive, and we've been working on this 
for a long time, and that would not only spur business, 
commerce, trade, open up ports from southern California into 
the interior, as well as tourism, in both directions.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question, and 
as you know, both I and President Biden are enthusiastic about 
passenger rail, including high-speed rail. And again, I'll 
issue the caveat that I'm not going to speak to any active 
application that's underway that's being reviewed by our 
Department.
    But I will note as you said that the proposed Brightline 
West project really has a unique combination of advancements 
under its belt, made a number of advancements on both the 
permitting and the right of way for the project this calendar 
year, and that a lot of that is because of an innovative design 
that reduces impacts by using that I-15 right of way that's 
right there.
    I think a lot of people who envision high-speed rail where 
they live wish that there was such a ready right of way to take 
advantage of. So, that is certainly a project that I can tell 
you has our attention, and I know the enthusiasm for it in your 
district and really across the Southwest.
    Ms. Titus. It has regional significance, it's bipartisan 
and bistate, so, we appreciate you giving that consideration. 
Thank you, and I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from Nevada. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. 
Welcome to our committee lair. Glad to have you here today. So, 
we covered a lot of interesting topics so far. High-speed rail 
in California, that's always a fun one for me since I've 
watched that evolve for a long time as a Californian, and still 
the fact remains that the price of the thing has quadrupled 
from what the taxpayers originally sold when they approved 
about $10 billion worth of bonds in the ARRA Act in about 2009, 
supplemented with about $3\1/2\ billion more when all the other 
States threw theirs back in the pot and California got it all.
    We've only been able to supplement that with some CO2 
auctions at the State level. So, we're going to be probably 
$70, $80, $90 billion short to complete that project. So, 
however much begging they come with hat and hand to this 
Congress here, to DC, that's what they're going to be 
ultimately asking for, because it will never pay for itself. 
So, it's time to move onto something else.
    I found it interesting to hear earlier on the price of 
electric vehicles that an F-150 is $50,000 now because it's 
about $10,000 higher than it should be because of supply chain 
and a COVID shutdown that was much longer than it should have 
been.
    So, you can see an F-150 at 50 grand, but you can see the 
lightning version--that's all electric--is about 70 to 80 
grand, and you can look that right up. So, EV vehicles are 
going to be much costlier than the same equivalent, same size 
of an internal combustion vehicle. So, that's a reality that 
consumers are going to face as they get pushed out of having 
the choices. As to what Mr. Perry was saying, Ford is losing 
their rear end on these things right now, and that's going to 
have to affect the price of everything else, as well as the 
jobs.
    So, the thing that it comes down to is that we're going to 
have to make them here, or we're going to let China make them. 
Well, even China making them is something that people aren't 
asking for unless they have a free choice. So, what I want to 
get at, Mr. Secretary, first, why are we doing all this? Is it 
high-speed rail? Is it because we're chasing a few tons of CO2, 
all these electric vehicles? Is it because we're chasing CO2? 
Is that really the whole deal?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Here's the way I look at it. The EV 
revolution is happening with or without us. Exercising their 
free choice, Americans have tripled the proportion of cars that 
they are purchasing electric already, and we're still at the 
very outset of this revolution.
    You add to the fact that the cost of producing the cars 
will come down, and that if you've ever driven one, you 
probably know that it has superior performance, lower 
maintenance costs, lower costs of fueling it----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Not in my----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And----
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Rural district, sir, because you 
have to drive----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Fewer moving parts.
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Many, many miles--and I can't--
people don't want to come to my district so much because they 
can't count on being able to charge their vehicle if they want 
to go way up to Modoc County or something, so----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, sure. If you're driving more than 
a couple of hundred miles a day, then you really depend on that 
charging infrastructure, some of which isn't there. On the 
other hand, the vast majority of Americans will do what Chasten 
and I do, which is we've got a hybrid plug-in minivan. We just 
charge it in the garage, and it does what we need for most 
purposes.
    But anyway, the point is--to get to that very important 
question, you asked: If EVs are coming anyway, why have a 
policy intervention----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. No, they're being forced.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Why spend taxpayer money?
    Mr. LaMalfa They're being forced.
    Secretary Buttigieg. The answer is this----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. They're being forced by the 
Government.
    Secretary Buttigieg. No, nobody is being forced.
    Mr. LaMalfa. The CEOs of these corporations don't have a 
spine. They're all falling in line.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I don't know if you've sat down with 
these CEOs, but I would say they're pretty tough and smart 
business people.
    Mr. LaMalfa. No, they're scared of Washington, DC. Years 
ago, when the mandate was to have a 54.5-mile-per-gallon 
average, oh, we can do that by the year--what was it, 2022 or 
whatever? No way in hell they can hit that before all this 
electric stuff started happening--it was 2025, I think. Do you 
know what a 54.5-mile-per-gallon internal combustion vehicle 
looks like? It's about this big, OK?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, nobody wants those, nobody wants these 
electric vehicles unless you're an elite that can afford them. 
People in my district sure as hell don't want them. So, keep 
going. Why are we doing this? Is it over CO2?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, we're doing it for three reasons. 
Even though the EV revolution is going to happen anyway. I 
think that's likely.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, it's a revolution [indiscernible].
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would love to be able to answer your 
question, Congressman.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Even though we think that transition 
is happening in the automotive sector no matter what, there are 
three things that we think are not guaranteed. Will it happen 
quickly enough to materially help with climate change, will it 
happen on equitable terms that are available to people who 
aren't wealthy, and----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. OK, but I'm----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Might be able----
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Running short on time, so, let's 
just----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And three--if I could 
just please finish my answer----
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Let's drill on the climate 
change.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. With a third.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Let's [indiscernible].
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Will it be----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Let's go onto climate----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Made on American soil or 
not?
    Mr. LaMalfa. It's about CO2, isn't it?
    Secretary Buttigieg. How is that?
    Mr. LaMalfa. What percent of the atmosphere is CO2 that 
we're chasing here?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I'm sorry?
    Mr. LaMalfa. What percent of the atmosphere is CO2 that 
we're chasing here? Because you talked about climate change.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I don't know the percentage of 
atmospheric gases----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. You don't know the percent of 
the atmosphere?
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. That exist as CO2. What I 
can tell you is that climate change is real, we've got to do 
something about it. And we've been----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Yes, that's what's called 
autumn, sir.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I'm sorry?
    Mr. LaMalfa. This one is called autumn right now, but yes.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I'm sorry, I couldn't make out what 
you said, sir.
    Mr. LaMalfa. This climate change right now is called 
autumn, yes.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, that's the seasons changing, 
which respectively is not the same thing as the climate 
changing. And as somebody who is hoping to retire in the 2050s, 
and who has kids who will be old enough to ask me as they're 
getting into their thirties whether we did enough to deal with 
climate change, or whether we just did what was convenient. I 
take that really seriously.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Reclaiming my time. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 
The trillions and trillions we're going to cost our kids to 
chase a tiny percentage of CO2 will bankrupt all of us, and 
bankrupt our economy, and ship it to China for all the other 
reasons. So, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Perry. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you. You can 
see that I serve here in Congress with some of the greatest 
minds of the 19th century. Thank you for your leadership. I 
will tell you as the Representative for the North Coast of 
California it warms my heart when I hear a Midwesterner 
correctly describing the importance of anadromous fish passage.
    That was one of many points in your testimony that met with 
my strong approval. I appreciate that, and I really want to 
appreciate the hard work you're doing to quickly and 
efficiently roll out these historic investments from the IIJA 
and the IRA. A lot of good work is happening because of your 
leadership in my district. One of those culvert replacement 
projects, a $20 million one--$20 million worth of those 
projects in Humboldt and Mendocino County.
    Good for transportation, great for anadromous fish, and, of 
course, we were there at the Golden Gate Bridge to celebrate 
the $400 million investment that is going to make that iconic 
landmark and critical infrastructure asset safe from seismic 
risk for the next 100 years.
    It is especially exciting that all of these investments 
from the IIJA and the IRA are just getting started, so, we can 
expect more good news to come, and that's particularly true for 
the incentives to transition to electric and zero-emission 
transportation sources.
    I'm really proud to see the State of California leading on 
this. Our Advanced Clean Cars II rule will require that all 
vehicles sold in the State be zero emission by 2035. As you've 
acknowledged, other States are following this standard as well, 
it's not just California, and the industry itself is heading in 
this direction.
    So, thanks for acknowledging the imperative of owning and 
leading on this important transition, but we still have to 
tackle the thing that's kind of complicating and holding back 
this transition, the chicken and egg problem of charging 
infrastructure.
    So, I wanted to ask you a bit about that. We're especially 
challenged to see more charging infrastructure in higher 
density areas and in less affluent communities. So, California 
is certainly ready to lead in this space as well, but we are in 
desperate need of funding assistance.
    EVs have become so popular in California that the vehicle-
to-charging station ratio is especially dire. We need more 
chargers in California if we're going to continue to lead.
    So, I hope that you will give fair and equitable 
consideration to that as you continue to roll out the funding 
for charging infrastructure. The need is even greater when we 
look at medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that produce 
proportionately a higher amount of greenhouse gas emission. 
Currently, there are just four publicly accessible charging 
stations and three hydrogen fueling stations to serve zero-
emission trucks on the entire west coast.
    And so, I know that California and Washington and Oregon 
have come together on a joint application for funding. It is 
the West Coast Truck Charging and Fueling Corridor Project. It 
would deploy 34 publicly available charging stations and 5 
hydrogen fueling stations to support zero-emission medium- and 
heavy-duty vehicles on the west coast. We hope you will give 
that your full and equitable consideration as well.
    And in that regard, I just want to ask you, what can 
communities do to complement all of this historic Federal 
funding that has become available and make EV charging more 
accessible and equitable?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks. It's a great question, 
because sometimes I fear that communities or States see that 
we're doing a lot federally, and think that means, well, we 
shouldn't be doing much locally. Of course, the best way to 
unlock and take advantage of this national and Federal push is 
for there to be local and State commitments as well, and we're 
seeing a lot of that.
    I think it's also important for local jurisdictions to 
provide whatever data they have on where the need is greatest. 
This is not like gas stations. It's different. It's both easier 
and harder. It's easier in the sense that unlike gas, the 
majority of Americans will wind up doing a majority of their 
charging at home. On the other hand, it's harder because unlike 
gas, it can take a lot more than 3 or 4 minutes to fill up 
depending on what kind of vehicle and what kind of charger 
we're talking about.
    So, we can't just put a charging station everywhere there's 
a gas station. We really need to recognize that this is 
different, and the implications from grid policy to land use 
are profound.
    We need to be working with States and communities not just 
as project sponsors but as thought partners in getting the 
right profile for that install base of that 500,000 charging 
stations that the President envisions us having as a country by 
the end of this decade.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and just a few 
seconds, I also want to invite you to come and visit a port 
modernization project we've got to service offshore wind in 
Humboldt County, also within your jurisdiction. I think it 
would be of great interest.
    We'd love to have you there, and we can show you some 
anadromous fish passage projects while you're there. Mr. 
Chairman, I will yield back, but I will ask unanimous consent 
to enter into the record an article that is pretty responsive 
to the comments that my colleague from Minnesota made about EVs 
not working.
    It is from the Twin Metals Mining Corporation of Minnesota 
announcing that they are converting their whole fleet to 
electric vehicles, so, apparently they're pretty excited about 
EVs in frigid Minnesota, and with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
 Article entitled, ``Twin Metals Says It Will Use an Electric Vehicle 
   Fleet; Opponents Aren't Swayed,'' by Walker Orenstein and Yasmine 
  Askari, MinnPost, August 12, 2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                             Jared Huffman
   Twin Metals Says It Will Use an Electric Vehicle Fleet; Opponents 
                             Aren't Swayed
What this means for the controversial plan to operate a copper-nickel 
mine near the BWCA.

by Walker Orenstein and Yasmine Askari

MinnPost, August 12, 2021
https://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnesota/2021/08/twin-metals-says-it-
will-use-an-electric-vehicle-fleet-opponents-arent-swayed/

    Twin Metals Minnesota has marketed its controversial plan for a 
copper-nickel mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 
(BWCA) as more environmentally conscious than your average mine.
    The company says the project is crucial to the advancement of green 
technology because the underground mine would produce metals needed to 
run wind turbines, solar panels and electric car batteries. Twin Metals 
also plans to use a ``dry stack'' storage system for toxic mining waste 
that some environmentalists prefer--though others say will put the 
dangerous byproducts perilously close to waters that flow into the 
BWCA.
    Now, Twin Metals says it wants to slash the mine's potential 
greenhouse gas emissions by electrifying its vehicle fleet, and, 
eventually, running on renewable energy. ``We're doing this because it 
fits our mission; it's the right thing to do,'' said Julie Padilla, 
chief regulatory officer at Twin Metals. ``All of these pieces are in 
line with our own principles and our parent company's principles about 
advancing safe technology, for worker safety and for the environment.''
    The announcement, however, has not swayed the project's opponents, 
who argue the mine's potential for water pollution of a pristine 
wilderness is still a top concern and say the mine poses other 
environmental risks.
    Here's what you need to know about what this means for the Twin 
Metals project:
                How common are electric mining vehicles?
    Nearly all of the ``mining and large support vehicles'' for the 
project will be electric, says a Twin Metals news release. Padilla said 
that includes large haulers, crushers, loaders and vehicles that will 
be stacking and compacting tailings. Other electric vehicles, she said, 
will be part of onsite transport. Initially, Twin Metals had planned on 
diesel equipment.
    The mine will be the first with an electric vehicle fleet in 
Minnesota, Padilla said.
    Electric powered mining equipment has been around for decades, but 
only recently have mining companies begun to make the switch from 
diesel-powered vehicles to battery-electric vehicles. Over the past few 
years, mining companies in Canada and Australia have begun to utilize 
electric haulers, drills, mine trucks and production drills.
    At the Borden gold mine in Ontario, Newmont Goldcorp has already 
swapped all underground diesel fleets for electric vehicles.
    ``It's not brand new and it's not untested, but it's certainly at 
the early stages of adoption,'' Padilla said of electric mining vehicle 
technology.
    Kelsey Johnson, president of the Iron Mining Association of 
Minnesota, said Minnesota Power, the electric utility, is planning on 
running experimental tests of fully electric hauler trucks for the 
state's taconite mines. While Johnson said mines hope to adopt them, 
testing feasibility is important since the trucks are $4 million 
apiece, and one facility might have as many as 250. They also require 
new and logistically difficult infrastructure for overhead wires that 
would power them, Johnson said.
    Nearly all big shovels at iron mines in the state, which scoop rock 
for haulers that transport it to crushers, are electric, Johnson said. 
Large rock crushers, which are ``energy hogs,'' are also fully 
electric, Johnson said.
    Like other mining companies that have gone electric, Padilla said 
Twin Metals has made the switch to both reduce emissions and improve 
working conditions.
    ``The entire underground fleet will be electrified which really 
both creates a much better worker environment because there will be no 
diesel emissions underground.''
         What kind of cut to carbon emissions will this bring?
    Twin Metals estimates its electric vehicle fleet would reduce 
onsite greenhouse gas emissions--produced by things like vehicles, 
heating and blasting--by 65 percent. In total, Twin Metals expected its 
carbon emissions output, before the EV fleet, to be roughly 75,644 tons 
per year. Now they project 27,507 tons of emissions.
    That does not count emissions tied to the electric grid for power, 
however. Mines are typically energy hungry.
    The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, an anti-mine advocacy 
group, contends the Twin Metals project would result in more than 1 
million tons of carbon emissions per year over its 20-year life, based 
on data they said comes from initial company estimates. Twin Metals 
says based on an average Midwestern power grid, the company projects it 
will emit roughly 261,315 tons of carbon emissions per year. Padilla 
said environmental regulators, and the company's evolving mine plans, 
will help determine more definitive emission estimates during the 
review process.
    But for scale, the transportation sector in Minnesota produced more 
than 40 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016.
    Padilla also said the company hopes to make strides on carbon 
emissions from the electric grid. Twin Metals has not signed a supply 
agreement with a power utility, making plans speculative, but Padilla 
said they hope to use only renewable energy at the mine site. How they 
would do that is still unclear. Minnesota Power, the main utility in 
the region, has said it plans to provide carbon-free energy by 2050 and 
be coal free by 2035.
    Padilla said Antofagasta, the Chilean parent company of Twin 
Metals, is transitioning all of its mines to renewable energy by 2022 
and plans to be carbon neutral by 2050. ``It could be a combination of 
possibilities, including just greater acquisition of renewable energy 
from a power provider than they're giving to the general public,'' 
Padilla said. ``It could also be a combination of on-site (generation) 
possibilities or utilizing other technologies as we move forward.''
    Padilla also said the company is working on grant funding to try to 
pump carbon into their tailings to sequester it, ``which could make us 
a carbon-neutral project or potentially a carbon sink.''
  What else has Twin Metals done to try to make its mine plan greener?
    Twin Metals has faced stringent opposition from environmental 
groups and skepticism from federal regulators and most Democrats in 
Minnesota, a state with a DFL governor whose Cabinet members are 
responsible for major permits for the project.
    In turn, Twin Metals has made a point of trying to make its 
potential mine friendlier to the environment.
    In 2019, Twin Metals scrapped plans for a large tailings basin--
mining waste covered by water in a pond held back by a dam--further 
away from the BWCA that opponents said could be vulnerable to 
catastrophic collapse. They instead hope to squelch water from the 
tailings and store them in a large stack next to Birch Lake with 
consistency similar to sand-castle sand.
    This method isn't widely used and has its environmental upsides and 
downsides. For instance, some anti-mine groups said moving the tailings 
closer to water that flows into the BWCA was actually a downgrade in 
safety for the wilderness area.
    Still, the EV pledge continues Twin Metals' efforts to make and 
promote environmental upgrades at the mine.
    From the start, the company has said the metals like copper, nickel 
and cobalt it would mine are needed for a green economy, from solar 
panels to EVs. There are warnings of shortages already for materials 
like lithium, cobalt and nickel used in EV batteries.
    Mine opponents argue those important metals can come from recycling 
or from mining in less water-rich environments away from wilderness 
areas. It's also not yet known how much of what Twin Metals mines would 
end up in the U.S., or used for green technology.
    ``We haven't signed any contracts; we're obviously very early in 
the process about where our concentrate and our metals would go,'' 
Padilla said. ``But we've located capacity in the western U.S. and 
Canada and Mexico so we want to be able to keep it at least within our 
country and within our allied nations related to these metals.''
    Padilla said technology exists to take nickel and cobalt 
concentrate directly to a battery manufacturer, ``so there's an 
opportunity for this state to really move forward with an economy in 
the region that can directly take those metals and produce electric 
vehicle batteries.''
    ``We're working with a number of partners on that right now.''
           Will this win over skeptical environmental groups?
    Water pollution remains a major concern for environmental groups, 
said Tom Landwehr, executive director of the Save the Boundary Waters 
campaign and former commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources 
(DNR).
    Sulfide mining, such as copper-nickel projects, can result in 
acidic runoff and pollution of waterways with heavy metals or mercury. 
The Twin Metals mine would sit a few miles from the BWCA and on a 
waterway that flows into the wilderness area. Sulfide mines have a 
historically poor track record with water pollution, though Twin Metals 
contends it can meet state standards for pollution thanks to modern 
mining technology and the composition of the rock in the area.
    Landwehr said there are other environmental risks posed by the 
mine, and said the company's pledge to use electric vehicles is ``green 
washing'' because the company's fleet would only represent a segment of 
their overall emissions.
    ``The amount of energy that's required to run that mine is going to 
be greater than the city of Duluth and that is going to be coming from 
existing energy sources,'' Landwehr said, including, potentially, some 
coal. Minnesota Power says one taconite mine owned by U.S. Steel in 
northern Minnesota can need as much power as the city of Minneapolis.
    Landwehr also said nearly two square miles of forest land will be 
destroyed for the mine, which he said poses a risk of bringing in 
invasive species near the BWCA and gets rid of trees that absorb carbon 
emissions.
    ``It's an attempt to really mask this enormous environmental impact 
they're going to have by this mine and not just an impact while they're 
operating, but an impact into perpetuity because they're going to be 
putting these tailings on top of the ground and leaving them there 
forever,'' Landwehr said.
                     When could this mine be built?
    The road to a fully operational mine is long and uncertain. The 
company has experienced both a series of setbacks and wins since 
submitting a plan to state and federal regulators in December 2019, one 
that was a decade in the making.
    The DNR is currently in the first stages of an environmental review 
of the mine. Before construction begins, Twin Metals will need a series 
of state permits, such as air quality and water pollution permits, from 
different agencies.
    Since Twin Metals seeks to build the mine in the Superior National 
Forest, the company needs federal approvals, too. Former President 
Barack Obama's administration denied two key mineral leases held by 
Twin Metals, but they were later renewed by the Trump administration. 
In March 2021, the Interior and Agriculture departments under the Biden 
administration began reviewing the leases again. The heads of both 
departments are opposed to copper-nickel mining near the Boundary 
Waters. But as of May, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack said the 
White House had still not made a decision on the mining project. 
According to Reuters, Biden is interested in sourcing the bulk of 
metals for electric vehicles from allied countries but processing them 
domestically for battery parts.
    Oppositional groups have tried twice to invalidate the two federal 
mineral rights leases reinstated by the Trump administration. In May, a 
federal judge ruled that evidence brought forth by opponents of the 
mine would not have changed the court's decision to uphold the leases.
    Even if approved by state and federal regulators, Padilla said the 
earliest the mine could be operating is likely by the end of the 
decade.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Westerman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Perry. Secretary 
Buttigieg, thank you for being here today. I would like to--
I've been listening to some of the debate, and there was talk 
about a revolution--the EV revolution.
    I thought a revolution was something that came from the 
people, and revolutions are often compared to anarchy where the 
people rise up, and I don't think the people are rising up 
asking for EVs. I think it's actually just the opposite of 
anarchy, and that's hierarchy, where it's coming from the top 
down forcing on the people not having a choice and saying this 
is the way it's going to be, and because of Government policies 
and mandates, you're not going to be able to drive an internal 
combustion engine vehicle. You're not going to have the 
choices, and we know that hierarchy, according to scholars, 
leads to fascism.
    That's where that comes from. So, this mandate that--or, 
goal or whatever you're calling it that up to 50 percent of 
vehicles on the market by 2030, I don't think that's a 
revolution.
    I think that's coming from the top down, trying to force 
some people's desires on other people, and with that comes a 
lot of other consequences. It's been talked about the demand on 
minerals and elements. Building all these electric vehicles is 
going to require a tremendous amount of rare earth elements and 
minerals, and at the same time that your boss is pushing EVs in 
one agency, in another agency, they're closing down mines.
    Mr. Huffman mentioned the Twin Metals project. They're not 
going to be able to buy any electric vehicles if they can't 
have a mining project, but this administration has canceled two 
mine leases in Minnesota and enacted a 20-year ban on mining in 
more than 225,000 acres in the surrounding area where these 
minerals can be found in unparalleled quantities right here in 
the United States.
    And I've said the problem with this administration's plan 
is twofold. It's physics and math. If you can solve those two 
problems, then you may have something with your electric 
vehicles and carbon emission goals, and I would contend that 
you're not even going to be able to achieve these carbon 
emission reductions.
    The policies of this administration are actually increasing 
global carbon emissions because they're forcing more energy to 
be produced in other countries that don't have near as good 
controls as we do. China is building 38 gigawatts of coal 
powerplants a year. The global use of coal was at an alltime 
high last year. We can't put our head in the sand and say one 
energy source is better than another energy source, and by the 
way, America, you're going to be forced to drive EVs.
    I was back home in my district. I took my pickup in to get 
it serviced, and I was talking to a salesman at the car 
dealership that I've known a long time, and I said it looks 
like you've got a few more cars on the lot than you had before. 
He said, yes, we're starting to get them, he said, but the 
problem is, nobody can afford them.
    I said, what do you mean? He said, we don't have any cars 
under $30,000. He said a big part of our sales used to go to 
people who could only afford to buy a $20,000 or $30,000 car, 
and now they simply don't have an option. It's not in a used 
vehicle, they don't have an option.
    Now, you've got a $115,000 pickup on the lot. He said, 
actually, we sell some of these. People that have a lot of 
money, they still come in and buy a lot of vehicles, but my 
constituents back in the Fourth Congressional District of 
Arkansas are the ones that are looking for that $20,000 or 
$30,000 vehicle, or the $5,000 to $10,000 used vehicle. So, 
with these grandiose goals that I contend are not going to do 
anything to address the climate challenges, they're not going 
to reduce any carbon in the atmosphere, what would you tell me 
to go back and tell my constituents as far as buying an 
automobile?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I wish you could tell them you 
voted to make the sticker price of an EV cheaper by joining us 
on the Inflation Reduction Act, but barring that----
    Mr. Westerman [interrupting]. And also----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. I would point to the----
    Mr. Westerman [continuing]. Let me--while you're----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Fact that when I----
    Mr. Westerman [continuing]. While we're on that----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Entered the----
    Mr. Westerman [continuing]. While we're on that, now I'm 
reading that the price of internal combustion vehicles are more 
expensive because the auto manufacturers are losing so much 
money on EVs, even with the Government subsidies that every 
American taxpayer is paying for, they're losing so much money 
on EVs they're actually raising the price on internal 
combustion engines.
    So, me voting to spend more taxpayer moneys on a Government 
handout to play favorites in a certain industry, that's not 
going to help anything, and it's not going to make my 
constituents feel any better about not being able to buy any 
kind of vehicle, and my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri [presiding]. Ms. Brownley.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for joining us this morning. First, I wanted to 
congratulate you for completing the Michigan Ironman triathlon 
last weekend, so, kudos to you.
    I'd like to begin by thanking you for your work to improve 
our Nation's infrastructure, to improve transportation safety, 
and to address the climate crisis. I also want to thank you for 
your work to implement the historic infrastructure bill, which 
is helping so many communities across the United States, 
including mine, to create and sustain jobs, especially in 
construction and engineering sectors, which is fueling economic 
recovery and helping families to put food on their tables.
    I am especially grateful for the resources the Department 
of Transportation has directed to projects in my district, 
which includes most of Ventura County in California and 
portions of western Los Angeles. It includes more than $22 
million to the 101 Freeway, which is a critical thoroughfare in 
my district, and over $12 million dedicated to the Gold Coast 
Transit District for zero-emission buses, as well as funds 
directed to Ventura County's Oxnard and Camarillo Airports, 
which are critical engines of economic activity for our local 
businesses in the region.
    In addition to creating and sustaining jobs, these critical 
projects are helping to improve transportation options in our 
community, lessen traffic congestion, reduce harmful greenhouse 
gas emissions, and improve the quality of life in my community. 
So, I thank you again for your attention to these local 
priorities.
    As the Department of Transportation considers awards for 
other competitive programs like the Port Infrastructure 
Development Program, I also want to emphasize to you the 
incredible role that the Port of Hueneme plays in goods 
movement in our Nation, including for automobiles and fresh 
fruits and vegetables, imports, and exports.
    The next time you are in California, I hope you can visit 
the Port of Hueneme, to see really firsthand one of the 
Nation's cleanest ports, and really working towards zero 
emissions is really helping to eliminate bottlenecks in both 
Los Angeles and northern California. It's a deepwater port in 
California that sometimes is overlooked, but a very, very 
important port, and as I said, supporting fruits and vegetables 
and EV vehicles to the American people.
    So, my first question to you, Mr. Secretary, is I was 
pleased that Congress was able to agree that a blender's tax 
credit is necessary to jumpstart production on sustainable 
aviation fuel. So, what are you doing to advance SAF technology 
and to make this critical fuel more widely available to meet 
the demands of the aviation industry?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question, and let 
me echo the appreciation that we have for how funds are going 
to good use in your region, and certainly, we would welcome a 
chance to see Port Hueneme as well.
    Sustainable aviation fuels are going to be an incredibly 
important part of decarbonizing aviation because unlike 
vehicles--light-duty vehicles where you can go acquire a car 
right now that is zero emissions on today's technology while 
we're, of course, working to make that more affordable, in the 
case of aviation, we're a long way from novel propulsion that 
isn't going to require some kind of fuel.
    Sustainable aviation fuels are made from renewable sources, 
so, they provide a reduction in life-cycle carbon emissions, 
and there's a number of measures we're taking to advance that.
    One is, together with the Departments of Energy and 
Agriculture, we co-lead the SAF grant challenge. That focuses 
Federal efforts to try to dramatically expand how many we're 
producing by the end of this decade. We're trying to get to 3 
billion gallons by the end of this decade to put us on a path 
to 35 billion gallons a year by the end of 2050. That would be 
enough to meet 100 percent of what we project is the domestic 
jet fuel demand there.
    Then there is the FAST, Fueling Aviation's Sustainable 
Transition grant program, that's $291 million in grants to 
accelerate production and use, and the development of low-
emission aviation technologies. I will--best I can say is very 
soon we'll have news to make about getting those funds out on 
the street, and we're especially excited about the different 
applications that are going to come in there, because we know 
it's going to be a lot of private-sector work, too, but we've 
got to make sure we're doing our part with public policy.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you very much. My time is about to end, 
but I also look forward to the opening of the new office of the 
National Multimodal Freight Network, and hope very much that 
DOT will include ports with more than $1 billion in annual 
cargo in the freight networks. Thank you. I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Representative.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. First off, Mr. Secretary, 
thanks for spending some time in South Dakota last week. You 
mentioned it in your opening comments, and you behaved 
yourself. Nobody had any complaints. My team, some members of 
my team were along with your trip and I just--I thought 
everybody thought it was a very productive time in our State, 
so, thank you for coming.
    Secretary Buttigieg. It was a great visit.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. You and I share a passion for 
permitting reform. It does seem like we've had a number of 
different views about the future of EVs and what is the proper 
role of Government in that future, and I think it's 
appropriate.
    Reasonable people can disagree about that, but it does seem 
like we should find some common ground on the fact that it 
should be a lot easier to cite both transportation 
infrastructure and the kinds of minds that are necessary for us 
to not be as reliant on China in the future as we have been on 
the Middle East in the past.
    And so, because we've--and we've talked the last couple of 
times you've been in committee, you and I have found some 
common ground. We've talked about some specific things to do. 
Of course, Mr. Secretary, you know that's the problem.
    Everybody wants to do something. The actual specifics get a 
little hard to do. I do want to give a shout out to Mr. Stanton 
on this committee as well as Senators Lummis and Kelly in the 
Senate.
    We've got a bipartisan plan. The Interactive Federal Review 
Act, I know you know about it, sir, but just for everybody 
else, this would cut down on some of the inefficiency of 
agencies taking these static PDFs and emailing them to one 
another as they're working through the siting process, and 
instead use a dynamic cloud-based platform to try to make sure 
that our Federal Government works a little more efficiently. I 
just wanted to give you an opportunity, sir, to talk about your 
agency's interest in or support of our bill.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. We welcome--we're piloting 
what we can, but with legislative support, could do much more 
to make these processes less paper intensive. We know that so 
much of the redtape has to do with passing information back and 
forth between project sponsors, States, the relevant Federal 
agencies, sometimes between Federal agencies.
    So, anything we can do to simplify that process, we 
welcome. We're doing what we can on our own with things like 
developing partially automated gating through the web forms 
that project sponsors use to apply, given them a heads up if 
something is out of compliance while they're still putting the 
application together so they can address it instead of having 
that bureaucratic back and forth, but certainly what you're 
talking about would introduce new tools that I think could be 
very helpful.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. I mean, are there other 
specifics that Congress could work with the administration on 
regarding this permitting? As you know, as part of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act, there was a pretty substantial reform in 
the timelines, the shock clocks that agencies will have to 
complete EISs and EAs, that's probably the most substantial 
permitting reform in a couple of decades. What else can we do?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, let me point to one thing that's 
now underway, but there's going to be more opportunity where 
that came from, and that's categorical exclusions.
    So, the Fiscal Responsibility Act added that new provision 
to section 109 of NEPA, which made it possible for one agency 
to adopt another agency's CE. This is so new it may have 
actually technically not happened yet, so, you wouldn't have 
had a chance to see it, but today through a Federal Register 
notice, DOT has adopted the Department of Energy's categorical 
exclusion on EV charging stations.
    That's one example, of course, and maybe it's closer to 
some Members' priorities than others, but it's one of the first 
adoptions of another agency's CE using that capability, and 
certainly envision other areas where that can be possible, and 
the spirit of that One Federal Decision concept, and we're 
committed to looking for other places where it's appropriate to 
use that possibility created by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
    I think another thing that will be important, and this is 
part of what's at stake in some of the technical assistance 
work that we do, like Thriving Communities, is for us to accept 
some level of responsibility for a project sponsor's ability to 
get through the NEPA process, and what I mean by that is I 
think sometimes there is an understandable but unhealthy 
tendency on the Federal side, if there's a step in the process 
taking too long, and it's because the project sponsor is 
struggling, to say, well, that's not our fault, that's their 
fault, so, it's going to take however long it's going to take.
    I want to make really sure that in addition to mastering 
any process we can do more quickly or more efficiently, that if 
something in NEPA is taking longer than it should because it's 
something that rests with the State, the city, the airport, or 
whoever it is, that we work with them to try to get through it, 
and have a proactive sense of our own responsibility, even if 
it's on them to get the right information or to be compliant, 
that it's on us to help them see their way to it, and I do 
think those TA resources--and we could be in dialogue about 
beefing them up, but we've got a lot to work with in IIJA. It 
could be put partly toward that use.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you very much. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. DeSaulnier.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. 
Secretary, I want to thank you about the work you've done on 
aviation safety. Sometimes I've been critical of the FAA in 
that process.
    It was never directed. It was complementary to the work 
you're trying to do, and I hope you took it that way, and in 
that regard, the great work that this committee did on the 
leadership of the chairman and the ranking member to get 
reauthorization out has a lot of component parts that will help 
with that, aviation safety, and I hope you can help us get that 
to the President's desk.
    I also want to thank you--I have heard a lot of comments 
about people asking you to come to their districts--thank you 
for coming to my district to look at the GoMentum Station at an 
old Naval weapons station. We are very proud of that. The 
Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the California 
Transportation Committee are working with the auto industry to 
look at best technology and self-driving cars and reduction in 
pollution, including carbon.
    When you came, you couldn't have missed, I don't think, the 
heavy fossil fuel footprint in our area. There are five 
refineries in that area. The headquarters of Chevron is in that 
area. The CEO is a constituent. But we are doing great work to 
the conversation about whether this is an either/or 
conversation about energy. And I loved your analogy about the 
historical aspect. Henry Ford said then, his great quote was, 
our job is to produce an affordable car, high-quality car, at 
an affordable price, with the highest possible wages. Which is 
interesting, given what is going on right now.
    But also part of that is gas stations weren't electric 
charging stations or fuel cell stations. But if you read David 
Yergin, which I think every person on this committee and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee should at least spend 10 minutes 
on the history of this, is John Rockefeller just didn't create 
gas stations all over the country. The analogy to the 
infrastructure, although different, is a telling story.
    So, in that, again, I want to mention that I was able to 
get grants, and thank you and your regional office, for safe 
communities, which are all tied into smarter mobility. So, when 
we talk about this and the historic infrastructure in the 
infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, $380 
billion. I represent an area that, in addition to the other 
things, we have three national labs. An original one, one of 
the originals, at Berkeley, two at Lawrence Livermore. People 
at MIT would argue this, but the best transportation research 
school in the country at Berkeley and one of the best at Davis. 
We are transitioning this.
    So, in our area, we are a model, where the workers at those 
refineries are working with the environmental community to 
transition, knowing that we are at a pivot point, just like the 
early 1900s. It is pretty clear that the investment community 
is going in that direction. The Chinese and, as you and I have 
talked about in the bill that we were able to get incorporated 
into the Inflation Reduction Act, the Clean Corridors Act, they 
are creating 100,000 charging stations and fuel cell stations a 
month. Yes, they are hedging their bets.
    So, in that context, the interagency working group and the 
White House has been terrific. Sorry that Gina McCarthy left. 
Secretary Walsh also came out to our district to talk about 
this transition. It's not an either/or. And the marketplace is 
speaking. It's changing. It's more efficient. There's a higher 
return on investment. And there is a similar challenge, as we 
had with fossil fuel.
    So, how are you working to make sure that we are doing this 
thoughtfully? Last time you were here, I mentioned that we 
should go where the early adapters are. We shouldn't leave 
people who are fighting us and creating friction behind, but we 
know where the cars are being sold. They are being sold in San 
Francisco, in Austin, in Boston. The car companies tell you 
that's where the market is. So, we put the infrastructure 
there, and we can show the rest of the world that this is where 
the future is.
    So, how are we working within the administration, 
continuing to work, both at the Federal level and at the State 
level and at the local level, and you have mentioned this a 
little bit, to make sure we integrate this historic change so 
it works for everybody?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks. And I want to really 
identify with the point you are making about the complexity, 
the balance, and the sheer length of time associated with even 
the most rapid scenarios for these transitions to play out. And 
what it means is that we have to be intentional about 
supporting American workers, American consumers, and these 
American transportation sectors, as many of these different 
modes of powering our travel coexist.
    Novel propulsion for aircraft that doesn't involve burning 
some kind of fuel is well more than a decade away. Even our 
ambitious timeline for EV adoption estimates that we hope to 
get to half of sales at the end of this decade being EVs, which 
means the other half won't be. And so, we have got to be ready 
to serve and support vehicles of all kinds while not allowing 
any of these transitions to be only beneficial to those who 
have the means to be those early adopters. The early adopters 
can pave the way, but you shouldn't have to be wealthy to 
afford to, at the end of the day, save money through something 
like EV ownership.
    That's where I think we stand to gain, not just from the 
policies that we have implemented with support from Congress on 
the IRA and the infrastructure law, but the kind of research 
you are describing at these great academic institutions, who 
ultimately get us a great return on investment by sometimes 
discovering some innovation, some piece of technology, could be 
an update to battery chemistry, could be a more efficient 
material that could dramatically lower the cost of these kinds 
of transportation assets or transitions that we know we need.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Massie.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Buttigieg, in addition to sitting on this 
committee, I serve as chair of the Subcommittee on the 
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust within 
the Judiciary Committee. You said on CNN, I believe, that, 
quote, ``The Department of Transportation has generally not 
gotten involved in these merger cases, but that's changing 
today.'' Was that statement in reference to the JetBlue-Spirit 
merger?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, partly.
    Mr. Massie. It troubles me somewhat, as being on the 
Subcommittee on Antitrust within the Judiciary Committee, 
because the DOJ is already reviewing airline mergers to see if 
the mergers are anticompetitive. And it seems like a waste of 
resources for two agencies to duplicate work. But I am worried 
that's exactly what is happening if DOT and DOJ are going to 
review the same merger. So, do you think that the DOJ and FTC 
for that matter are unable to review mergers and protect 
American consumers?
    Secretary Buttigieg. No, of course not. The way the 
division of labor works is that we have distinct but sometimes 
overlapping authorities. And so, as is often the case when we 
have different parts of the interagency dealing with the same 
issue, we seek, to the extent that it is statutorily 
appropriate, to coordinate. I am going to be limited in how I 
talk about this because, of course, this is an open proceeding. 
But what we are trying to do is stand with DOJ, align our 
authorities where they cover the same turf, but also recognize 
that, with regard to our, in my view, too long unused 
authorities around public interest, that we are also ready to 
activate those, especially because depending on how the DOJ 
side goes to disposition, it might compel us to take other 
steps. Again, I do not want to get into the case too much, but 
depending on what is appropriate.
    Mr. Massie. Do you agree that they are the only ones who 
should be evaluating whether this is anticompetitive or not?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Do I agree that the DOJ----
    Mr. Massie [interrupting]. You said that you both have some 
authority here, but you didn't want to duplicate it. And their 
main authority and responsibility is to decide if this merger 
is anticompetitive. You are not seeking to relitigate that, are 
you, after their decision?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, we are trying to work 
with DOJ to the extent that is appropriate. And then we have 
our own responsibilities that are separate.
    Mr. Massie. So, they have a standard for 
anticompetitiveness. What is your standard or principles, the 
limiting principles of whether this is in the public interest?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, let me take care to 
caveat that I am not commenting on the open proceeding----
    Mr. Massie [interposing]. Right, I am talking generally.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, it really follows from what the 
law calls for. And again, there are really two sides of this. 
So, there are DOT's responsibilities and authorities with 
regard to competition policy that are laid out specifically in 
the law, even though they haven't been used very much. And then 
there is also, in addition to the Clayton side, there is the 
public interest responsibility that we have that is somewhat 
distinct and will have to follow a distinct rubric from what is 
applied in the jurisprudence you have had around competition on 
the DOJ side up until now.
    Mr. Massie. Can you give me some examples of things that 
might run afoul of public interest that are not in the domain 
of DOJ's responsibility to determine whether it is 
anticompetitive or consumer welfare benefit?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think if I tried to get into 
hypotheticals, it would be at risk of being perceived as 
prejudicing this case. But what I will say is that the law is 
written differently with regard to our competition authorities, 
creating an overlapping, not identical, but also not simply 
parallel authority.
    Mr. Massie. The reason we have questions here is it has 
been about three decades since somebody said a statement like 
yours, that leads us to believe you might be relitigating some 
of the things DOJ is doing. So, I am looking for the limiting 
principles.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, so, again, I don't want to make 
case law on the fly here. But we have a responsibility to 
review the public interest associated with these competitive 
dynamics that was entrusted to our Department basically as a 
condition of deregulation. At the time of deregulation, it was 
confidently pronounced that we would go into the future with 
dozens if not more than 100 competitive major airlines. As you 
know, we are, depending on how you count, down to four or five.
    So, we know that there is something in the way that this 
has been practiced over the decades that is, at the very least, 
out of alignment with what was expected as an outcome of 
regulation. And that is why we think following the law as 
written, we have a responsibility to get more involved.
    Mr. Massie. I've got 3 seconds left. I appreciate that 
answer. I have a real quick question. Tesla spent billions of 
dollars on a charging infrastructure, and now the Government 
says they are going to do the same thing. What is it going to 
cost the Government to do this? And doesn't it disincentivize 
private investment when the Government comes along and says we 
are going to create these chargers? What incentive does Tesla 
have to do it anymore?
    And when will there be enough charging stations available 
nationally that no family will again be prohibited access from 
one of these chargers due to a Cabinet member's promotional 
tour?
    Secretary Buttigieg. What's great about Tesla's decision is 
that they are opening their chargers to not be a walled garden 
but to be available to other vehicles, too. We welcome that. 
But even that built infrastructure alone of Tesla's, which is 
remarkable, is not on its own enough to meet the national 
charging demands of the country.
    The simple answer to your question of how much is that we 
have $7.5 billion going against this goal as provided by IIJA. 
But the other thing I would point to is that there will be gaps 
in areas that it might not be profitable yet for a company to 
install a charger. And I would point here to rural areas or 
low-income areas as an example, where we want to make sure we 
accelerate that process. And so, that is why we think it's 
appropriate and important to introduce those Federal dollars to 
speed up that process alongside the private-sector dollars.
    And it's going to be race. And getting to that 500,000 
chargers that the President envisions by the end of this decade 
will require both those installed with and those installed 
without Federal subsidies to move at a really fast clip.
    Mr. Massie. My time has expired. I don't think there should 
be a race between Government and private enterprise----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Oh, it's not a race 
between us. We are racing in the same direction.
    Mr. Massie. And I yield back.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. The legend, Mr. Carbajal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Buttigieg, before I get to my questions, I want 
to commend you and the Biden administration for getting the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding out the door quickly. 
Certainly the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law represents the 
largest Federal investment in infrastructure in many decades.
    In my district alone, this has translated to over $500 
million to date for nearly 100 projects throughout the Central 
Coast. And airports in my district have received more than 
$19.5 million through the Federal Aviation Administration.
    I recently had the opportunity to tour some of the airports 
in my district to highlight this funding and all that the 
funding will be able to achieve. And they have shared with me 
that this will make, certainly, a big difference. However, they 
have also highlighted significant challenges with PFAS, forever 
chemicals, and pollution.
    As a result, I recently introduced two bills aimed at 
helping airports successfully transition from old firefighting 
foam containing PFAS to alternative products that will be much 
safer for our environment and first responders. Now that there 
is a product officially listed on the qualified products list, 
I have a two-part question. What role will the Department of 
Transportation play in helping airports successfully transition 
to this new product? And what can Congress do to help?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. And this is a 
very important issue that we hear about in so many communities. 
To answer the first part of your question, the FAA highly 
encourages airports to transition away from firefighting 
materials that contain PFAS, to reduce the potential human 
health and environmental impacts that come from that 
contamination.
    Earlier this year in May, the FAA published the Aircraft 
Firefighting Foam Transition Plan to ensure the orderly 
transition and to develop that did a lot of work with critical 
stakeholders and formed fluorine-free foam transition working 
groups to assist with the development of a national transition 
plan for part 139 certified airports.
    We are also going to continue working with DoD, which, of 
course, has its own lines of effort with regard to this. And we 
are going to share with the airport operators any best 
practices that we develop on that side, and to help the ARFF, 
the aircraft rescue firefighting personnel, we are developing a 
training handout, video, other information depicting tactics 
and techniques for utilizing these materials.
    As to the second question, we welcome any help from 
Congress in addressing this issue, because it is something that 
is needed, it is urgent, but represents a sea change in how 
firefighting has been handled at aviation facilities.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. On August 14, OMB issued revised 
guidelines or guidance on the implementation of Build America, 
Buy America. I appreciate that OMB followed the law and 
listened to concerns raised by me and many of my colleagues to 
ensure that guidance will not hinder any shovel-ready projects. 
The compliance date is fast approaching, as all impacted 
projects have to be completed by October 23.
    Could you talk about how DOT is working to implement the 
BABA provisions and working to ensure clear guidance is 
provided to State DOTs and other partners to ensure a seamless 
transition and ensure that we prevent delays and confusion on 
the ground?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. We want to make sure there is 
clear, consistent, and predictable information when it comes to 
Build America, Buy America provisions. And what we have been 
focused on is reviewing the general applicability waivers that 
aren't product specific, some of them that have been around for 
decades without being thoroughly reviewed, and also looking at 
some of the more specific cases that come up that really vary 
by industry.
    With regard to chargers, for example, in February, the 
Federal Highway Administration issued the Build America, Buy 
America implementation plan, and then in July issued Q&As to 
get information to project sponsors that are facing these 
issues right now.
    We also in August did issue a public interest waiver for de 
minimis costs and small grants, trying to balance our very 
important policy aims with common sense.
    Then there is the OMB guidance that you mentioned with the 
general effective date of October 23 of this year. In it, OMB 
states it is going to issue an updated guidance memorandum 
prior to the effective date, so, that will come from OMB. But 
then the Federal Highway Administration will use that guidance 
that comes from OMB to make sure that we push that out in our 
own Q&As so that our project sponsors get the information that 
they need about how that affects anything that touches Federal 
highways.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I look forward to you coming to my 
district.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Me, too.
    Mr. Carbajal. I have asked many times. But I know you will 
find some time to come in the near future.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. James [presiding]. The Chair recognizes Mr. Webster.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, if we continue on with what Mr. Massie was 
talking about with the JetBlue-Spirit merger: In March, all of 
my colleagues in Florida and I sent you a letter, and to the 
Attorney General, urging you to approve the JetBlue-Spirit 
merger. Since that time, you have made some public statements 
that have been complimentary towards DOJ and their challenge.
    In Florida, JetBlue is legally binding, has made some 
commitments to the Florida attorney general, to grow flights of 
this combined airline 50 percent throughout our State. The 
agreement also requires employee growth, including 2,000 new 
jobs. Current employee numbers of both airlines will also be 
retained, and 1,500 jobs currently outsourced would become 
Florida jobs.
    I just say, please be mindful that the State with the most 
overlap of the two carriers is overwhelmingly supportive of the 
agreement of the merger.
    So, do you have any comments about the pending matter? Or 
can you make comments on the pending matter?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I need to be careful in commenting 
about it because it is an open process. But what I would take 
care to emphasize is that any time we consider how to apply our 
competition authorities in aviation, it is with a view to 
making sure that we are preventing unfair methods of 
competition and that we are benefiting the public interest. 
Whether we are talking about just the cost of air travel, 
airfares themselves, or whether we are talking about the 
customer experience.
    It is critically important, especially in an industry that 
has a lot of factors that make it different from an easy 
textbook competitive market, that there be strong regulatory 
attention. There are barriers to entry, switching costs, 
returns to scale, all of which can make it harder for there to 
be fair competition.
    We are not rooting for or against any company, and we 
certainly are always happy to see the American aviation sector 
thrive and its firms and its employees thrive. We just want to 
make sure that we are doing our job as a watchdog, so that no 
unfair methods of competition or developments that are against 
the interests of passengers emerge in a way that is 
inconsistent with the law.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. And I am sorry not to get more 
specific, but I want to be cautious here.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, turning to the current 
discretionary process for the IIJA, it is extremely time 
consuming and costly to States, at least from the State of 
Florida's perspective. Even if a State was awarded the 
agreement with the U.S. DOT, it would take over 1 year and 
sometimes up to 18 months. To date, the Florida DOT has, I 
think, entered into two agreements, two of the seven that they 
were approved for have been awarded, but no word on when they 
are even going to receive the money.
    How can DOT make the process more efficient and effective, 
cost effective, for States?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question. It is a 
big focus on our part. We want to shorten the timeline between 
when we are able to give a State DOT or a city or a transit 
agency the good news that they got an award in a discretionary 
program, and the date that we can celebrate the groundbreaking 
and ultimately the ribbon cutting of that project.
    And our aim is not only to--what we generally do, which is 
to clear the funds the moment it has been established that it 
is compliant with all Federal requirements, but to shorten the 
process of establishing that in the first place. And we 
recognize the responsibility to create more user-friendly 
processes, to try to take steps and hours out of the process, 
provided we can do it in a way that doesn't undercut any of our 
policy responsibilities.
    And we would be happy to follow up with you if there are 
any particular projects that it seems, in your view, need to 
get unstuck. But more generally, you have my commitment to 
continue working on this, because we want to get to those 
ribbon cuttings just as much as anybody.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. As a followup, have you considered 
possibly eliminating the discretionary grant process and just 
relying on some kind of formula funding of some sort?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We think there is a good reason why 
Congress has created two different tracks, the formula funds 
that go out by a mathematical rubric to the States and 
discretionary funds that allow us to weigh considerations that 
project applicants can bring forward that maybe don't show up 
in the math.
    Now, don't get me wrong, we still have a very methodical 
approach driven by staff and connected to objective criteria to 
do that. But at the end of the day, many of these programs are 
oversubscribed by as much as 10 to 1. And in the difficult work 
of identifying the winners, we really want to make sure that we 
are doing right by the qualitative as well as quantitative----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The 
gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 
thank you, and thank you for your leadership in making sure the 
historic investments under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
reach communities across Arizona.
    Every corner of Arizona is benefiting from these 
investments. My district is no exception. More than $220 
million has been allocated to reconstruct and expand the I-10 
Broadway Curve, one of the most heavily trafficked sections of 
freeway in our region. This project, which runs right through 
my district, will enhance safety, reduce travel times, increase 
access to our largest employers, and support our growing 
population.
    And at Sky Harbor Airport, a $194 million investment is 
underway for a new taxiway to help us grow smarter and provide 
us with the capacity to operate this three-runway airport as if 
it had four runways.
    This is why this investment matters so much. That's why the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law matters so much. Without it, we 
couldn't get these projects done, period. Even with these 
significant investments, there is still more work to be done 
and projects that need Federal support if they are to become a 
reality.
    And one of those is the expansion of I-10 in Arizona. 
Arizona has invested wisely in widening the I-10 because it is 
a major artery for passenger and freight traffic in the 
southern United States. And while a majority of the I-10 
between Phoenix and Tucson has been widened, there is one 
significant gap that remains: only two lanes, and it lies 
wholly within the boundaries of the Gila River Indian 
Community.
    I doubt it would surprise any of us that the improved 
portions of the I-10 end at the reservation boundary and pick 
up on the other side of the reservation boundary, because for 
decades, centuries even, Tribal governments have not been 
treated equitably as partners in Federal transportation 
programs.
    Widening I-10 and adding an interchange is vital to improve 
safety, provide direct access to the Gila River Indian 
Community's government services and hospital, and accelerate 
response times for emergency services. And it will prevent 
traffic from detouring onto the reservation when bottlenecks or 
accidents close or otherwise restrict traffic.
    To complete this expansion project, the Gila River Indian 
Community and the State of Arizona have formed a unique 
partnership to plan, design, and widen this last section and 
connect the community to this vital economic artery. I am not 
aware of any other joint Tribal-State partnership like this 
anywhere in the country that addresses an infrastructure 
project in such a collaborative way.
    While significant non-Federal resources have been committed 
to this project, we simply can't do it alone. Federal 
assistance is required to make it a reality, assistance that 
directly benefits a historically disadvantaged community and 
helps to fulfill the administration's commitment to direct 40 
percent of the infrastructure dollars to historically 
disadvantaged communities like Gila River.
    This leads to my question for you, Mr. Secretary. Can you 
tell me how the Department is considering the President's 
Justice40 initiative as it considers projects such as this one 
that directly benefits the Gila River Indian Community for 
infrastructure funds, including under the competitive programs 
like Mega and INFRA?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for the question, and I have 
certainly heard from both you and from the Gila River Indian 
Community about the importance of this project. And in that 
context, I want to emphasize our commitment to the Justice40 
principles that we will do right by those overburdened and 
underserved communities that often stand to benefit the most in 
terms of safety as well as economic outcomes from good 
infrastructure investments. So, that is certainly something 
that we have sought to be as transparent as we can about in 
terms of how it is incorporated in the Notice of Funding 
Opportunity, so project sponsors understand how to put their 
best case forward. And if a Justice40 criterion helps them make 
their case, we certainly welcome that and are looking for that 
in the process.
    Mr. Stanton. That's great. In the recently passed FAA 
reauthorization bill, passed by this House unanimously in a 
bipartisan way, it included the Drone Infrastructure Inspection 
Grant Act, better utilizing drones to save dollars and more 
safely inspect important infrastructure around the United 
States. And fortunately, we want to do more with drone 
inspections for infrastructure. We don't want to get caught up 
in redtape.
    Mr. Secretary, can you commit today to the committee that 
the FAA will take action to enable low-risk, high-value drone 
infrastructure inspections this year, actions such as summary 
grants or predefined risk assessments consistent with the FAA's 
safety and environmental goals?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I will commit to speaking to the FAA 
about how to make sure that process is prompt, consistent of 
course with our responsibilities, but also not holding back 
innovations that could make a positive difference.
    Mr. Stanton. And as a former mayor, give me your thoughts 
about how this committee can better provide State, local, and 
Tribal governments with the resources and trained professionals 
to operate infrastructure inspection drone fleets like what 
would be accomplished by the Drone Infrastructure Inspection 
Grant Act?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I have had the pleasure of 
visiting some projects and programs that are training the next 
generation to be capable in operating and sometimes even 
building or maintaining drones. We need, I think, to double 
down on that. And I think that's a legitimate--to the extent 
statutorily authorized, I think it is a very--philosophically, 
I think it is a very legitimate use of transportation dollars, 
and we would welcome a chance to work with you to specify more 
resources to go toward that purpose.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
    Mr. James. The Chair, who represents the 10th Congressional 
District of Michigan, recognizes Mr. Graves. Thank you.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Good to see you 
again. And I appreciate you spending time with us today. I 
understand a number of my colleagues have grilled you on 
criteria related to grants, and I am not going to rehash it 
all. But I will just go ahead and say I think it is really, 
really important, as you and I have discussed in the past, that 
the criteria that actually advances the mission of the 
Department of Transportation in regard to addressing traffic 
solutions and others need to be the priority of criteria that 
are used. I am concerned that there have been new criteria that 
have been introduced that is outside the confines of the law 
that I think distorts the awarding of grants. And of course, an 
example of that: The State of California has received about 17 
percent of all of the grants under the discretionary programs. 
And obviously, that figure is very high. And I am concerned 
about the direction or just how the, I guess, lack of criteria 
or lack of specificity in some of the criteria allows for a 
distortion in terms of where some of these grants go.
    But more importantly, because I know you have covered this 
a good bit today, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to talk to you about 
a somewhat related topic. And that is my home State of 
Louisiana. We are out here trying to build infrastructure 
projects. And like many States, and I know you have talked 
about this, the underinvestment in infrastructure that has 
happened for decades and decades.
    We, in the last 5 years or so, have been able to pull in 
some dollars on projects that have been neglected for decades. 
One of them, a really important project at home, it is called 
the Comite project, and this is a Corps of Engineers project 
outside your purview. But it is a really important message 
here. The project costs went from $342 million to $970 million.
    We have another project that's down just outside New 
Orleans called the West Shore project. That one went from $760 
million to $3.7 billion.
    My point here is that when you look at everything that has 
been done under this administration, whether it's the American 
Rescue Plan, which was nearly $2 billion; the CHIPS Act, 
hundreds of billions of dollars, while a laudable goal in that 
case, it became way too expensive and ancillary things added to 
it; the Inflation Reduction Act that I think got way out of 
bounds distorting economics in regard to energy investments, 
and we are now seeing 40 percent higher energy costs for 
Americans; and which one am I missing? IRA, CHIPS, ARP. Oh, and 
of course, IIJA, one of your favorites.
    And so, and I heard during IIJA debate and of course it 
being signed into law, all these people celebrating the 
increase in investment. Mr. Secretary, if project costs are 
tripling, as in two cases of the projects that we are building 
right now, and I didn't go cherry pick, those are the projects. 
I can go through and find probably 10 transportation projects 
that have more than doubled, and this isn't me cherry picking 
either. So, it's hard for me to understand how this is a win 
with all of the other investments that were made, spending 
trillions and trillions of dollars that devalued the dollar, 
that have contributed to energy costs going up, and now we 
can't even build the projects we were building before. And the 
way I look at is any perceived increase in investment under 
IIJA is actually a decrease, based on what we are seeing at 
home.
    And I'm curious if you care to reflect on that and what you 
are seeing across the country.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I think, first of all, the reality 
of the increase in project costs is real. It is a concern. It 
is one of the main threats to the successful implementation of 
this bill and something we think about every day.
    I would challenge the view that anything we do to invest in 
the productive capacity of this country is necessarily 
inflationary and would suggest on the contrary that one of the 
things that creates inflationary pressure is sometimes a 
bottleneck or a deficiency in our built infrastructure that can 
only be addressed with good investment, when we are talking 
about the attention we are paying to ports or bridges or 
certainly things like rail infrastructure.
    I view this as something where part of the return on 
investment comes in the form of reducing some bottlenecks that 
can in fact contribute to inflationary pressures. But I agree 
with you that the value of a project is not the dollars in but 
the outcomes.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Secretary, I want to be clear, 
I agree that, and I don't want to be perceived as saying that 
we shouldn't make investments because it's going to cause 
inflation. Please don't interpret it that way.
    I mean, look, Mr. Burlison wants a Ferrari, but he drives a 
Chevrolet. And in some cases, you've got to prioritize and make 
sure that you are truly spending what is appropriate and you 
are prioritizing the dollars.
    Look, I just have a little bit of time left. And something 
else that I know you and I share concerns with is the FAA. We 
have seen a number of safety issues. Right now, we have 20 
percent of the agency's leadership positions that remain 
vacant. I appreciate, as you and I have discussed, the FAA 
nominee. But I am just curious if you could perhaps quickly 
reflect on the vacancies in the top positions.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the most important way to 
address that, of course, is the swift confirmation of our 
nominees.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Most of these are not confirmed 
positions.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Say again?
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Most of these are not confirmed 
positions.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That's right, yes. And, in addition to 
the people who have been performing sometimes in acting 
capacities, we have the confirmed positions, which I think 
ought to have a hand in shaping the leadership team.
    But just to be clear, there are no empty chairs there. The 
work is getting done. At the same time, we would benefit from 
having confirmed or, where not confirmed, permanent people in 
each of their roles. We hope to have more announcements soon on 
that.
    And, of course, in addition to that top group up there, we 
are also concerned about just making sure we fill those rank 
and file positions of the air traffic controllers, which is one 
of many reasons we are very hopeful that this Chamber can avoid 
a shutdown that would stop our training.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I look forward to continuing 
discussions.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. James. Thank you, sir.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Allred.
    Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 
good to see you again. Thank you for being here.
    I want to thank you for being what I consider to be an 
incredible partner for the passage and now implementation of 
the historic investments included in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. Your leadership has been vital in ensuring 
that we are able to get funding out into our communities and to 
finally take action to repair our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure.
    One project of many that I can pick from that I would like 
to highlight is the Federal Transit Administration's recent 
award to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system, or DART, in my 
district. This $103 million grant will allow DART to modernize 
its bus fleet, replacing 186 of its oldest buses with new, low-
emission buses. That's a big deal for our community.
    These kinds of investments were made possible by the IIJA. 
They are helping DART and other transit agencies in our 
communities modernize and upgrade their services to keep our 
cities healthier and thriving for generations to come. And I 
want to thank you and your agency for working with Congress to 
implement the funding for this historic investment.
    And I want to discuss a project that I think has great 
economic and connectivity benefits for my State: high-speed 
rail, particularly the project connecting Dallas, Fort Worth, 
and Houston. I was glad to hear of your support earlier in this 
hearing, but I would like to give you an opportunity, if you 
would, to expand on some of the benefits that your Department 
believes these kinds of projects can bring to the country.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. And let me 
echo our congratulations to DART in your district on 
successfully competing for and winning that grant. I know you 
are a strong advocate for those funds to be put to use there.
    When it comes to high-speed rail, we see benefits in terms 
of economic development, in terms of safety, in terms of 
emissions. And I think that there are many geographies around 
the U.S. that are especially suited to this. And again, I am 
going to have the caveat that I am not commenting on any 
ongoing application process.
    But when you consider how Texas has population centers and 
major global cities not that far away from each other, you can 
see how there is a compelling use case for passenger rail in 
general and high-speed rail in particular. And I have had an 
opportunity to speak with and meet some of the people involved 
in the technologies that would be put to use in that proposal, 
and think, as I believe in high-speed rail generally, certainly 
believe in the Texas case, that for many Americans, seeing 
would be believing. And experiencing that value being created 
on American soil would create that much more appetite to 
further develop a genuine national high-speed rail in the 
future.
    Mr. Allred. I agree. And I just want to point out for folks 
that this line would connect the fourth largest metro area in 
the country, in DFW, with the fifth largest metro area, in the 
Houston metro, two areas that account for about half of the 
population of the State of Texas, and about half the economic 
output of the State of Texas, and that are predicted to grow by 
nearly 50 percent by 2045. So, we have to provide more options 
for getting around. But it would also be reliable, safer, 
faster in most cases and, as you mentioned, environmentally 
friendly.
    And I think that the time for investments in these kinds of 
projects is now. And if you recall, House Democrats in 2021 
provided $10 billion in funding for high-speed rail projects. I 
just wonder how can we work with your Department to ensure that 
we are providing sufficient levels of funding for these 
projects as we continue to implement the IIJA?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the IIJA provided, especially 
through the Fed-State partnership, the means to introduce high-
speed rail or accelerate it in places where we don't have it. 
It did not though, honestly, contain enough funding for a full 
national high-speed rail network. There's a lot of work we have 
to do just to take care of what we have got in our nationwide 
freight and passenger rail network.
    But I believe that there are the means within IIJA to fund 
more than one high-speed rail project with this authorization, 
in the 5-year life of this bill. And I think that the success 
of those projects will be an important part of how future 
potential investments could be justified.
    Mr. Allred. Well, in the time I have left, as you know, I 
have American Airlines and Southwest Airlines headquartered in 
my area. And I just have to note how critical it is that we 
continue to make progress addressing the shortage of air 
traffic controllers. I want to thank you for your work in that 
regard and your Department's work in that regard, and just 
stress how critically important it is that we get the FAA 
reauthorization across the finish line and avoid what I think 
would be a disastrous shutdown. That is not a question for you, 
sir; that is just something I want to put on the record and say 
for my area and for our economic outlook, for the thousands of 
jobs that are relying on it, it is critically important. So, 
thank you for being here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Allred.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Drew.
    Dr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. Are you familiar with the William 
J. Hughes FAA Technical Center in southern New Jersey?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. I haven't had the opportunity to 
visit, but I'm certainly aware of it, yes.
    Dr. Van Drew. Good. I hope you do visit sometime.
    For those who don't know, the FAA Technical Center is 
critical to national security. It supports our national 
airspace and traffic control systems. It also conducts 
classified research. In fact, I recently toured it again and 
learned that this secure facility blocks not millions but 
billions of cyberattacks every single day, most of them through 
China.
    Through the technical center, the FAA owns and manages a 
large campus in South Jersey. The FAA campus includes the 
Atlantic City International Airport.
    I am personally deeply alarmed by the administration's plan 
to use the FAA campus to house thousands, up to 60,000, illegal 
immigrants in a town that only has 50,000 residents. In August, 
the Department of Homeland Security recommended that the 
Atlantic City Airport be used to house up these 60,000 
immigrants from New York City.
    First of all, the Atlantic City Airport is an unacceptable 
place to house these people. There are no services or 
infrastructure at the airport that could possibly support this. 
Logistically, it is a poor concept.
    Further, the Atlantic City Airport is surrounded by 
facilities critical to national security. Besides the technical 
center, the 177th Air National Guard uses the airport to defend 
Washington, DC, and New York City from attack, the first 
defense, rapid response. These facilities cannot be 
compromised.
    Atlantic City Airport was recommended for migrant housing 
because it is part of the Federal FAA campus. It is Federal. 
Decisions about the use of this property, Mr. Secretary, 
ultimately fall to the Department of Transportation. This is 
your responsibility.
    A question. Was the Department of Transportation consulted 
in the process of DHS recommending the Atlantic City Airport as 
a migrant housing site?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would have to check the record on 
that. What I would tell you is that generally a recommendation 
is not the same thing as an outcome or a policy. And so, 
developing a list of potential sites is not necessarily 
something that is within FAA authority, even though ultimate 
clearance of something like a nonaviation use on an airfield is 
something that would have to come through FAA channels.
    Dr. Van Drew. And I understand that. But it scared the 
daylights out of people. If a city of 9 million people is 
having trouble dealing with all of this, how would a town, a 
semi-rural town of 50,000 people do? It was on the list, as 
well as some others were on the list. But it concerns us 
greatly. I would appreciate if you would look into it, and I 
would appreciate if you would get back to me.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We will make sure to do so.
    Dr. Van Drew. And I am going to ask a commitment that I 
hope that you can make, that you would not allow the Department 
of Homeland Security to use this facility for that purpose.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I don't oversee the Department of 
Homeland Security, but you certainly have our commitment that 
all FAA facilities and any facility under our jurisdiction will 
always be secure.
    Dr. Van Drew. I hope so.
    I hope that once we resolve this, in fact, that we can move 
on to strengthening America's aviation system. The United 
States of America is at a pivotal moment for aviation. Our 
infrastructure is on the brink of failure in many cases, with 
thousands of flight delays, dozens of near-misses every year. 
In January, unprecedented since 9/11, we had to ground all 
flights for the first time. I am seriously concerned. We need 
to do better.
    I also, in my travels, visited one of the traffic control 
towers at Atlantic City Airport, and I think it is finally 
going to be replaced. But interesting to me, with all the money 
that we spend on things, they are still using floppy discs via 
1993. I mean, that is unconscionable.
    We need to have the best air traffic control system in the 
world. We need to have the best airports in the world. This is 
the United States of America.
    So, can you identify steps you are taking to improve our 
aviation system from safety and efficiency to the traveler 
experience, secondly, and to new technology, third?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely, and I really appreciate 
the question. Let me break it down as quickly as I can into the 
component parts of the question.
    With regard to traveler experience, we have overseen what I 
believe is the biggest expansion of passenger rights in 
decades. Just over a year ago, not 1 of the top 10 airlines 
guaranteed in writing that if you got stuck, you would be 
guaranteed hotel accommodations, meals, vouchers for ground 
transportation, anything like that. Now, nearly all of them do. 
We have secured, or encouraged with our enforcement actions, 
leveraging some $2.5 billion in refunds getting to passengers. 
And we are underway on rules for things like not having to pay 
extra when you are sitting next to your kids.
    With regard to the physical infrastructure, we are putting 
the funds in the IIJA to work. But like you, I am concerned 
about the state of play in terms of the progress toward 
modernization and the adoption of needed technologies in the 
FAA. The only thing that I think is harder than a multibillion-
dollar IT project is a multibillion-dollar public-sector IT 
project. So, that is----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The 
gentleman's time has expired. The chairman now recognizes Ms. 
Davids.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. [Inaudible] what's so 
important about reauthorization----
    Dr. Van Drew [interrupting]. Thank you, Chairman. Please 
look into the FAA. Thank you.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, 
Secretary Buttigieg, for taking the time to come over and 
testify and share the work you are doing with us today. I know 
that to date, we have seen $2.3 billion in Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law funding being announced, and that money is 
headed to Kansas, with more than 228 specific projects 
identified for funding. That includes more than $10 million to 
help the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority transition 
to electric buses that are going to lead to cleaner, healthier 
transportation for the entire Kansas City metro area. I know 
you have seen some of that in person.
    Since the law passed, $1.4 billion has been allocated for 
transportation in Kansas for roads, bridges, public transit, 
ports, airports, and then another $194 million has been 
announced for clean water.
    Our State, the State of Kansas, has received $451.7 million 
to connect everyone in the State, including rural parts of the 
Kansas Third Congressional District, to reliable high-speed 
internet. And that is more than 118,000 Kansas households that 
are already saving because of their internet bill being lowered 
thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. I mean, these are 
real savings for Kansas families. And particularly for folks 
who are working hard to manage their budgets.
    There is also a whole new world of--we saw this because of 
the pandemic--of our hospitals and healthcare leaning into 
things like telemedicine, and our entrepreneurs are trying to 
get their businesses up and going. But I do think when we look 
back, when history is written about this time and we examine 
the long-term impact of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it 
is going to be judged on some of these significant Federal 
investments, particularly when it comes to transportation and 
infrastructure. And I am not just saying that because I am an 
infrastructure nerd. I am saying it because we know that it is 
not just dollars and cents we are talking about.
    So, I first, of course, want to say thank you for--we have 
heard about a number of different projects, grants, and 
particularly for those in Kansas that are getting into 
communities from Osawatomie to Overland Park.
    I am hoping to hear a little bit about how you are viewing 
that disbursement process. Because I think we know that the 
bread and butter of this stuff is going to be in the 
implementation. And so, I am hoping to glean a bit about how 
that is going from you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. It is at the 
heart of what we think about every day. We are trying to build 
good things well and promptly, while meeting all of the policy 
and legal requirements that are attached to these projects. One 
way to think of it is, if our first year was about the bill 
passing and the second year was about the programs launching, 
this is about the money moving so we can get the dirt flying. 
That is really what we are focused on in this third and fourth 
year.
    And we are working to strike the right balance between 
making sure the process is rigorous enough and has the right 
kind of oversight, including our direct oversight, oversight 
from our inspector general, and of course oversight from 
Congress, and at the same time not adding so many conditions 
and complications to the process that it slows us down. It is 
not unusual for it to take a year just from an award 
announcement to a grant agreement, and that is just one step in 
getting a project done. We want to compress that timeline 
without leaving out any important steps.
    I think we are off to a good start. I have been pleased to 
see the way project sponsors have rallied to be ready for the 
dollars coming their way. But we are also putting dedicated 
staff, time, and attention to how to work with those project 
sponsors, identify issues as they come up, provide technical 
assistance for navigating our own processes, and make those 
processes simpler in the first place.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. I appreciate particularly the 
acknowledgment of having to get the program stood up and also 
that we need to get these projects moving as quickly as 
possible, and that we have now entered into that phase of 
efficiently and effectively getting the disbursement of funds.
    The last thing I wanted to touch on before you leave in my 
last few seconds here is an issue that I know I have brought up 
personally with you before, and it relates to the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law allocating $1 billion for the maintenance, 
acquisition, and installation of aviation navigation aids--I am 
used to just saying nav aids--for small and medium-size 
airports that depend on these technologies for managing air 
traffic. These nav aids are operating--there are plenty of them 
that are operating well beyond their expected useful life, and 
parts are becoming difficult to source. And these systems need 
to be updated across the country.
    And I just am flagging it because I would love for us to 
continue to look at this and make sure that we are committed to 
keeping our airspace the safest airspace in the world. And any 
new FAA leadership, once that process runs through, would love 
to make sure that our offices are working together on getting 
these nav aids upgraded and updated.
    Thanks, and I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks, and we welcome working with 
your office on that.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Ms. Davids and Mr. Secretary.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Yakym.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is 
good to see you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Likewise.
    Mr. Yakym. As you know, the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act or, IIJA, expanded discretionary grant funding by 500 
percent. But as you and I discussed on a recent phone call, on 
a per capita basis, Indiana ranks dead last in being able to 
secure IIJA discretionary grants. And when I say dead last, I 
mean we are behind all of the U.S. Territories as well. That is 
tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in forgone 
projects to improve Hoosier communities like your former 
stomping ground of South Bend, and across the entire State.
    Can you assure me that you will work toward a more 
equitable distribution of IIJA discretionary grants?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, we want to make sure 
that every State, including Indiana, and your district, where I 
have spent the majority of my life, get a fair shake in these 
processes, and welcome opportunities to work with project 
sponsors who came close but didn't quite make the cut, on how 
to refine their applications for future rounds.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    This May, your agency was the victim of a hack, a 
cyberattack, that compromised personally identifiable 
information of 237,000 current or former Federal employees. At 
a June briefing in this room with your CIO, I raised specific 
questions about the DOT's cyber modernization plan, including 
what the plan is, as well as funding and staffing needs. Your 
CIO committed to providing this information, but yet over 90 
days later, we haven't yet received it.
    Can you commit to providing a written cyber modernization 
plan, budget request for additional resources, and an update on 
the DOT's response to this breach to this committee within the 
next 2 weeks?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. Our cyber activities with 
regard to the budget side will be contemplated within the 
President's budget request. As far as an update, certainly, we 
will work to make sure you get the information you need. I have 
been working with OCIO on not just a response to that 
particular incident but the outlook going forward. A lot of 
activity on this, and I want to make sure you and your 
colleagues are well informed on the progress there.
    Mr. Yakym. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Turning to another topic, you help run the administration's 
Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force, is that right?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I am a member of that.
    Mr. Yakym. Great. Let's talk about drayage trucks, which 
haul shipping containers between ports, rail yards, and 
distribution centers. I think it is fair to say that these 
trucks are part of the linchpin of our Nation's supply chain. 
Do you generally agree with that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely.
    Mr. Yakym. In that case, I want to flag something for you 
that seems like a major supply chain disruption that's brewing. 
Beginning January 1 of 2024, in just over 3 months, California 
will require drayage fleets to purchase only zero-emissions 
trucks.
    Let me ask, do you know how many zero-emissions Class 7 and 
8 tractor-trailers, or excuse me, tractor trucks and terminal 
tractors were on the roads statewide in California at the end 
of 2022?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I know this is a very new technology, 
so, you are not going to see a lot of them deployed just yet.
    Mr. Yakym. So, there were only--you are right, it is not a 
lot. It is 192 that were registered in the entire State, and 
they are all electric.
    But the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach, two of America's 
busiest ports, require thousands of drayage trucks to move 
products through our supply chain. And an official in the port 
actually estimates that roughly 1,500 to 2,000 drayage trucks 
serving L.A. and Long Beach are retired every year.
    Given that there are only 192 Class 7 and 8 electric trucks 
across the entire State of California, do you think that all 
1,500 to 2,000 drayage trucks will be able to be replaced with 
electric vehicles next year per this new mandate?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, as a Department, we have not 
created a formal assessment of whether the industry will be 
able to meet the compliance timelines set forth by CARB. But we 
certainly recognize that that represents an aggressive 
transition. We have been in dialogue with the port directors 
about the efforts to comply there.
    I do think there's great opportunity for the EV use case in 
the drayage context, because you often have predicable, 
defined, and relatively short runs. But that doesn't mean all 
of that technology is immediately available and certainly 
something that we are monitoring. Though we don't have direct 
authority to tell the State what to do in that regard.
    Mr. Yakym. So, while we may not--the Federal Government may 
not have direct authority to tell the State what to do, this 
California mandate to move to zero-emissions vehicles with 
drayage trucks is a mandate that was enabled by a waiver from 
the Biden administration. Do you support that waiver?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly we stand by any 
regulatory action we have taken in this regard.
    Mr. Yakym. And if we allow them to continue down that path, 
but the trucks simply aren't available, how does that help 
enable the supply chains that my constituents depend on?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, I don't have a formal 
assessment of how the compliance path is going. I know that 
it's going to require aggressive action. But I also know it's 
going to lead to fewer cases of asthma in and around those port 
communities, in addition to the other benefits that are going 
to come from that reduction in pollution. So, certainly there's 
an important policy goal at stake here.
    We will do everything we can to support it being compatible 
with another important policy goal, which is smooth and 
effective supply chains in the U.S.
    Mr. Yakym. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Yakym.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking 
Member. Secretary Buttigieg, great to have you here as we 
approach the 2-year mark of passage of the IIJA, and as you 
have rightly pointed out, the potential of a decade's 
definition of improving our infrastructure across the country. 
And I am proud to say that we are already seeing some of the 
benefits coming to places like Chicagoland, including Federal 
dollars to complete the Chicago Transit Authority's Red Line 
extension that was first promised to the far South Side of 
Chicago in 1969, when I was in seventh grade, and money for a 
rail grade separation project that will help make the suburban 
communities that I represent safer and more connected. And 
hopefully, more funding will be on the way as well. But we have 
still got a lot of work to do. And of course, this bill's 
historic potential becomes an inclusive, equitable reality.
    Which brings me to my first question. Secretary Buttigieg, 
the Department of Transportation initially announced its 
proposed rulemaking to modernize disadvantaged business 
enterprises, or DBEs, and airport concession DBE regulations 
during the summer of 2022. However, the proposed rulemaking has 
not yet been finalized, rules that could make a real difference 
for small-, minority-, and women-owned businesses long excluded 
from the Federal bidding process, as we undertake this great 
venture.
    When will the rulemaking on DBEs become final? We await 
eagerly.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. And I can assure you, 
so am I. This is a very important policy. It also represents 
the most comprehensive changes to date for the DBE program, 
making it easier for eligible firms to become and remain 
certified, expanding the pool of eligible participants, moving 
closer to nationwide reciprocity, simplifying the process. So, 
we are very close to being able to finalize that, and I am 
looking forward to sharing the good news when we are ready.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. I hope it will be soon. What 
additional steps is DOT planning to take to help DBEs 
participate in infrastructure projects funded by IIJA? Will the 
Department of Transportation look at creating technical 
assistance programs for small businesses in the construction 
industry that focus on the industry's unique needs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. A couple things I would point to that 
I think will be helpful, in addition to the modernization of 
the DBE program. One is making sure there is better 
transparency and predictability in the flow of these projects 
as they emerge. Often, one thing that keeps incumbent firms 
sometimes able to box out competition is just a level of 
knowledge that we think should be transparent to all.
    So, part of what our Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization, or OSDBU, focuses on with their--what I 
call their roadshow of connections marketplace events, is to 
try to make the right connections between where the work is 
coming from, who is in charge of it, which, of course, is often 
a body like the CTA, even if the dollars are Federal, and those 
DBEs that could be participating.
    The second thing that I would bring to the attention of 
this committee is that we are being very intentional--I think 
and hope more intentional than ever--in working across the 
interagency to support this. So, I have hosted both the SBA's 
leadership and the MBDA's leadership, knowing that, sure, there 
are different departments--MBDA sits in Commerce, SBA is 
independent--but we all have the same goal, and we should be 
participating in the same events, reaching the same DBE 
community with all of these wonderful opportunities that are 
emerging.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. I look forward to that.
    Moving on to another topic, the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices, which, as you know, influences street design 
across the country, the MUTCD hasn't been updated since 2009 
and is outdated. Updating the MUTCD can help improve pedestrian 
and cyclist safety, advance complete streets, and promote the 
use of public transit. Many improvements have been suggested to 
make that vision a reality. But earlier this year, the Federal 
Highway Administration missed its deadline to release a new 
edition of the handbook.
    Mr. Secretary, why was the deadline missed, and what is the 
new timeline for the updated manual?
    And what kind of major structural changes can we expect to 
encourage safer, more vibrant streets?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you know, because it provides 
national standards for traffic control devices, the MUTCD can 
almost have the force of law, even though it is not a design 
guide. And so, we recognize the importance of the MUTCD and the 
importance of an update to it.
    The update that we are doing is an exceptionally complex 
piece of work, and since making the notice of proposed 
amendments, we received more than 35,000 comments. And so, the 
Federal Highway Administration has worked promptly but 
judiciously to take all of those comments on board, hoping that 
we can get that update issued as quickly as possible, and then 
get to a more regular cadence of updates. So, instead of 
waiting between 2009 and now, we are in accordance with the 
requirement that was in the IIJA, which will call for a 4-year 
cycle of updates.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Secretary.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Secretary, the Chair now recognizes Mr. D'Esposito.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, thank you for being here this morning, this 
afternoon.
    Staffing shortages are disproportionately affecting New 
York City area airports. In fact, the New York TRACON located 
right in the center of my district is the key facility that 
directs planes in and out of the New York City area. It is 
staffed at 54 percent of the 2014 levels.
    This past Friday, the FAA announced that they will extend 
cuts to minimum flight service requirements at New York City 
area airports through October of 2024. Do you consider safety 
and maintaining normal operation as your foremost job as 
Transportation Secretary?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, in that order: first, safety and 
then, a close second, operational--smooth operations.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you. Smooth sometimes. What is your 
plan for hiring and training enough air traffic controllers to 
meet current and future demand?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We recognize there is a clear gap that 
didn't build up overnight, but needs to be addressed quickly 
between how many controllers we have available and how many we 
think we should have. As a matter of fact, we have trued up our 
estimates of the size of that gap and place it at over 3,000.
    Now, the good news is we have 2,600 air traffic controllers 
in the pipeline right now. This year, we set and met our goal 
of hiring 1,500. Our budget request for the coming fiscal year 
would allow us to hire another 1,800. But of course, there is 
attrition that is draining the bucket, so to speak, just as we 
are filling it.
    We are finally getting ahead, but a shutdown would stop us 
in our tracks because it would shut down air traffic control 
training. It is one of many reasons we think it is so important 
to keep things up and running.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I agree with you. We should keep it up and 
running.
    You said you have 2,600 air traffic controllers in the 
pipeline.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Correct.
    Mr. D'Esposito. What does ``the pipeline'' actually mean?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, what that means is the training 
process that begins at the academy in Oklahoma City, but it 
doesn't end there. Becoming qualified to work at an air traffic 
control facility, especially one as complex and important as 
N90, requires additional certification in that specific 
airspace with a lot of on-the-job training.
    And my understanding of the consequences of a shutdown is 
that on-the-job training would stop, too. So, people would be 
pulled. If they are not in a fully qualified status, they would 
be pulled out of the towers, out of the TRACONs, unable to 
build that experience.
    Mr. D'Esposito. So, you mentioned attrition. How many air 
traffic controllers did you lose in 2022?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I will have to pull that number. What 
I will tell you is we are finally getting to where we are 
adding more than we are losing, but not by much.
    Mr. D'Esposito. But out of that 2,600 number, that doesn't 
mean that all 2,600 of those individuals will become air 
traffic controllers.
    Secretary Buttigieg. True.
    Mr. D'Esposito. It is like the New York City Police 
Department. You get in, you may not get out.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That's right.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Have there been any discussions about 
temporarily reassigning fully certified controllers from the 
other less impactful facilities to provide relief at New York 
TRACON?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would have to check on specifically 
with regard to the TRACON. What I can tell you is that we use 
reserve mechanisms or other approaches to the extent that it's 
possible under work rules to try to alleviate that.
    And let me also just make clear that the staffing level at 
the N90 TRACON is, in my view, unacceptable. We will never 
allow anything to not be safe. But in terms of just the 
pressure that that is putting on the people who are there and 
on smooth operations, there clearly needs to be a swift path 
toward a higher----
    Mr. D'Esposito [interrupting]. I agree. It is one of the 
reasons that during the FAA reauthorization, I fought so 
strongly to make sure that those individuals weren't leaving 
the TRACON facility and reassigned to Pittsburgh as the plans 
were in place.
    How do you plan to direct those 2,600 individuals in the 
pipeline? Let's just say, for argument's sake, half of them 
make it through. I don't really know what the numbers are that 
bring people through the training and eventually become air 
traffic controllers. How do you plan to direct additional 
controllers towards facilities with the most need, similar to 
ones like TRACON?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, that is why that training 
process is so important, not just the foundational training you 
get at the academy, but the training that qualifies and 
prepares you to work in the most complex, challenging, and 
dynamic parts of the national airspace. And it is one of many, 
many reasons why we view it as so important to get FAA 
reauthorization done, and to get an Administrator confirmed so 
that he can lead that process of bringing those new controllers 
on board.
    Mr. D'Esposito. So, now we touched upon hiring, we touched 
around reassigning. What other actions is FAA taking to 
maximize operational capacity at New York TRACON?
    You just mentioned--I think the term you used was 
``unacceptable'' as to the staffing there. So, what is it, what 
actions besides the hiring and the reassigning, what other 
actions can be taken to maximize operational capacity at New 
York TRACON?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, you mentioned the waiver, which 
is something that has been a priority for the airlines 
operating in that area, and we think is reasonable in order to 
make sure that there is less likelihood that volume will lead 
to delays.
    We are also always assessing how technology can be part of 
the solution, as has been mentioned earlier in this hearing. 
There are a number of technologies that are outdated, that need 
modernization, that can make everybody involved in the aviation 
process, including controllers, more productive and more 
effective. They are doing a great job, but we need to make sure 
we back them up with the best technology and with adequate 
overall staffing levels. We think our plan will do just that. 
But it has got to get funded, and we have got to avoid any 
unnecessary politically driven disruptions like a shutdown.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The chairman now 
recognizes Mr. Pappas.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your attention to 
all the details of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the 
purviews of your Department. I thank you for visiting New 
Hampshire on at least a couple of occasions to announce funding 
for critical local priorities, and we will have you back any 
time.
    New Hampshire has been successful in securing funding 
through the RAISE program. And earlier this summer I was with 
other members of our delegation at the General Sullivan Bridge 
project in Dover, in Newington. It is replacing an aging 
structure that has been closed for a number of years. It is 
going to add a wider bike and pedestrian bridge that is going 
to connect to a regional network, which is really important for 
moving people, but also for our local economy.
    But I am concerned about delays that we are hearing about 
for this project and two other bridge projects in New 
Hampshire. My staff recently met with folks from the Federal 
Highway Administration, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
and the Coast Guard to talk about the status of these projects. 
And I am grateful that the Federal Highway Administration has 
completed its reviews as the lead agency, but we are waiting on 
sign-off from other Federal and State agencies, which is 
causing delays in this project.
    So, this is frustrating to folks in New Hampshire, and I am 
wondering if you could talk about what you can do, as a 
Department, as the lead Federal agency for so many of these 
projects in places like New Hampshire. How do you coordinate 
with other Federal agencies?
    And do we have your commitment to keep working with Coast 
Guard and the Army Corps to make sure these bridge projects in 
New Hampshire can move forward efficiently?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks. And the short answer is 
yes. We are committed to working with any other Federal agency, 
just as we work with any project sponsor to try to make sure 
projects are delivered responsibly and promptly.
    I know how much excitement there is about the General 
Sullivan Bridge project, and want to congratulate the project 
sponsors on making it through that very competitive process.
    We are very much accustomed to working with the Army Corps 
of Engineers as part of the NEPA process any time ports or 
water relays come into play. And similarly, with the Coast 
Guard, while of course no longer part of the DOT, an agency 
that we work with very closely.
    And so, in this case, knowing that the permits may not all 
be within the Federal Highway Administration's jurisdiction, we 
are certainly prepared to be at the table and engaging any time 
we can, informally or formally, to help keep things moving and 
make sure that people see the benefit of that $20 million as 
soon as we responsibly can get it done.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much for your commitment 
there.
    And while we are on the topic of active transportation, we 
had an authorization as part of the infrastructure law that 
created a dedicated program for bike and pedestrian 
infrastructure, something that my communities are really hungry 
for. And as part of the omnibus bill, we were able to get $45 
million in that bill to fund this program. And I am wondering 
if you could give us a status update on where this is, and when 
we might be able to hear about grants moving forward.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. As you know, dozens and dozens 
of new programs were created through the IIJA. It is a great 
problem to have, but it means that our teams have been working 
in overdrive to get the Notices of Funding Opportunity out and 
make the award selections.
    I can tell you we anticipate releasing that particular NOFO 
for the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program 
before the end of this calendar year, and FHWA is working on it 
as we speak.
    Mr. Pappas. Terrific. Thank you very much.
    Toll credits are very important to a State like New 
Hampshire, and we use these as a Federal match on important 
projects. We have got a surplus of them that is about $200 
million at the end of our last fiscal year, and that is one of 
the reasons why I supported the creation of the Toll Credit 
Marketplace. And I understand that a pilot program should be 
stood up soon. It was included in the infrastructure law.
    Can you update us on that Toll Credit Marketplace that will 
benefit States and allow them to stretch those dollars even 
further?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. This is another example of 
something that we are working as promptly as we can to deliver. 
It's complex, and it is new, but establishing that Toll Credit 
Marketplace and just completing the procedural dimensions of 
the application process and selection process is underway right 
now.
    So, we will follow up with your office as we anticipate a 
date to be able to put that out, but certainly, the work on 
that program is underway.
    Mr. Pappas. OK. And as you know, as part of the 
infrastructure law, the base formula for highways wasn't 
changed. We did see an increase in my State significantly over 
what we had been receiving for highways, but the formula, I 
believe, is outdated and disadvantages some States. I will give 
you an example. Our neighboring State of Vermont has about half 
the population of New Hampshire, about the same area size, 
fewer lane-miles, but receives significantly more Federal 
highway dollars each and every year.
    So, I am wondering if this is something that you are taking 
into consideration as we think about the discretionary grant 
opportunities that are contained within the infrastructure law, 
and whether or not you are open to either studying or looking 
at the highway formula moving forward.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We are certainly ready to provide any 
technical assistance that could be useful as Congress 
reassesses the formula.
    And also, when it comes to the August redistribution, that 
can put, I know, a lot of pressure on States. We want to make 
sure that we accelerate the award and obligation to funding so 
that less winds up getting caught in that August redistribution 
in the first place. And I appreciate all the hard work both our 
own team and the States did getting through this year.
    We want to make sure that there is equitable use and 
disbursement of all of these dollars. And certainly, when we 
see needs or deficiencies build up, that is something that is 
considered in the discretionary grant process, project by 
project.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The chairman now 
recognizes Mr. Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thanks for being with us this afternoon and 
spending so long to answer all of our important questions.
    The IIJA spent more Federal dollars than in many decades 
for United States infrastructure. Specifically, the IIJA 
authorized and appropriated $661 billion over 5 years for DOT 
programs, more than double the amount authorized in the 
previous surface transportation law, the FAST Act.
    In preparation for this hearing, the committee requested 
from DOT the total amount of IIJA funding distributed to date. 
DOT's response was not comprehensive in its accounting of 
distributed IIJA dollars and, in fact, differed from previous 
estimates provided to the committee by DOT.
    Do you agree--just a simple yes or no--that in order to 
effectively monitor funds, you should be able to accurately 
pull an accounting of what funds have been allocated and where 
they have been sent?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Oh, absolutely. And I can assure you 
that we do, we take great care to make sure that we can track 
these dollars.
    But we also know how complex it can be to be able to answer 
what seems like a simple question when you are tracking this 
many projects.
    Mr. Edwards. And so, how can the Department be trusted to 
administer hundreds of billions of dollars when it can't at 
this time provide clear and concise information to the 
committee of jurisdiction?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, take the case where formula 
dollars go out to a State, and the State has met the 
requirement to be able to have those dollars passed to that 
State.
    Now, traditionally, we wouldn't follow those dollars past 
whether they were federally compliant. But the reality is, for 
those dollars to turn into dirt moving, bridges getting built, 
or whatever the project is, we would want to know that.
    Now, the only way to officially require that information 
would be to impose a mandate on the State, which we don't want 
to do, we don't have the authorization to do. But we need to 
follow the funds so it's not a fire-and-forget sort of thing.
    Mr. Edwards. All right.
    Secretary Buttigieg. And so, that is what we are working to 
try to make sure we create the visibility on, not just to make 
it available to the committee, but to make it available to the 
public, as you will see increasingly available through the 
online tools we have created for project tracking.
    Mr. Edwards. And so, given the concerns that DOT was unable 
to provide a comprehensive accounting of IIJA funds, is there 
any way that you can commit to a particular timeframe to 
provide this committee a full account of IIJA funds that have 
been announced, obligated, and outlaid to date?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We will always provide accurate 
information about the use of the dollars that have been 
entrusted to this Department. And where we are trying to follow 
them through the hands of a non-Federal agency that they have 
gotten into, we will do our best to try to understand that, 
too.
    What I can't commit to is data that does not belong to us. 
But we are trying to make sure, without creating onerous 
reporting requirements, that we can still follow it, because, 
of course, we are interested, too, in how those projects are 
proceeding, even if they have already satisfied the fundamental 
Federal requirements.
    Mr. Edwards. And so, who would be in a position best--would 
it be your office or would it be Congress--to require some sort 
of reporting from the States in order to get the information to 
you that this committee requires to do its job?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We think that we definitely hit the 
States with a lot of reporting requirements, so, I am not here 
to propose that Congress add even more. But over time, if we 
find that there are visibility issues or problems, we would 
certainly engage both the States and potentially this committee 
on how to make sure that we address them without creating undue 
burden.
    Mr. Edwards. And so, I am not sure I heard who would be 
responsible----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Well, we think of it as 
our job. But if we need help from Congress, we will make sure 
to tell you.
    Mr. Edwards. All right, thank you.
    One other question coming a little bit more close to my 
district, an important program in North Carolina is the 
Appalachian Development Highway System, the ADHS, which 
includes Corridor K, in particular, which needs additional 
funding to complete its final segments. Can you share your 
thoughts on the importance of the ADHS and projects like 
Corridor K to improve access and mobility for isolated rural 
populations, including what can be done for economic activity 
and quality of life in rural areas like I represent?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We strongly believe that connectivity 
to highways and, ultimately, to the Federal and Interstate 
Highway System, is an important part of the lifeblood of any 
economy. And when there are communities, including Appalachian 
communities, that have been left out of that level of 
connectivity, we know that limits opportunities for families, 
for workers, for cities and towns and counties, which is why 
the ADHS is important, and I know enjoys a high level of 
support from Congress and from us, too.
    When you have that kind of connection, horizons open, and 
it becomes more likely that people who live in these rural 
communities don't have to fear that the next generation won't 
find any opportunity on the soil that produced them. And we are 
very committed to doing our part to use transportation to 
benefit the future of those communities, including through 
efforts like the ADHS.
    Mr. Edwards. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
    Mr. James. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Auchincloss.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
    Good afternoon, Secretary. Earlier, a gentleman from 
Arkansas insinuated that the Department of Transportation 
wasn't moving on getting critical money out of the door. Do you 
agree with that assessment?
    Secretary Buttigieg. No, but I certainly share the 
impatience to get that money out the door. We are making sure 
we get it right, and we are making sure we do it promptly, too.
    Mr. Auchincloss. I appreciate it. I want to move now to 
highlight an important safety issue that impacts pedestrian 
cyclists and other road users.
    Under the New Car Assessment Program, NCAP, the National 
Highway Transportation Safety Administration currently grants 
four- or five-star safety ratings to increasingly large 
vehicles because the program focuses only on the safety of 
those within a vehicle and not on how those vehicles impact 
those around them. Last year, NHTSA responded to concerns about 
this rating system by proposing an optional pedestrian 
crashworthiness test within NCAP.
    With fatalities and serious injuries among pedestrians and 
cyclists skyrocketing by more than 50 percent in the past 
decades, it is clear that vehicle design can play an important 
role in reducing fatalities, including by improving driver 
sightlines and reducing weight and height.
    Mr. Secretary, does NHTSA have any plans to incorporate 
pedestrian crashworthiness ratings into a vehicle's final 
safety ratings?
    And what additional steps can your Department take to 
improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We know that the increase we have seen 
in roadway deaths has largely been driven by what happens to 
pedestrians and cyclists. And so, if our understanding of 
vehicle safety only includes what is inside the vehicle, we are 
missing an important part of the story, and it is one of the 
reasons why we are paying attention to how to upgrade our NCAP 
program to provide additional information. That includes 
attention to the effect of a car's design on those who are 
outside the vehicle.
    And NHTSA is working on upgrading the program to provide 
more information about various things that could lead to 
improvements and avoid crashes. Things we are considering 
include blindspot detection, blindspot intervention, lane-
keeping support, and, importantly, AEB, automatic emergency 
braking, for pedestrians, which we think is important.
    We have published a request for comment, NHTSA has, to try 
to get public comment on adding a crashworthiness protection 
testing program to NCAP, which we also think would be 
important, to have a data-driven approach here, and are 
continuing to advance on that.
    And of course, there are other steps that NHTSA is taking, 
like the proposal for a Federal standard on AEB that we think 
would make a difference here, and could be integrated into 
FMVSS.
    Mr. Auchincloss. An important part of improving walkability 
for our communities is the infrastructure investments in 
cycling and walking infrastructure, but also, of course, 
ensuring that vehicles are more safe not just for those inside 
of them, but for the pedestrians and cyclists who are 
endangered by them.
    Mr. Secretary, you also opened up your testimony talking 
briefly about the work that DOT has done on junk fees for 
airline passengers, as well as your work on hiring air traffic 
controllers, which has been a critical bottleneck that has led 
to some flight delays. I want to allow you to expound upon the 
work that you have done on junk fees and how the flying public 
will see those impact them in the coming year.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. We take 
seriously our authorities to make sure that the passenger 
experience is a better one. And part of what is especially 
frustrating for passengers is when you find that you are stuck 
with some fee that was not transparent to you.
    So, we are working on several things at once. Part of it is 
the transparency piece, just to make sure that when you book a 
ticket, and not afterwards, you can see any and all ancillary 
fees or charges that are associated with your ticket.
    Another thing is making sure you get your money back if you 
don't get that service. We require that, if your flight is 
canceled, you can get your airfare back. But we need to make 
sure that there are companion rules so that if your baggage 
doesn't get there but you paid for baggage, or if you paid for 
Wi-Fi and the Wi-Fi doesn't work, that you can get your money 
back on that, too.
    And then there are fees that we think just should not be 
charged in the first place. A good example of that is the idea 
of being charged to sit next to your kids, something that I was 
reminded of the other day when Chas and I were bringing our 
toddlers back to Washington from Michigan, and making sure 
that--some things we understand that the market can provide a 
mechanism for people to choose whether they want this extra 
service or that. But sitting next to your kids isn't a bell or 
a whistle. It's important, and you shouldn't have to pay for 
it. And so, that's something that we have underway, too.
    I think, taken together, all of these are going to lead to 
not just a better passenger experience, but I would argue a 
healthier marketplace for airline tickets in America.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Between cracking down on the junk fees and 
improving the ATC hiring, I appreciate the work you are doing 
to ensure a better experience for the flying public in the year 
to come. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Auchincloss. The Chair now 
recognizes himself for questions.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. Really 
quickly, your Department oversees the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, which I am sure you are aware recently 
proposed the CAFE standards for 2027 to 2032. You are also 
likely aware the EPA agency has separately proposed overlapping 
greenhouse gas standards.
    Sir, can you explain what actions you have taken to 
coordinate with the EPA Administrator Regan to ensure that auto 
manufacturers that comply with greenhouse gas regulations are 
also compliant with fuel economy standards issued by DOT?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. We recognize 
that the development of two related but different sets of 
standards, one from NHTSA with regard to fuel economy, one from 
EPA with regard to emissions, can be a complicated thing for 
industry to deal with if we are not as transparent and 
coordinated as possible and as appropriate, while, of course, 
recognizing we are still separate agencies.
    And so, we have worked, to the extent appropriate, in 
coordination with EPA and with the White House----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. All right. Well, I will get more 
specific. Specific to the DOT, CAFE standards in model year 
2032 indicate automakers will pay $10 to $13 billion in civil 
penalties for noncompliance. Mr. Secretary, will these 
penalties increase or decrease the vehicle costs for the 
average American buyer?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, if there is a failure to comply, 
and there is a penalty assessed, and the automaker puts that 
penalty on the back of the consumer, then their costs will 
increase.
    On the other hand, the consumer will be saving money, 
thanks to the reduced gas that they will be buying, thanks to 
the standards. And we estimate saving about $1,000----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. OK. So, let's assume. Let's 
assume that we go forward. Are those penalties reinvested by 
DOT in programs that would actually support more efficient 
vehicles, pollution reduction, or workforce development? Or do 
they go to the general fund as essentially an implicit tax on 
the American people, which is the role of Congress?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am not in a position to speak to the 
use of penalty funding that hasn't been collected yet, but 
certainly think that, partnering with Congress, it could be 
appropriate to make sure it gets assigned in ways that further 
the policy goal, provided they don't amount to undercutting the 
purpose of the penalty in the first place, which is to get the 
automaker to do the right thing and comply so that there is no 
penalty at all.
    Mr. James. Would another right thing be profit-sharing with 
the UAW?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Say again.
    Mr. James. Would another right thing be profit-sharing with 
the UAW?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we certainly think that auto 
workers ought to get their fair share of the growth and the----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. So, you agree that profit-sharing 
with the UAW is something that is proper.
    These penalties----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Well, just to be clear, 
I am not at the negotiating table, and I am not going to----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. Well, neither of us are, but both 
of us----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. But certainly----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. So, with the President's 
unrealistic projection for electric vehicle sales in the 
future, 67 percent by the year 2032, affecting the 
profitability of these plants is going to take dollars away 
from auto workers. The approximate formula is about $1,000 per 
auto worker for $1 billion for the automakers.
    If penalties are levied on the automakers, then this will 
take money away from the auto workers. Is the President aware 
that he is literally taking money away from UAW workers by 
impugning their bonuses?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I just don't think that is the right 
characterization, because it assumes that the automakers will 
fail to comply with the law.
    Look, ever since the first CAFE standards were introduced 
in the Nixon administration, the industry said there is no way 
we could possibly have vehicles more efficient than 13.5 miles 
a gallon. There has been a push-pull to make sure that we have 
the maximum feasible. But in the end, industry got it done. And 
today American consumers have saved billions and billions of 
dollars. And of course, we have cleaner air because of these 
standards. And I have a lot of confidence that industry can 
continue as they have done in the past----
    Mr. James [interrupting]. I have a lot of confidence----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. To comply with the law.
    Mr. James [continuing]. In industry, as well. But requiring 
going from 67 percent--and you mentioned earlier tripling, but 
that tripling is up to 7 percent now, and requiring that in 
just a handful of years, goes beyond aggressive, and goes into 
the area of dangerous.
    Now, look, I really appreciate you bringing up Penelope 
Rose and Joseph August. I have my little boys, and we have a 
hybrid electric vehicle that we plug in, as well. But there is 
a housing crisis throughout America with affordability. And 
right now, this is not only going to affect the automotive 
industry, it is going to affect average, everyday Americans.
    Based upon the President's unrealistic projection, can you 
explain what is being done in apartment complexes for 
Americans, whether it be folks suffering from a housing crisis 
in northern Michigan, or in my district, in the southern 
portion of my district, making vehicle charging convenient at a 
reasonable cost for people already paying rent that is high?
    What do you think is acceptable, and what is the DOT doing 
to help make this charging more affordable?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. It is an excellent question, 
and it is one of the reasons why we have the community fueling 
infrastructure funding as part of the NEVI program.
    We recognize that especially, look, if you have a single 
family home, you already have charging infrastructure. If you 
have a garage, you can plug in there. But if you are in a 
multifamily dwelling, as many low-income Americans are, you 
can't assume that you are going to have that kind of charging 
infrastructure. And you also can't assume that it is yet 
profitable for a company to put it in. That is exactly why we 
are applying the funds that were provided by Congress to make 
sure that in these areas where it just doesn't yet pencil out 
for a company to do it, that we are buying down that difference 
so that some of the very Americans who would most benefit in 
terms of their family budget from the savings that come with 
filling up with electricity instead of gas can actually access 
it through affordable and convenient chargers.
    Mr. James. One last thing, Mr. Secretary. Seeing electric 
vehicles don't pay a corresponding user fee for the Highway 
Trust Fund, such as the 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline, how 
does the CAFE reduce collections in the trust fund?
    I don't believe there is anything in the DOT's proposed 
rulemaking explaining what the high rate of electrification 
will mean for improvements to our Nation's roads and bridges. 
Effectively, this rising debt of the Federal Government will 
put increased pressure on Congress and this committee to fund 
infrastructure improvements through the general fund. And that 
seems to be a major omission in the administration being honest 
about ensuring our Nation's roads and bridges don't deteriorate 
further due to the higher CAFE and greenhouse gas requirements 
and further pushing the cost of this EV transition onto folks 
who are least able to afford it.
    Can you comment on how we can maintain our infrastructure 
with the increased weight and decreased funding for our 
infrastructure?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. And again, ever since CAFE 
standards began in the Nixon administration, improving the 
average efficiency of a car past 13.5 miles per gallon, there 
has been the effect, alongside all of the money that it saves 
drivers and car owners, that it also means that, because 
Americans are paying less for gas, they are paying less gas 
tax.
    We think Americans paying less for gas is a good thing. We 
think Americans paying less gas tax because they are getting 
more efficient vehicles is a good thing. But we recognize that 
that means there have to be alternative ways to support the 
Highway Trust Fund. Historically, Congress has filled that gap 
through general dollars. That is not the only way to do it, but 
it is certainly a legitimate way to do it, and it is what has 
been happening ever since that gap first opened up.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My time is expired, 
and the chairman now recognizes Mr. Moulton.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Just to pick up on that line of questioning, Mr. Secretary, 
is there any plan for users of EVs to pay the increased costs 
that the additional weight and wear and tear on the highways 
their vehicles creates for the highway system?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, we have not proposed any 
supplemental fee or cost at the Federal level, but we recognize 
that different States are approaching this different ways, 
including sometimes a supplemental registration fee for an 
electric vehicle that won't be paying into the gas tax.
    Mr. Moulton. Like they have done in Utah. OK, great.
    Mr. Secretary, when you travel around Europe, you have much 
more and better options, more freedom, I would point out, than 
when you travel around the U.S. You can drive on highways that 
are generally very well maintained, no bridges collapsing.
    You can take high-speed rail at three times the speed, or 
you can take airplanes, if you don't mind weather and 
maintenance delays like the 2\1/2\ hours American Airlines kept 
me sitting at the gate in Boston on Monday after we boarded the 
plane, before they fixed a problem. Two-and-a-half hours would 
have gotten me more than halfway to Chicago on a high-speed 
train, and not to O'Hare, but downtown Chicago if we had world-
class, high-speed rail.
    In Spain you get a full refund if the train is more than a 
few minutes late. That's hard to imagine here, in America.
    But Mr. Secretary, why has it taken almost 3 years into 
this administration to fund high-speed rail? Last year, you 
made a commitment to getting high-speed rail done in two to 
three geographies. I asked you about this at last year's 
congressional hearing, too. What's happened since then, and why 
is it moving so slowly?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We spent our first years in the 
administration fighting to get the bill passed, with your help, 
to make those fundings available in the first place. We spent 
much of our second year standing up the dozens of programs, 
many of them multibillion-dollar programs that were created by 
the IIJA, which means now we are at the stage of making the 
first waves of project selections and getting those dollars out 
the door.
    Now----
    Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. There were no projects to stand 
up for the administration, because there are already high-speed 
rail projects ready to go, just waiting on Federal funding.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, there are a number, a small 
number, but a very real and compelling number of projects that 
are currently in process for competitive grants that will be 
announced soon.
    I don't have news to make today on that, but what I can 
tell you is that high-speed rail projects are in the mix for 
the non-NEC Fed-State partnership funds, and I believe many of 
them have a compelling case to make.
    Mr. Moulton. OK. Well, I will just--look, seeing is 
believing. You often say that. We have got to get high-speed 
trains that people can actually see and ride like they have in 
the rest of the world. And this is an unbelievably slow-moving, 
high-speed rail program. So, I hope we can speed it up.
    I was shocked to see Boston's South Station expansion 
listed as one of the priorities on the Northeast Corridor 
project inventory. At the cost of $3.5 billion, it will be 
obsolete in about 10 years. So, why would you choose that over 
building the North-South Rail Link and finally connecting the 
Northeast Corridor all the way from Virginia to Maine at a cost 
of just $6 billion?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is not necessarily always an 
either/or. As you know, they were in a bigger set of projects 
that were contemplated for corridor----
    Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. And actually, in this case it 
is, because if you do the North-South Rail Link, you don't need 
to expand South Station. It solves a problem, but it solves a 
problem for 100 years, not for 10.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would welcome a chance to get more 
details to you from FRA on how they approach project selection 
there.
    Mr. Moulton. OK. A quick question on freight rail. A lot of 
talk about freight rail safety after some high-profile 
derailments. There is a bill floating around the House and the 
Senate that will put more wayside detectors along the routes at 
a significant cost, although not that much. This is 1960s 
technology.
    We have an opportunity, a transformative opportunity, right 
now in America to jump--to leapfrog that, and just have 
detectors on every single car so an engineer would know 
instantaneously if there's any problem. I mean, this would be 
transformative for rail safety, ultimately saving the industry 
millions and millions of dollars. But they just have to get the 
instigation to actually put this widely available technology on 
their freight cars.
    So, why are we doubling down, literally doubling down? 
That's what we are doing. We are adding more 1960s technology 
when we all have wearable devices that could be worn by freight 
cars and solve the problem much more effectively for the 
future.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the conditions for a wearable 
device are a little bit different than the conditions you 
experience on the underside of a freight car. But we certainly 
welcome the development of technologies that are newer, more 
effective, more comprehensive.
    And I very much welcome the work that is going on on the 
Railway Safety Act. I am actually amazed that you were the 
first Member today to give specific mention to any of its 
provisions, because we think it is wildly important, in 
addition to the work that we are doing with the authorities we 
have, to get more backing and more legislative authority to 
increase accountability and safety.
    And don't----
    Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. We have this technology on 
intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think if it can survive 
an intercontinental ballistic missile in space, it can handle 
the underside of a freight car. Let's get it done, and let's 
really move the industry forward, and not just double down on 
the 1960s technology that's a quick fix and won't really make 
any meaningful change.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We are for any change that puts us 
better off than where we were, but agree that we should be 
skating to where the puck is going, and try to make sure that 
we are not just catching up to technologies that might soon 
become obsolete.
    Mr. Moulton. Great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Crawford [presiding]. The gentleman yields. Mr. Kean.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us 
today.
    New York City's congestion pricing plan received approval 
from the Federal Highway Administration in June of this year, 
and is expected to go into effect early 2024. As I am sure you 
know, the approved plan will charge commuters, many from my 
district, up to $23 just to enter New York City. I was happy to 
join with my colleagues on this committee passing a resolution 
opposing the congestion pricing plan. The plan is deeply 
flawed, it's unfair, and it represents a money grab on New 
Jersey commuters' wallets.
    Why did the FHWA approve this plan so quickly, despite 
findings on a preliminary environmental assessment revealing 
environmental harm to New Jersey communities and other New York 
boroughs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I'm not sure I can honestly concur 
with the characterization of the process as quick. It was held 
up under the previous administration. We inherited it, and the 
Federal Highway Administration spent the entire time that we've 
been here up until this summer working through the process to 
make sure that the project met the requirements of the law.
    Now, to be clear, U.S. DOT doesn't have a policy role here 
in deciding whether this is good policy or not. That's a State 
decision, and any exchange of revenue between the States is to 
be negotiated among the States. But of course, Federal Highway 
Administration does have a responsibility, because of the 
Federal connection with the value pricing pilot program, to 
oversee the NEPA process, and it's probably the only context in 
which I have been urged by some Members, not all on this 
committee, to have a permitting process take longer instead of 
having it go quicker.
    What I can tell you is that it was thorough. The process 
included over 22,000 individual comments that were received and 
that were reviewed----
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey [interrupting]. With respect, this 
plan is a gut punch to my constituents and many others within 
the region, and I just wanted to let you know of their grave 
concern in this regard.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I respect your perspective on that and 
do want to emphasize that the vast majority of commuters in 
your district who get to Manhattan by transit are benefiting 
from the IIJA investments that we do have direct responsibility 
and a role in.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. I think you're anticipating my next 
question. And if I may, the Gateway project benefits not only 
New Jersey, but the entire region and the country. Completion 
of that project and increased commuter rail access into and out 
of New York City is years away from that full project being 
completed. Many in my district along the Raritan Valley Line of 
the New Jersey Transit commute every day into New York City and 
are increasingly frustrated with the need to transfer at Newark 
Penn Station, while other New Jersey Transit lines have the 
benefit of a direct connection into New York Penn Station.
    My bill, the One-Seat Ride Act, passed this committee in 
July with the objective of studying the benefits of a 
nontransfer option on the Raritan Valley Line into and out of 
the city.
    Additionally, as was announced on September 6 by Governor 
Murphy, the FHWA has awarded an additional $425 million in 
Federal transportation dollars to NJDOT as part of the Federal 
August redistribution process. The additional spending will be 
split $315 million to NJ Transit projects and $110 million for 
NJDOT projects.
    The Hunter Flyover, which is key to realizing a one-seat 
ride, and these dollars seem appropriate for helping to 
complete the Hunter Flyover, which is integral to residents all 
along the Raritan Valley Line. Can I have your commitment to 
work with me and the NJDOT to helping to make sure that the 
Hunter Flyover is prioritized, so we can help my constituents 
and many others across New Jersey gain access to a one-seat 
ride option in the very near future, even before the totality 
of the Gateway is completed?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. We want to make sure that 
this project receives every due consideration and 
prioritization, and welcome the opportunity to work with you on 
that and the Gateway effort more broadly. We know how important 
it is to New Jersey commuters and to the region as a whole.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Yes, and to the entire country.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Agreed.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Extraordinarily important. And I 
will continue to work on that with you.
    And then, if I may, on the IIJA, the workforce shortage in 
the construction industry has grown, and there is a pressing 
need for effective training programs that will develop an 
effective workforce. Can you talk to me a little bit about how 
the DOT and FHWA is actively collaborating with the industry 
associations to leverage existing programs and to grow other 
lessons and programs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. It is a 
timely one. We need to make sure we have the workforce ready to 
deliver on all of these projects. We welcome that challenge, 
because it means lots of good-paying jobs, but it's a real 
challenge.
    And so, we have engaged not just industry, but community 
colleges, labor unions, transit agencies, everybody who has 
some role in preparing workforce. And I would emphasize that 
workforce is often an eligible use of Federal-aid highway 
dollars, including formula dollars. So, in addition to it 
sometimes being a factor in our discretionary grants, we also 
welcome and enthusiastically encourage States to use dollars 
for that purpose. We know it's just as important as the steel 
and the concrete for getting these projects done.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Strickland.
    Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman.
    Nice to see you, Secretary Buttigieg. I first want to take 
a moment to thank you and your Department for all the work that 
you have been doing to successfully deploy infrastructure 
funding, especially in Washington State. This June, I had the 
privilege of touring several projects, and I want to call one 
out in particular, because I think it's a really great example 
of this in work.
    The Nisqually Indian Tribe, which is in my district, was a 
beneficiary of the Thriving Communities grant program. And as 
you know, this is really made to provide technical assistance 
to underresourced and disadvantaged communities. And by the 
way, those definitions are not subjective. There are facts and 
data that go to show which communities fall into those 
categories.
    In my district, the Nisqually Tribe is using these Federal 
grant funds to pursue a decarbonization initiative work plan 
that is going to support energy-efficient transportation 
facilities, including their new Nisqually facility and 
transportation building and EV charging stations. This work 
would not have been possible without the IIJA and your 
Department's strong commitment to equity, to modernization, and 
to our infrastructure. So, I want to say thank you.
    I want to switch a bit now, Mr. Secretary, to high-speed 
rail, as raised by Mr. Moulton. The Federal-State Partnership 
for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program provides projects to 
improve and expand performance or establish new intercity 
passenger rail service. The Washington State Department of 
Transportation has submitted a grant application to FRA to 
advance the Cascadia ultra-high-speed rail project, and this 
proposal is going to be transformative for the Pacific 
Northwest. It includes British Columbia, the State of 
Washington, and the State of Oregon, and we are creating a 
corridor for great jobs, for research, for technology, for 
agriculture, the entire ball of wax. And having this will be a 
game changer.
    One of my questions for you, Mr. Secretary, is how does 
your Department plan to support efforts like this that have a 
strong case, both public and private, in transportation?
    And how can you help us get this off the ground?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. We 
are enthusiastic about passenger rail in general, high-speed 
rail in particular, and also especially welcome regional 
partnerships that work across those State lines or other 
jurisdictional boundaries to try to benefit and lift up an 
entire region.
    I will take care not to comment on the merits of anything 
that is in an active consideration right now, but certainly 
have heard and understand the enthusiasm around the potential 
of the Cascadia, and would--the best way I can answer your 
question is to say that we are applying those IIJA dollars as 
best we can to, as you noted, introduce as well as restore 
passenger rail routes.
    And we recognize that we won't be able to have a full 
nationally built-out high-speed network just with this 5-year 
authorization, but it gives us the best start we have ever had 
to introduce it in places that haven't seen it before. And I 
think when Americans experience high-speed rail, they are going 
to want more each time the question comes before this body.
    Ms. Strickland. No, absolutely. And what is exciting about 
this, again, we have multiple jurisdictions supporting this. We 
have private-sector support for this. And also just 
understanding that when we talk about high-speed rail, the 
Pacific Northwest, which is in the northwest corner of the 
U.S., often gets overlooked in this conversation. So, we want 
to make sure that you are aware that we are out there, we are 
very enthusiastic about this, and we need your support.
    With the little bit of time I have left, Mr. Secretary, I 
want to switch a bit to the DBE program and equity in Federal 
contracting. I know that you addressed the Congressional Black 
Caucus about this, but I want to highlight this issue again. 
How is your Department tracking progress of these equity 
requirements from the IIJA?
    And again, I will state this: Equity is something that can 
be measured.
    The other thing I want to talk about, too, is what type of 
oversight or enforcement is your Department going to impose 
upon States so that they are living up to their responsibility, 
as well?
    Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question, and 
you are right, we can track and measure how well we are doing. 
And we are holding ourselves to rigorous targets. It starts 
with our own Federal spending.
    Now, the truth is, that's not the majority, but it's 
billions of dollars. And so, we are working to make sure that 
the contracting directly done by the DOT is meeting our goals, 
and I am pleased to report that we have met and exceeded our 
goals for STB utilization when it comes to direct Federal 
spend.
    But as you noted, so much depends on the States, not just 
in terms of their basic compliance with things like title VI, 
but we hope their proactive commitment to making sure that the 
goals of DBE programs are met. So, we have made sure that we 
are putting out the right kind of guidance about administering 
and overseeing projects with alternative contracting and 
procurement methods that are still compliant, but that can open 
more doors to firms that maybe haven't participated in the 
past.
    We are working hand in hand with recipients to try to make 
sure that they get the training that they need. And through our 
OSDBU, we are doing the technical assistance and capacity 
building that we think will build up that DBE business base, as 
well. We are very close to being able to announce a final rule 
on the updates to our DBE program, overall, and continue to 
believe very strongly that this is a big part of how the 
economic potential of the IIJA can be met.
    Ms. Strickland. Absolutely. And this is a conversation 
about inclusion. It is making sure that all of these 
investments are benefiting the entire community. And it helps a 
lot of our communities that have been shut out of wealth 
building build wealth.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Ms. Strickland. I yield back, Chairman.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields. Mr. Williams.
    Mr. Williams of New York. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Just a 
couple of questions. I am trying to get to some points here.
    As mayor of South Bend, did you have operational oversight 
over the airport?
    Secretary Buttigieg. No, that was a county body.
    Mr. Williams of New York. That was a county project. And in 
your tenure as mayor, were there major highway projects either 
initiated or completed during your tenure there?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, probably the biggest was the 
effort that we did with the highway pair that goes through the 
heart of our city. It----
    Mr. Williams of New York [interrupting]. It is I-90?
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. [Inaudible] Street and 
Main Street. Say again?
    Mr. Williams of New York. Is that I-90?
    Secretary Buttigieg. No, no. It was originally U.S. 31. We 
got a relinquishment from the State to get it done. I am proud 
to say we got an award from the U.S. DOT on that----
    Mr. Williams of New York [interrupting]. What was the 
approximate budget of that, do you recall? Just approximately.
    Secretary Buttigieg. The particular project that we were 
doing on the streetscape, that was about a $25 million project.
    Mr. Williams of New York. A streetscape. OK, $25 million. 
Thank you.
    I understand that in South Bend that you wanted to 
construct a new train station downtown. How did that go?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we didn't initiate a project to 
build a train station downtown, but it was certainly something 
that I believed, as mayor, could benefit the city, and still 
hope someday that that could become a reality.
    In order for it to become a reality, there would have to be 
cooperation from the freight railroads that have a lot of the 
right of way that goes into it, and a level of funding that, at 
least on my watch, was not present at the city level. But I am 
hopeful that--obviously, there is new leadership in South Bend 
doing a great job, but I am hopeful that one way or another, 
they can enhance rail connectivity, because I think it would 
really benefit the community.
    Mr. Williams of New York. Yes, I did read about the South 
Shore Line there at the airport and the Amtrak station 
somewhere in the nether lands between downtown.
    I draw on that experience to think about the transit budget 
that you managed in South Bend of, I guess CNN reported as $10 
million and 47 buses, to $90 billion, approximately, for your 
Department today. Given this experience, and having 
demonstrated a superior work ethic, I was going to ask that you 
draw attention in your $90 billion budget to properly staff the 
New York Terminal Radar Approach Control. Currently, it is at 
54 percent staffing. You may know that this causes a lot of 
delays on the east coast in and out, particularly of the New 
York City core airports, the main three, and it disrupts air 
travel.
    What are you doing to approach that? Fifty-four percent 
seems quite dangerous.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it's not dangerous in terms of 
safety, but I agree that it is unacceptable. While we always 
make sure that there is adequate staffing to safely manage 
flight operations, when you are at 54 percent, what happens is 
that you have far more overtime going on. And in the worst 
case, if there were some perceived or potential risk to safety, 
it could even lead to ATC staffing-driven flow measures that 
could impact cancellations and delays.
    Now, let me be very clear, because----
    Mr. Williams of New York [interrupting]. Are there safety 
measures for overworking our air traffic controllers? Because--
--
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Absolutely, yes, of 
course----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. Fifty-four percent 
sounds almost like everybody is working double shifts.
    Secretary Buttigieg. The fatigue requirements are always 
met at N90 or any other facility.
    But look, I think we are actually largely on the same page 
here.
    Mr. Williams of New York. So, I think----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. And so, the thing I 
would want to----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. I would emphasize 
just when you say that it is not dangerous, is that because 
flights are being canceled in and out of the New York corridor?
    Secretary Buttigieg. This is the thing I want----
    Mr. Williams of New York [interrupting]. Because of the 
staffing----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Yes, this is the thing I 
want to emphasize, right? If----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. [Inaudible] 
inconvenience, or----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. I would love to be able 
to answer you.
    Mr. Williams of New York. Yes, please.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would love to be able to answer your 
question.
    Mr. Williams of New York. Sure.
    Secretary Buttigieg. If a staffing level reaches the point 
where you can't safely guide the number of flights that are 
programmed, since compromising safety is not an option, the 
only alternative is that flights could be disrupted or delayed.
    Mr. Williams of New York. No, the alternative, actually, is 
that we have leadership that fulfills its responsibility of 
manning the operations of our air traffic control----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Of course. We are on 
the same page here.
    Mr. Williams of New York. I don't----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. What I am saying is 
that----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. I don't think we 
are, because----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting. No, I think we are.
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. Your Department is 
having a significant shortfall, and you don't seem to be 
bothered by it. So----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. I have made very clear 
how bothered I am by it----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. And canceling 
flights----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And let me tell you, the 
number-one thing----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. Canceling flights 
actually doesn't seem to be----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. That would help us 
prevent that----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. A reasonable 
response. There is more to this.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sorry, are you suggesting that we 
compromise safety, instead of----
    Mr. Williams of New York [interrupting]. No, no, not 
whatsoever.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. A disruption?
    Mr. Williams of New York. In fact, as a----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. But do you----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. As a nuclear 
engineer, I actually know a lot about safety, and probably a 
lot more than you.
    So, what I am suggesting is that you have a responsibility, 
with a $90 billion budget, to administer it. I realize that is 
a stretch from a $10 million budget of your experience. Having 
demonstrated----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. That is an inaccurate 
statement. Congressman, when you come----
    Mr. Williams of New York [continuing]. What I would say is 
that----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. From where I come from, 
you are accustomed to people from--may I?
    Mr. Williams of New York. I know a lot of people from a lot 
of places.
    Secretary Buttigieg. May I?
    Mr. Williams of New York. So, when I see----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Am I going to get to 
answer your question or not?
    Mr. Williams of New York. I think you have dodged the 
question sufficiently. Thank you.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And Secretary Buttigieg, thank you very much for being 
here, and thank you for your commitment to the American people. 
Thank you for being in Louisiana.
    DOT awarded over $70 million to New Orleans RTA to buy 
zero-emission vehicles and charging equipment through the BIL. 
Low- and no-emissions technology, this is proving to be an 
incredible thing for my region. These vehicles can also be 
equipped to use microgrids in the event of a disaster. We hope 
that these vehicles can be used to provide support for our 
first responders and immediate disaster response teams, and 
then used in our disaster recovery to supplement the vast 
network of microgrids being stood up in my district right now.
    Tell me, Mr. Secretary, do you believe--or I should say, 
what role do you believe DOT serves in research and development 
of dynamic hazard mitigation and clean technology in an ever-
changing world where clean technology is so needed?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We think that there is an important 
Federal role. I don't want to overstate the importance of the 
public sector relative to the private and the academic sector, 
each part has their role. But we do fund basic research, and we 
fund ways to prove out the safety benefits of some of these 
technologies through facilities like those overseen by NHTSA 
and the Federal Highway Administration.
    And we certainly see enormous potential for these 
technologies to continue to develop, continue to potentially 
save lives in American transportation.
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So, additional projects that I 
just want to note--and thank you for $2 million for the 
brownfield cleanup grant for the Naval Support Activity Complex 
in New Orleans, $24 million RAISE grant for the New Orleans 
Downtown Transit Center, $8 million for the Louis Armstrong 
International Airport, $100 million from the Department of 
Energy award to Koura to help build the first U.S. 
manufacturing plant for lithium hexafluorophosphate--go figure 
if I got that right or not--which will help vastly improve our 
domestic lithium-ion battery production.
    One thing that is very important that I want to bring to 
your attention, when traveling through the river parishes and 
visiting with the mayor of Donaldsonville, Mayor Sullivan 
indicated that there were these antiquated gas pipes that had 
been passed over for many, many years, and many people had come 
through the town and made promises of being able to do 
something about it.
    I took the bait. I stepped up and said we are going to do 
something about it. We are not going to let the buck continue 
to be passed. And, Mr. Secretary, I am glad that I did. I am 
glad I told him. And it turned out to be the truth. I told him 
that we had a President and administration that understood the 
need to right the wrongs that had been in the past, to provide 
equitable infrastructure. And I am proud to call and tell him 
that we delivered on it, delivered on it because of the ability 
to pass the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill which changed 
lives.
    What role do you see this administration's spending 
packages like IIJA and IRA playing in redressing past wrongs 
and providing truly equitable infrastructure information for 
those communities that have historically been left behind?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, Representative. And I 
would join you in celebrating the funding and the jobs that are 
coming to your area and to so many areas, thanks to the IIJA.
    I also appreciate you mentioning the issue of pipes and 
pipelines, because it is not something that is often as 
publicized in the context of our work, but we have been able to 
benefit the safety improvements that are needed on a number of 
pipes operated by smaller entities that might not be able to do 
that, otherwise, including one that I was able to visit in New 
Mexico.
    And more broadly to your question, there are so many 
communities, neighborhoods, and towns that did not get their 
fair share of the benefit of previous rounds of Federal 
infrastructure investment. And what is at stake when we talk 
about equity, when we talk about Justice40, when we talk about 
reconnecting communities is to make sure that this time is 
different and better----
    Mr. Carter of Louisiana [interrupting]. And can I pause you 
right there, because I have 32 seconds?
    Reconnecting communities is a very important point for us 
to segue. As you know, the Claiborne Corridor in my district, 
in LA02 in Louisiana, is a perfect example of a community that 
was divided because of an interstate that went through a once-
thriving community of African-American businesses and home 
ownership. Totally devastated it. I know that we received some 
planning money to further look at that. I just want to continue 
to put that on your radar screen as what I believe would be a 
perfect example of how united communities can really work as an 
example for the rest of the world to see.
    And lastly, in my final 3 seconds, I have talked to you 
multiple times about the little town of Gretna, a town that is 
a beautiful, quaint community that is threatened by rails to go 
through the community. I will continue to ask for your support 
in coming up with some meaningful ways to resolve and protect 
that neighborhood, while recognizing the importance of 
commerce. There have got to be better ways to go around the 
city instead of through the city.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair 
has been notified there is currently a series of votes 
occurring on the House floor. The committee shall stand in 
recess, subject to the call of the chair.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Crawford. Apologies for the interruption, Mr. 
Secretary, but I hope that it provided you at least a brief 
respite, which you probably needed. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure will reconvene the previously 
recessed hearing.
    I now recognize Mr. Ezell for 5 minutes.
    You got here just in time.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it working? OK.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I know it 
has been a long day, and I appreciate you being here. And I 
will tell you, I want to give you a thanks for--and the 
Department of Transportation--for its historic, significant 
investment in my home district in the State of Mississippi. 
Some of these investments include the Mega grant on I-10, and 
the paving, drainage, and bridge construction on State Route 
57. While there is still much work to be done to improve my 
district's infrastructure, I appreciate the Department of 
Transportation's local staff, particularly Mr. Don Davis, who 
has been tremendously helpful. So, thank you for that.
    As we know, improving our Nation's supply chain requires 
significant investments in our infrastructure, not just our 
highways but also our ports, such as the Port of Pascagoula and 
the Port of Gulfport in my district.
    However, it is my understanding that, even with the 
increased appropriations, programs to support our ports such as 
the Port Infrastructure Development Program, are already 
oversubscribed. To accomplish this goal, we need to incentivize 
private investment to complement Federal funds. I am excited to 
see private-public partnerships already in my district, such as 
the one between the Port of Gulfport and Ports America. This is 
why I, along with my colleague on the gulf coast, Congressman 
Carter, introduced bipartisan legislation that seeks to expand 
the uses of the Capital Construction Fund, enabling port 
operators to make the required upgrades to their cargo handling 
equipment without need for appropriated funding and at no 
expense to the taxpayer.
    Do you agree that expanding the use of the CCF would grant 
our ports additional resources to be more efficient and provide 
a cost-effective solution to help address our supply chain 
issues?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly that represents 
another tool in the toolkit at a very important time for 
supporting our ports and our supply chains. And if that bill 
were to be enacted, we would make sure that MARAD and our 
Department are working with you to implement it fully.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    Kind of a switch in topics here, our airports are required 
to match FAA Airport Improvement Program awards with a 90/10 
cost share. Currently, the match on any AIP entitlement project 
is split as follows: 5 percent from the airport authority and 5 
percent from Mississippi Department of Transportation.
    Under the IIJA Airport Infrastructure Grants, AIG supports 
airport infrastructure enhancements and improvements. However, 
since many small hub and nonhub airports must already match 
their annual grant funds, they struggle to find the necessary 
additional match required to access funds made available under 
the IIJA.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, when it comes to the match--and 
this reflects something that comes up often in different 
projects, that the project sponsor we most want to help may 
struggle to put up that match--the AIG match tracks the AIP 
match. So, it is the same requirement. But--and the reason I am 
consulting my notes, I want to make sure I get this right.
    There are some other factors that aren't shown in that 
general 10-percent category that are worth bearing in mind. One 
is that if you are in a location with an EIS designation or if 
you are in a State with a historically large amount of public 
lands, that can accompany a discount. So, in practice, the 
matches can get lower, closer to 5 percent. But it does depend 
on the circumstances. And we recognize that what might seem 
like a small percentage can still be a big deal for the airport 
trying to get the project done.
    Mr. Ezell. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and for your 
patience today in answering all these questions.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks, Representative.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to let our 
colleague from Alaska know that we continue to think about her 
and her family and keep them in our thoughts.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony here this 
morning, now afternoon.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has been 
instrumental in improving New Jersey's infrastructure, which 
received a C-minus on the American Society of Civil Engineers' 
2021 Infrastructure Report Card. In formula funding alone, New 
Jersey is expected to receive over $8 billion to improve our 
road and bridge infrastructure and over $4 billion to improve 
public transportation options across the State.
    The Eighth Congressional District, which I have the honor 
of representing, is a hub for transportation infrastructure of 
all forms, not just for our region, but for our country. Our 
district is home to some of the busiest commuter and freight 
rail networks in the country, the second largest port in 
America, Newark Liberty International Airport, ferries, and 
several major highways. We are also home to many exciting 
innovations such as Vision Zero, which seeks to eliminate all 
traffic fatalities.
    This summer, the Hudson River Tunnel project was advanced 
into the engineering phase of the Capital Investment Grants 
Program. The importance of this project as part of the Gateway 
Program cannot be overstated. This section of the Northeast 
Corridor is the busiest in the country, handling over 450 
trains per day and 200,000 daily Amtrak and NJ Transit 
passenger trips. It is the most important infrastructure 
project in the country, and I look forward to working with the 
Department of Transportation and State and local partners on 
furthering the Gateway Program and getting it done.
    Given the approval of MTA's congestion pricing plan, 
increasing trans-Hudson commuting capacity has become even more 
important for my constituents, who are seeking to avoid 
additional taxes and tolls. The Northern Branch Corridor 
project would connect thousands of New Jerseyans to alternative 
trans-Hudson commuting options. Unfortunately, progress on this 
project was recently halted.
    Mr. Secretary, what steps need to be taken for the 
Department of Transportation to continue to work alongside 
State and local partners on this important project?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we want to make sure this 
project and every project can advance, and we act with our 
project sponsors to make sure that if there is any hurdle that 
we have control of, that we are working to clear it. And if 
there is any hurdle that the project sponsor is in control of, 
we don't just abandon them to figure it out on their own.
    We really want to make sure that we are connected, 
especially when you have projects like you mentioned, that 
might be in one region but really have national significance in 
terms of their economic impact. And certainly, I would put this 
in that category.
    Mr. Menendez. Yes, I appreciate it. I look forward to 
working with you.
    A&C Bus, a private bus company in New Jersey, recently 
announced they will be terminating the operation of its Jersey 
City bus routes, leaving residents of my community with few 
options. Jersey City is not the only municipality struggling to 
meet transit demands. This is a nationwide issue, with 45 
percent of Americans having no access to transit.
    What is the Department doing to increase public transit 
access in transportation deserts, including through more 
flexible options that address smaller scale transit needs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, this is close to my heart, 
because I come out of a community that was large enough to need 
transit and have a transit agency, but not dense enough to have 
the kind of frequency or routes or funding that would be 
expected in larger cities. And so, we recognize that we need to 
do right by that large share of Americans that you mentioned 
that don't have regular and reliable access to affordable 
transit.
    The simplest answer to your question is that with historic 
resources in the IIJA, we now have more funding available to 
support public transit than any time in U.S. history coming 
from our Department. Even so, it doesn't mean we can do 
everything everywhere, but it does mean that FTA is in a 
position to support communities that were not getting support 
before.
    And I should emphasize that when we talk about something 
like equity, something like Justice40 criteria being 
incorporated into FTA's competitive grant opportunities, this 
is part of what is at stake, benefiting places that just 
haven't had those resources either because there is no service 
at all or because it doesn't have the reliability and the 
frequency to really become part of people's daily plans and, in 
turn, to get the revenue that would allow them to enter a 
virtuous cycle of more reliability and more frequency over 
time.
    Mr. Menendez. I would love to work with you on some of 
those projects for those types of communities.
    The COVID-19 pandemic changed how Americans work and 
commute. Due to modified work schedules, transit ridership has 
changed to reflect changes in commuter behavior. While 
ridership levels have started to bounce back after the 
pandemic, many State and local agencies are struggling with 
revenue shortfalls resulting in service cuts, delays, and 
reliability issues.
    What can Congress, working alongside your Department, do to 
support city and local governments that are navigating new 
trends in public transit use?
    Secretary Buttigieg. This is a real challenge and concern. 
I don't think it is an exaggeration to describe it as a fiscal 
cliff, and I believe its effects will begin to be felt acutely 
as early as next year.
    We do have some provisions and flexibilities incorporated 
in our budget proposal that we think would help, but more is 
going to need to be done in order to help transit agencies have 
the bridge that they need into this new normal, where commuting 
won't be the way it used to be, but people will still very much 
need the means and the support to get to center city areas or 
other workplace-rich environments in ways that we can't just 
allow to be abandoned.
    Mr. Menendez. Yes, an extremely complex issue, but I 
appreciate your leadership on it.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Bean.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Good afternoon to you, and good afternoon, T&I Committee. Great 
to be here.
    And great to see you here, Mr. Secretary. I have the honor 
of representing Jacksonville, Florida. You may think of, when 
you think of Jacksonville, the beaches, Jacksonville Jaguars, 
the great weather. But here is something that more and more 
Americans are thinking of: We've got the greatest airport, one 
of the greatest airports in the country. In fact, it serves all 
of northeast Florida, but southeast Georgia, as well. It 
supports over 26,000 jobs, has an impact of over $3 billion.
    Jacksonville Aviation Authority has been pursuing for the 
last decade a decade-long effort to modernize the facilities at 
the airport, including a new six-gate concourse, general 
improvements designed to reduce airfield congestion and enhance 
the safety of the traveling public.
    But here is where it comes into your bailiwick, Mr. 
Secretary. The review process began in July 2022 with the 
preparation of a CATEX, and then FAA's subsequent reversal to 
require an environmental assessment. With the EA, the 
environmental assessment, now 60 percent complete, the FAA has 
unexpectedly paused the EA to study the potential impacts on 
navigational facilities at the airport.
    Furthermore, JAA has learned that the FAA may not have the 
sufficient manpower to conduct a new study. So, we have got to 
get this off the back burner.
    So, I ask you, Mr. Secretary, the logjam reflects the very 
problems that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is intended to 
resolve to facilitate more timely and efficient environmental 
reviews. Can we count on you and your team sitting behind you 
to work in a quick and efficient manner to get the EA back on 
track without further interruptions and ensuring the FAA has 
the manpower necessary to conduct the new navigational 
analysis?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. We will work with you to seek 
a way forward here. I know how important it is, and I 
understand the complexity of the issue, but we don't want to 
get in our own way when it comes to improvements that are 
needed at a fast-growing facility like Jacksonville.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Right. I think the frustration is they 
haven't heard anything. And they have asked me, hey, let's talk 
to the Secretary about just somebody--I know you've got a whole 
team sitting behind you, but Jacksonville is ready to move 
forward, and we haven't heard from you. So, thanks for bringing 
that up.
    I also have the honor of representing a lot of air traffic 
controllers. You have a big Jacksonville center right there. It 
is one of the busiest places. I have been there, I have sat 
with them. It is amazing, it is a very stressful job. Many are 
working 6 days a week because we are thin. You know that, we 
are thin. What can I tell them? I've got to go back and bring 
them greetings about what is our plan to bring in new people. 
What should I tell them, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks, Representative. You can 
tell them help is on the way, and that is part of what is in 
both the budget we have put forward and part of what is at 
stake in the reauthorization work. And we appreciate everything 
you and this committee have done on that. And we are at 1,500, 
that was our hiring target this year, we were able to do that. 
Our budget is for 1,800 next year.
    And you are right, Jacksonville is one of--outside of N90, 
which has been discussed a lot that covers that New York area, 
Jacksonville is one of those that is under the most pressure, 
sees a lot of growth and a lot of demand, actually well up 
above pre-COVID levels----
    Mr. Bean of Florida [interposing]. Right.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. In that Florida market.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. The challenge there is the storms come 
in, there is the space coast, and they have a lot of planes.
    So, the help is on the way, but I also want to flag 
something, too. Part of the compensation that an air traffic 
controller receives is also how busy they are, how many--the 
rate of which they do their work. They can see they are 
sometimes getting paid less than other centers that are far 
less busy than them. I want to flag that to you, and perhaps 
there can be a fairness issue that you can oversee and make 
sure that they get--they just want to be paid equally across 
the Nation as that goes. So, you are aware of that now, too, 
which is good.
    I have got a company that has asked me about Build America, 
Buy America program, which is great. We want to make sure 
American taxpayers fund American jobs. But what if there is no 
alternative? What if there is no alternative? What do you tell 
a company when there is literally nothing they can buy in 
America to complete their project, and it is stuck? What do I 
tell them?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, what we are trying to do is move 
from these general waivers to more specific situations that 
contemplate those unique circumstances that come up. Of course, 
what we are shooting for is that over time there will be an 
American company that can meet that need.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Right.
    Secretary Buttigieg. But we know that sometimes in the 
interim it just can't get done.
    For example, we approved a waiver on a very specific piece 
of elevator equipment relevant to a bridge in Iowa. There was 
just no other way to get it done.
    So, what I can tell you--and we could look more 
specifically into the context you are describing, but what you 
can certainly go back and say is that we are deeply committed 
to Buy America. We are going to be making it--frankly, we are 
going to be making it tougher, not weaker. But there is an 
element of common sense here, and we are going to work to try 
to make sure that the right kind of on-ramps and the right kind 
of considerations are there.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mrs. Sykes.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Mr. Secretary, for your willingness to be here and your 
stamina. I really appreciate you coming back to deal with us.
    So, one of the reasons I wanted to be on this committee was 
because of--I am from Ohio. We are the heart of it all. We talk 
about all of the transportation networks and infrastructure 
that exists that is failing like many other communities, and 
the ability to oversee the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and 
how it can be impacting not only northeast Ohio, where I 
represent, the entire State of Ohio, but, really, the country. 
You can get anywhere within a matter of hours from Ohio. And it 
is very important in our networks.
    And whether I am thinking of the High Level Bridge that 
connects Akron to Cuyahoga Falls, the East Tuscarawas project 
in Canton, all of these are really critical projects. And I 
know the folks in Ohio's 13th Congressional District are 
yearning for an opportunity to share with you, Mr. Secretary, 
all of the exciting opportunities that you can fund and you can 
support through your position. And whether it is talking to 
operating engineers and local labor, we do hope to see you in 
Ohio in the near future. But I won't totally put you on the 
hook for answering a question in the affirmative, but I can 
feel like you want to be there.
    I want to talk specifically about something that you 
mentioned in your opening comments: rail safety. And I want 
to--I appreciate your acknowledging and trying to call to 
attention this very important issue and some commitments from 
my colleagues here. I get questions about the administration 
and whether or not the response was active, was appropriate or 
not. And my response is always: I am a Member of Congress, and 
I am concerned about our congressional response to rail safety. 
And so far, it has been shameful and, quite frankly, 
disrespectful to the people of northeast Ohio and those who 
live in East Palestine.
    There is a bill that is pending in this committee right 
now, a bipartisan bill being led by the Member who represents 
East Palestine, that has not had a hearing. We have been 
refused a hearing, from my understanding, and not only is it 
making people question the administration, it is making people 
question Congress and whether or not, in fact, there are people 
who are willing to support and fight for them.
    And as you have acknowledged and recognized train 
derailments across this country, none--fortunately, not as 
detrimental and impactful as East Palestine, but with the 
potential to do so. I know you supported the Railway Safety Act 
in the Senate. There is just one more vote there. But it seems 
like as much criticism that has been based on the 
administration, Congress--certainly in the leadership here in 
Congress--deserves quite a bit of that blame.
    So, if you could talk about what you would like to see in 
terms of rail safety, I know we are all supporters of the two-
person crew. I know we are looking for new hazmat and 
materials, but what else can we be doing?
    What should we be doing as Members of Congress in order to 
protect those across this country from real accidents like in 
East Palestine?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question, and 
I want to applaud your attention and your focus and your very 
real work on the issue of railway safety.
    We are determined to continue doing everything that we can 
with existing authorities as an administration, and we have 
focused inspections, safety advisories, both on the hazardous 
materials side and on the Federal Railroad Administration side, 
pushing the railroad industry to join the Confidential Close 
Call Reporting System, and a number of other actions that are 
within our purview.
    But we need help from Congress. And some of the measures 
you are describing would make a big difference. If we had, for 
example, a higher statutory minimum for civil penalties against 
railroads that are caught in safety violations, that would make 
a big difference. Right now, there are caps created by Congress 
on the order of about $200,000 for even egregious, fatal 
violations. And there are so many cases where a derailment, 
whether fatal or not, whether it has hazardous material release 
or not, could have been prevented. And I believe more teeth in 
our enforcement made possible through a change in the minimum 
fines would make a difference.
    We believe the minimum crew staffing is important. We would 
welcome Congress establishing that. But we are not waiting for 
Congress. We are going to continue to work on the rule that was 
frozen in the past administration to establish the principle 
that at least two people need to be on a train, especially as 
they get to be 2 or 3 or more miles long.
    I think rail safety R&D would be welcome, make sure we have 
more funding for the development of safer tank cars, continue 
to develop the technology around wayside defect detectors, and 
other technologies that could make a difference.
    And we want to make sure that those tank cars are adopted 
more quickly, the safer, stronger tank cars are adopted more 
quickly than the timeline that they are currently on.
    Those are just some examples of what we believe partnership 
from Congress would go a long way toward accelerating.
    And again, I welcome and appreciate your bipartisan work on 
getting something done.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields. Mr. Duarte.
    Mr. Duarte. Hello, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for joining us 
here today. Good to have you, and I am impressed that you are 
answering the questions directly, and not spinning off to 
assistants on each side of you as sometimes we get.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am doing my best, thank you.
    Mr. Duarte. So, good to have you here.
    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator of the EPA sets 
what are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    My district in California is California 13. It goes down a 
stretch of the Central Valley, from east of San Francisco down 
towards but not to the base of the valley at Bakersfield. We 
have challenging attainment because of geography. We are a bowl 
with the air flows. We also have challenging attainment because 
we are at the back end of a venturi of air quality emissions 
that comes in from the much larger bay area metropolitan area, 
and probably makes up historical numbers. I have understood 
about 28 percent of our particulate matter is outside of our 
control.
    But given that we are the air basin out of attainment, we 
do everything we can within our basin to correct that, but we 
have no control over what goes on in the city. So, I would ask 
that you work with the EPA and see if we can get the same 
attainment standards and compliance standards set for the bay 
area that impacts our air quality as we have to achieve within 
our basin, since they are impacting us.
    We are also--Voting Rights Act--66 percent Hispanic, 
disadvantaged community. As districts go, we have got the 18th 
highest poverty level in America, and we think we deserve a 
special consideration, as you have mentioned earlier, for some 
of those factors.
    Currently, because we are out of attainment, we filed the 
reports, we filed our information for waivers, but we are still 
being threatened with a $4.5 billion loss of highway 
maintenance fees, funds, because we are not in compliance, and 
because the EPA hasn't reviewed, within 24 months of 
submission, our waiver request. So, I would very much 
appreciate it if you would engage the EPA and ask them to 
review our waiver request, make whatever comments they need to, 
but get us that $4.5 billion in highway maintenance funds lest 
we lose them permanently and have even further problems.
    I want to talk a little bit about the California bullet 
train that goes through my district that is cutting up my 
farms, that is cutting up my district's highways, that is giant 
concrete platforms raised way above our rail, way above our 
freeways, disconnected from each other, sitting there like 
large, useless monoliths.
    I appreciate other folks in the room here talking about 
high-speed rail and their desire for it in their communities. 
Our high-speed rail goes from Merced in my district of about 
90,000 people if we stretch a bit, the city of Merced, down to 
Bakersfield when finished, which is about 400,000 people. It 
travels through the city of Fresno, the largest city in that 
corridor at half a million people.
    There are no current engineering plans for the high-speed 
rail, the California high-speed rail project, to go over the 
Tehachapis to reach Los Angeles. There are no current 
engineering or budget plans for the high-speed rail to go over 
the coastal range to get to Silicon Valley or San Francisco. 
This, Mr. Secretary, is a useless project, and it is in the way 
of us widening our highways.
    We are a very significant transportation corridor between 
San Francisco and L.A. up and down the west coast. Both Highway 
5 and Highway 99 go through our area. You can see major 
warehouse construction from all types of firms happening in my 
district. So, please look at the California high-speed rail 
with some suspicion.
    I would add to an inspector general's report that you may 
request. Please do a carbon study, and look at the construction 
costs, the construction resources, the curing of the concrete, 
the steel, the energy it would take to run the rail, and 
calculate for yourselves, by your own standards, what passenger 
ridership would this rail system need as opposed to automobile 
travel to ever offset the carbon impacts of its construction 
and operation alone. And I would suggest that this high-speed 
rail project is not anywhere near even carbon neutral. It is, 
in fact, a net carbon contributor to our atmosphere.
    So, thank you for listening to that. I know I am not giving 
you much time here.
    I will ask you one thing. Does it trouble you that the 
Federal Government is giving subsidies to electric vehicles 
produced, through broad media outlet reports, by slave labor 
around the world, whether it's the mining in Congo or it's the 
factories in China?
    We are subsidizing electric vehicles produced with slave 
labor, and I would like to put a stop to that. I will let you 
have the last comment.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks. On the first piece, I 
would welcome the opportunity to engage EPA and see how we can 
be helpful there.
    On the second, I haven't seen the latest computations of a 
carbon inventory, but take the point that that would be an 
important exercise.
    And on the third, look, we want to make sure that there is 
a made-in-America EV industry, and would love nothing more than 
to see domestic sourcing on everything that we need. The 
battery chemistry hasn't completely stabilized yet. I think EVs 
10 or 20 years from now may look a little different than they 
do today.
    Mr. Collins [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Secretary Buttigieg. But we are certainly investing on more 
domestic production.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. The Chair now recognizes----
    Mr. Duarte [continuing]. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Payne.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Secretary, good to 
see you again. It is always a pleasure being in your presence, 
and I want to commend you for the amazing work that you have 
done to this point in our transportation infrastructure moving 
forward in a positive manner. You have been a tremendous 
leader, very thoughtful to both sides, and we appreciate that. 
And thank you for your testimony here this morning during the 
Rail Safety Week.
    I also want to thank you for the work you and the 
administration have done to ensure funding provided in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act finds its way to 
critical projects that impact my district, such as the Gateway 
Program, which will have a generational impact on the greater 
tristate area.
    Coincidentally, you are joining us as some of my colleagues 
threaten to shut down the Government unless they get drastic 
funding cuts to programs like Amtrak. The House Republicans' 
fiscal year 2024 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development 
appropriations bill cuts funding for the Northeast Corridor by 
an astonishing 92 percent. Yes, 92 percent. What impact would a 
Government shutdown or cuts proposed by my colleagues have on 
projects like the Gateway Program?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question, 
Representative. There is no doubt that a shutdown would 
negatively impact U.S. transportation.
    One clear and present example is we have had a lot of 
discussions this morning about making sure that air traffic 
control staffing is at adequate levels. A shutdown would halt 
air traffic control training at the very moment when we need to 
be doing more and not less.
    Also harmful to U.S. transportation would be some of the 
cuts that are being talked about as a condition for keeping the 
Government open. I am not sure of the very latest proposals in 
recent hours, but some of what I have seen in the runup to this 
debate has included provisions that would cut railroad safety 
inspections, as though we had learned nothing from the Norfolk 
Southern derailment in East Palestine about the importance of 
railroad safety inspections.
    It could also interfere with the modernization of important 
FAA technology. We saw how the effect of a ground stop lasting 
less than 2 hours on 1 day caused havoc in our system. That was 
due to an issue with just one system within the FAA needing 
modernization. There are several, and funding cuts and/or a 
shutdown would not be helpful in our efforts to modernize that 
technology and get things headed in the right direction.
    Mr. Payne. Railroad safety, that's not important to the 
commuters in this country. They don't use the train, so, what 
does it matter?
    But there are millions of people every day that depend on 
railroads and trains and Amtrak and local train systems to get 
back and forth to work. And so, I think we need to take that 
very seriously, because if a major catastrophe, God forbid, 
happens, then they will all be standing there wringing their 
hands. What did we do? Why didn't we do anything? And they 
won't remember that they decided to cut like that.
    I also mentioned that it is Rail Safety Week, and it's 
important to point out that we have yet to hold a hearing on 
rail safety since the derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, 229 
days ago. We still have not had anything with reference to 
that.
    So far, Class I freight railroads have yet to join the 
Confidential Close Call Reporting System, despite public 
promises by every one of them to join it. It is time for 
Congress to require that freight railroads participate in the 
Confidential Close Call Reporting System.
    What do you think, sir?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks. Let me applaud, first of 
all, your work and leadership on advancing the Railway Safety 
Act. And you're right, it has been more than half a year since 
the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, and we still 
have not seen that legislation advance.
    We are doing everything that is under our Department's 
authorities, including safety advisories, focused inspections. 
We have gotten all the Class I railroads to say they are going 
to join the Confidential Close Call Reporting System, but none 
of them have actually done so. So, we clearly need the tools to 
be able to do more. Legislation would help us to do that, and 
we would welcome such legislation.
    Mr. Payne. OK. Well, I am being--my time is expired, and I 
yield back. Sorry, sir.
    Mr. Collins. That is all right. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Mast for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to talk about a couple of issues. You 
and I have spoken about some of them before, but I want to get 
some updates on them.
    You and I spoke about--high-speed trains have been brought 
up a lot today. The Brightline train in Florida, a regional 
passenger train, goes over the same track as the freight, the 
regional freight train. Florida East Coast Rail runs through 
one of my towns, Stuart, single-tracked, runs about the--I want 
to say 32 to 36 high-speed trains a day, 14 to 20 freight 
trains a day over a bridge that takes 15 minutes over that to 
go from open to closed to back open, essentially close off the 
waterway.
    I know there has been a request for a Mega grant there to 
help build a new bridge so that they don't hold the waterway or 
the roadway hostage. Applications, according to my notes, were 
submitted by August 21. Do you know when Mega grants are going 
to start coming back in terms of responses to those?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, in terms of the Mega program, 
which I think is the one that that is in for under review right 
now, I don't have a date yet for you, but we are certainly in 
the process, and closer to being able to announce the awards 
there.
    And more broadly, I appreciate the work that has gone on. 
You have certainly put that bridge and that issue on our radar, 
and we continue to be in dialogue with the players--Coast 
Guard, everybody who is involved--to try to encourage a good 
solution, even as there is also a proposed construction 
solution that would mitigate that kind of conflict.
    Mr. Mast. You guys are working on it. That is what I 
understand.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We are.
    Mr. Mast. Very good, thanks. I want to switch gears.
    Last conversation you and I spoke about in this hearing 
room July 19, 2022, 428 days ago, I brought up the trucking--
switching to truck driving here--COVID-19 drive-time hours of 
operation. And at that time, we had discussed it briefly. You 
hadn't necessarily had the time to digest whether there were 
safety issues associated with the drive-time hours that people 
moving COVID goods had, those safety records, as opposed to 
those moving Cheerios or something else. Have you had time to 
digest that?
    And can I just ask you, where do we stand on a permanent 
implementation of COVID-19 drive-time operation hours, which 
have essentially been withdrawn from every place that I know of 
at this point?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I have asked FMCSA to look into 
any and all data that has come through that exception, the 
period when that exception was in effect, to better understand 
it. I can't say that enough data has come through, in our view, 
to justify loosening the standards yet, but I am not 
foreclosing that we couldn't learn something from that.
    We are trying to make sure that we get the information we 
can without creating reporting requirements that are additional 
that we don't have the authority to do on who is carrying what, 
but still take seriously the point that you raised when we 
talked about this last.
    Mr. Mast. My friend, the chairman up here right now, could 
speak much better than I could speak about this right now, 
being in the trucking industry. But he could give you the math 
that if you are adding a couple hours of drive time--and it has 
been proven to be safe--to the congruent of all drivers across 
the road, then how many drivers have you essentially added over 
the road?
    And so, maybe he will speak about it as another point, but 
it is a conversation that we have. It is very important to 
getting goods to just simply cost less for all Americans, 
right? We are making it more affordable to get things moved 
over the road, which should be something that we all share as a 
worthy goal.
    So, I want to stay with truck driving and want to stay with 
working to make things more affordable across the board. And 
just to ask a more pointed question, is preventing drivers that 
are 21 years old from moving interstate commerce, is that age 
discrimination? In my opinion, it is.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I don't view it that way because the 
age requirements we have--in the same way that we have age 
requirements around getting a regular driver's license--are 
informed by safety data about the likelihood of fatalities.
    Now, as you know, we've got a pilot----
    Mr. Mast [interrupting]. You can get a driver's license at 
16 or so, depending on the State you are in, right?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, but I don't know why that is not 
age discrimination and 21 for truck is.
    Mr. Mast. You are not an adult at that point. At 18, you 
are an adult.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure, and at 22 you still can't rent a 
car in most places. The kinds of----
    Mr. Mast [interrupting]. At 22 you can't what?
    Secretary Buttigieg. You can't always rent a car.
    Mr. Mast. Rent a car.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Right.
    Mr. Mast. Well, we could argue whether that is age 
discrimination, as well.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I suppose we could. I guess my point 
is in that argument. I would say no, because it's backed by 
data.
    Mr. Mast. Yes, I--data about safety doesn't make it not age 
discrimination, in my opinion, giving my opinion. So, I think 
it is something that you really need to look at, because there 
are people that are adults that come out of school, they want 
to get into the great world of moving things over the road, of 
trucking, of being entrepreneurs, starting their own business 
or going to work for somebody else because they have got a CDL, 
and they are literally prevented from doing so in many cases--
there are some cases within States that drivers can do that--
they are prevented from moving interstate commerce, which can 
essentially render them a moot point in the truck-driving 
world.
    So, again--my personal opinion, and I will wrap it up--it 
is age discrimination. I hope that the administration can look 
at it and review it in that way in part.
    And I thank the chairman for the time. I yield back nothing 
because there is no time left.
    Mr. Collins. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Ryan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I want to 
personally thank you and your whole team in particular for your 
very rapid and indepth response to the major flooding disaster 
that we had in and around West Point in the Hudson Valley in 
New York, your personal engagement, your whole team.
    One anecdote I just want to share with that that I think is 
so important, there was a major bridge closed, the Popolopen 
Bridge, on Route 9W just south of West Point. Thanks to your 
team's work and the State and local partners, it was reopened 
weeks earlier than had been anticipated. As I am standing there 
at the reopening, an ambulance that wouldn't have been able to 
cross that bridge, comes across. The local police chief said 
there is a heart attack victim in that vehicle, and their odds 
of surviving that were dramatically increased. And that is just 
one example of the impacts of working urgently in crisis. So, I 
just want to commend you and your team for that, as well as the 
State and local officials.
    I also want to thank you and recognize Kingston, New York, 
my hometown, and in my district received the single biggest 
Federal grant in the history of our city, one of the RAISE 
grants to dramatically revitalize our downtown waterfront area 
and make it more climate resilient along the Hudson River, but 
also lift economic activity, provide housing. And that is one 
of the many examples of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 
action in our community.
    And you talked about this earlier. What may feel like a 
relatively small grant to some bigger cities and municipalities 
in my rural district is a big, big deal. So, I just want to 
commend you and the whole administration. Thank you for your 
partnership on that.
    The question I have, another pretty micro local--which I 
know you can appreciate, given your background--the Hudson 
Valley is rapidly growing. Our economy is growing. We have more 
population coming. Thanks to the CHIPS Act, we are seeing IBM 
make a $20 billion commitment in quantum and semiconductors in 
the area. We are seeing clean energy battery storage companies 
come, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act.
    One of our biggest holdups is our regional airport. 
Technically, it is an international airport, Stewart 
International Airport, 60 miles north of New York City, former 
Air Force base. That is one of the both constraints right now, 
but I think a huge opportunity for our region, for the Greater 
New York metro, as more and more volume comes through the 
system there.
    So, I just wanted to ask for your commitment, and your 
team's, to work with us on that to figure out, across 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and other opportunities, your 
help and support to bring that airport to the next level and 
any advice and thoughts you have on that.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. And the issue of 
small and regional airports is close to my heart, coming from 
where I come from, and I recognize the economic potential that 
can be unlocked by having strong airport infrastructure not 
just at the very biggest, most famous global airports, but the 
ones that really matter to regions, as well.
    And so, whether it is the Small Community Air Service 
Development Program or the Essential Air Service program or 
other resources that we have, including eligibilities for our 
discretionary grants--I mentioned that in my testimony, one of 
those grants went to a community of 2,500, but their airport is 
everything to them--we want to make sure we are there for 
facilities of all sizes.
    So, I certainly would welcome working with your office to 
identify potential funding streams, whether it is through the 
more routine aviation-specific programs or other discretionary 
resources that could make a difference to Stewart.
    Mr. Ryan. Well, I really appreciate it, Mr. Secretary.
    This has been talked about, but I want to also just 
emphasize again, from my and my district's perspective, the 
rail safety issue, to commend you and your team already for the 
work, and leaning forward with good, sound, pragmatic 
recommendations to join in the chorus of my colleagues saying 
Congress needs to step up and focus on this.
    One very compelling example in our district. I have 128 
miles of CSX freight line that runs up the Hudson River coast 
from New York City. Not only is there a significant risk of 
repeating a Norfolk Southern-type incident, but we have had a 
history of very dangerous and nearly deadly spills, including 
toxic substances, tons of toxic substances that then flooded 
into the Hudson River, part of the water supply for our biggest 
city in the United States of America. So, I know you are 
already supporting this, but I just want to add to that chorus.
    Finally, with the 25 seconds I have, I won't make you 
answer this, but I am just curious. I know I heard you 
completed a half Ironman a weekend or two ago. I won't ask if 
that was more grueling or this, but I do want to commend you 
for staying here and answering our questions, and all of your 
great leadership and work. So, thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good afternoon, Secretary, and happy to have you here. As 
you may be aware, Puerto Rico received a D-minus score by the 
American Society of Civil Engineers scorecard published in 2019 
because the bridges, ports, and roads are among the lowest 
grades per individual category.
    Last month, the administration shared that approximately 
$383 million had been announced for roads, bridges, roadway 
safety, and major projects under the infrastructure law. 
Similarly, Puerto Rico has received close to $100 million for 
airports and ports and waterways, and this is much welcome 
investment, and it is much needed in my district. Actually, I 
was one of the people who voted for that bill in this 
committee.
    However, my concern with all Federal investment in critical 
infrastructure, specifically those of this size, is delays. And 
could you please work with my office to understand the amount 
of funds that your Department has allocated through the 
infrastructure law per program, per year, and the amount that 
has been expended?
    And of course, learning of allocations is one thing, but I 
remain focused on making sure these funds are out of the door 
as soon as possible. So, if you can provide the committee in 
the next 2 weeks, 3 weeks, a finalized list--not the ones that 
I know they are working on right now, but the final list with 
the reports--I will really appreciate that.
    Second, according to press reports from Puerto Rico, the 
island will use $70 million in Federal funds to finance and 
design the construction of four new ferries that will transport 
passengers to the noncontiguous municipalities of Vieques and 
Culebra. They are two small islands at the east part of the 
island. The announcement was made in the local press yesterday, 
and I would like to request that you or your staff work with us 
while retaining proper oversight of the use of the funds, 
because those noncontiguous municipalities rely on safe and 
efficient ferry services to conduct every single activity, from 
buying goods, food, healthcare, work, education, appointments, 
among other activities. And the ferry system is also supporting 
the transportation of cargo to and from Vieques and Culebra and 
the contiguous municipalities. That will be my second request.
    I know I have got limited time. The next one will be in 
terms of--I know the country continues to feel the financial 
constraints of inflation and related issues and these delays of 
construction work and the use of funds appropriated by Congress 
in the past to address the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure needs. But how is your Department working with 
State agencies and stakeholders in noncontiguous jurisdictions, 
like my island in Puerto Rico, who rely heavily on imported 
materials to shorten wait times and approval of proposed plans 
and expedite work as much as possible?
    I would love to know if you have noticed that those are the 
biggest challenges to Territories, accessing those funds by 
your Department, and what steps is your Department making to 
mitigate this?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for those questions, 
and I certainly welcome the opportunity to work with you and 
your office to make sure that these funds benefit Puerto Rico. 
We are thankful for your support for the funding being 
available in the first place, and certainly recognize the 
unique challenges for noncontiguous Territories and States when 
it comes to project delivery, including what you mentioned, 
which is that in an inflationary environment, every day counts 
in terms of getting the money out and getting the projects 
done.
    So, we are engaging the project sponsors and the DOTs with 
technical assistance. We are trying to make the processes 
simpler in the first place. We are trying to batch communities 
into cohorts when we can. Anything we can do to just simplify 
processes and get things moving.
    I know that in particular you mentioned Vieques and 
Culebra, and they have the Marine Highway designation, which 
has helped make new eligibilities available, and I would 
continue to work with you to make sure that they are getting 
the support that they need, including consideration for 
important grants.
    And more broadly, in terms of getting you the information, 
we definitely want to make sure that there is clear visibility 
on all of the steps that the grants have to go through, and how 
to make those steps faster, because I just had a delegation not 
long ago from Puerto Rico come to visit. I know the excitement 
and the impatience that comes when you get good news about 
something like the PR-2 improvement project, but want to be 
driving on that road. And of course, we want to be there to 
celebrate the completion of the project, too.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I need to just notify you 
that before I finalize my turn, I would like to add that I am 
working to address the issue of the commercial driver's license 
in Puerto Rico through my bill, H.R. 919, and I hope to 
continue to work with you and your staff on this initiative to 
increase passenger safety and improve standards for testing 
commercial motor vehicles back home, which is an important 
issue.
    And I know my time is over, so, thank you, Secretary, and I 
yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Foushee for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you to the chairman and ranking member 
for holding this hearing today.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here for what 
appears to be all day.
    We have already heard about several wonderful projects in 
districts and States across the country made possible because 
of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and North Carolina is no 
exception. From airport improvements to highway widenings, 
pedestrian greenways to bike lanes, North Carolina is poised to 
receive over $6.6 billion in BIL funds for projects like these 
and many more.
    One project in my congressional district that I would like 
to highlight is the city of Durham's low- to no-emission award 
of $5.7 million to buy battery-electric buses to replace older 
diesel vehicles. These new vehicles will provide clean transit 
along routes that serve a high percentage of minority 
populations. So, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your work on the 
BIL. These funds are truly making a difference in our 
communities, despite what we hear from some of our colleagues.
    Those of us on this committee know that transit is the 
great equalizer. Having access to reliable, affordable, 
accessible public transportation can be the difference between 
opportunity and isolation for many members of our communities. 
That is why programs like the Areas of Persistent Poverty, or 
the AOPP Program, which awards funds to improve public 
transportation in areas experiencing long-term economic 
distress, are so important. I was glad that two towns in my 
district recently received AOPP funds to increase mobility for 
economically disadvantaged folk in NC04.
    So, Mr. Secretary, can you explain any plans the Department 
has to expand the Areas of Persistent Poverty Program and 
others like it, and how not fully funding the agency's request 
would impact these programs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. And 
as you said, these transportation connections can be a lifeline 
for families and communities that need them and can bridge them 
to opportunity.
    In July, FTA announced about $20 million, benefiting 47 
projects in 32 States through this Areas of Persistent Poverty 
Program. I should note that we got $36 million in requests, so, 
it is a high-demand program. We got about $2 of request for 
every $1 we were able to say yes to.
    And I know these awards might be viewed as a relatively 
small amount in the context of the IIJA, but we know they were 
incredibly important for those communities which are among the 
most underserved communities and very deserving of equitable 
opportunity.
    Because the Appropriations Act of 2021 was the last year 
that funded this, in the future, communities will miss out on 
the opportunity for that kind of funding unless it is restored. 
And of course, if it were to be restored and the funding were 
to come from Congress, we would welcome more opportunities to 
work with more communities to get those dollars out the door 
and make those residents better off.
    Mrs. Foushee. With all the funds available to our 
communities from the BIL and the IIJA, I have heard from many 
towns and counties in my district, particularly in rural areas, 
that they don't even know where to begin accessing these funds. 
They worry that they can't be competitive against larger 
municipalities and would miss out on funding for much-needed 
transit and infrastructure projects.
    So, can you talk to us about how the DOT is prioritizing 
our rural communities, particularly when it comes to awarding 
funds, and what programs are available specifically for our 
rural communities?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. This is part of what 
we mean when we talk about equity: making sure that communities 
that have been excluded--and that can include communities of 
color, and it can certainly include rural communities--get a 
fair shake. And often, rural communities have fewer resources 
to be able to, for example, hire somebody to track every day 
what Federal opportunities are coming along. We don't want that 
to be an unfair disadvantage, which is why we have set up our 
own capabilities in the Department.
    For example, our team, our ROUTES Team, which is a team 
that specializes on rural-focused work within our Department, 
has conducted a number of virtual events so that people who 
don't maybe have a travel budget to come to Washington, can 
tune in, get their questions answered.
    And they have done more than 200 debriefs with an applicant 
when they come in trying to get a project done; they compete, 
but they don't quite make the cut. We let them know how to be 
stronger for the next time around and have a better chance of 
getting funded.
    We also had the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program. 
That is a rural-specific program created by the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, and we were able to, just this year alone, 
put $675 million out for communities to apply for--specifically 
for rural communities. And we are working to make sure that 
rural applicants do well in those broader discretionary 
competitions.
    So, it is very much on our mind, and we welcome the chance 
to work together on that.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mann for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 
here today, Secretary Buttigieg. I am Congressman Tracey Mann, 
and I represent the ``Big First'' district of Kansas.
    Mr. Secretary, the Department of Transportation has failed 
repeatedly to comply with congressionally set deadlines. One of 
these delayed decisionmakings has a significant impact on 
communities in Kansas like Hays, Dodge City, Garden City, 
Liberal, and Salina, as well as several rural communities 
across America.
    SkyWest Airlines is still awaiting a decision regarding its 
decision or its plan to create SkyWest Charter to operate 
flights in small communities. Mr. Secretary, what is the 
timeline for a decision from the Department of Transportation?
    And would you commit to that timeline in writing in the 
next 2 weeks?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I can tell you that that is under 
active consideration. I can't comment on the merits of the 
application because it is being reviewed right now.
    I recognize the importance of that application. It entails 
both economic and safety authorities that have to be 
considered, and it requires a very thorough and conservative 
look. So, I don't--I am not in a position today to make news 
about the date of a disposition of that, but I can tell you 
that it is under active consideration.
    Mr. Mann. Understood. But just understand we need to make--
we need a decision for those communities that don't have air 
service right now or have air services being jeopardized. And I 
understand you can't commit or talk about the merits of it, but 
I would like to see a commitment of some sort and a general 
timeframe on when we might get a decision, because this delay 
is really hurting our rural communities, which are often 
disadvantaged, as was mentioned earlier.
    The second question, Mr. Secretary, I have heard that the 
time to resolve NEPA and historic preservation concerns has 
increased over the last couple of years. The length of time for 
approval seems to depend on the lead staff member assigned to 
review the project and not the law.
    Mr. Secretary, what are you doing to ensure that this 
process is speedy, unbiased, and uniform across the Department?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We want to get projects done, and an 
important part of getting projects done quickly is to move 
promptly through the NEPA process. I would want to spend a 
little more time understanding some of the data you are 
referring to because we believe we have been able to mark a 
downward trend in terms of the number of years to complete an 
EIS in recent years. But I recognize there are many different 
ways to slice the same data, and the point is just to get it 
done.
    Mr. Mann. Yes.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I should note that about 95 percent of 
our projects are categorical exclusions, so, they don't even 
have to go through an EIS or an EA. And part of what we are 
working to do is connect our categorical exclusion authorities 
to other departments when they exist, just to create a smoother 
path to get through there.
    I also embrace the spirit of the concept of the shot clock, 
trying to make sure that we set ourselves a goal, often 2 
years. And that is at the outer limit, it doesn't mean you want 
it to take 2 years. It means the biggest, most complicated 
projects you understand it might take that.
    Sometimes part of what adds to a NEPA timeline is the 
readiness of the project sponsor. In other words, the State, 
the transit authority, the airport. But we don't want to treat 
that as an excuse that says that just because we are waiting 
for them to prepare something we have no responsibility to help 
them get it done.
    And so, what we want to do, in addition to having easy-to-
understand, transparent, and simple processes, is to take a 
little bit of responsibility for guiding project sponsors, 
especially rural communities who maybe haven't done a NEPA 
before, through the process. That is where the technical 
assistance and some of the other handshake--I would describe it 
as handshake programming--that we have could come into play, as 
well as the formal regulatory updates.
    Mr. Mann. Great. Well, I appreciate that. And then in that 
same vein, what are you doing to ensure that the Department is 
complying with the streamlining provisions that were included 
in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which we signed this summer?
    All this is getting at the intent, which is to speed up 
these permitting processes, which in fact, would reduce cost in 
these projects. And I think folks--in Congress, you are 
speaking whether they voted for or against the transportation 
bill. Let's make sure that we at least get as much lead on the 
target as we can to build infrastructure in this country. The 
NEPA permit seems to pull from that needlessly many, many 
times.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. Yes, I hear that loud and 
clear. And actually, just today, the Federal Register will show 
one of the first cases in which a department was able to do a 
joint categorical exclusion created by that Fiscal 
Responsibility Act. It's an area where we do a CE jointly with 
the Department of Energy, and I think we can do more where that 
came from. I really do. We're not out to short any important 
procedural or policy or legal requirements, but we don't want 
anything to take longer than it ought to.
    Mr. Mann. Yes, yes. I agree wholeheartedly.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I yield back.
    And thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hoyle for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. You already 
know how much the State of Oregon wants to be part of the 
solution to the supply chain crisis by expanding the Port of 
Coos Bay, so, I am not going to talk to you--
uncharacteristically, I am not going to talk to you about that 
today.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would be shocked if it weren't at 
least mentioned.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Today, I want to talk to you about an 
issue that is impacting rural communities across the West as we 
are coming out of another devastating wildfire season due to 
the droughts brought about by climate change that cost 
taxpayers billions of dollars in what has become the new 
normal.
    We have many small airports like the one in Oakridge, 
Oregon, in my district, which is right at the base of the 
Cascade Mountain Range and in the heart of the Willamette 
National Forest. It's Willamette, like damn it, right? And they 
are used as a base for aerial firefighting operations, and more 
so, as we have moved to aggressively fight fires to keep them 
from getting out of control, especially when they are near the 
wildland-urban interface.
    The Oakridge Airport, like many of these airports, was 
originally designed for timber operations and not heavy 
firefighting equipment. So, this earlier intervention saves 
billions, but these airports need help. For instance, Oakridge 
State Airport is at the end of its lifespan, in spite of 
constant investments in upkeep, and has major structural 
failures, including erosion of the base material, cracks on the 
runway that occurred because of the use of heavy wildland 
firefighting support equipment.
    So, we are at the end of the season, we found this out, we 
need to fix it before next season or people could die, we could 
lose homes, bad things happen. The Oregon Department of 
Aviation estimates it would cost $2.6 million to upgrade the 
runway for heavy firefighting use, and that's a small 
investment, but it shouldn't be borne just by the State and our 
rural communities because this is in the middle of a Federal 
forest.
    So, my question to you is: How can you work with us and all 
the other small rural airports across the West, and what 
programs are available to help make these needed upgrades to 
our rural community airports and allow us to adapt to the 
extreme fires that we will continue to experience, 
unfortunately, because of climate change?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for pointing up yet 
another example of how resilience creates new urgency when it 
comes to keeping our infrastructure up to date. And without 
knowing everything about the facility that you have described, 
I can commit to working with your office to try to identify 
some of the funding sources that they might be eligible for, 
whether it is AIG, AIP, maybe even the Terminal Program, 
depending on some of the dual uses that go on, or other 
programs that exist.
    Given the timelines you are talking about, I would also be 
interested in examining whether there are any emergency sources 
of funding or authorities that could be outside of our own 
normal set of resources, but that we might be able to play some 
kind of helpful technical role in accessing, because we do want 
to--we recognize that the use of these smaller airports is not 
just recreational. Whether we are talking about medevac or 
whether we are talking about firefighting, it can be really a 
life-or-death issue to make sure that they are in good shape. 
And we want to make sure that every community has the airport 
infrastructure it needs in order to succeed.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Yes, and thank you, and I look forward 
to working with you. I just think we do have a new normal, and 
what we have done certainly in Oregon and northern California 
and Washington is start addressing these fires earlier during 
the wildfire season, so that before they get completely out of 
control--and then, make everything more fireproof in the off 
season, but without these small airports.
    And again, I so appreciate you understanding the 
importance, because we can't leave our rural communities 
behind. It is very critical. And it is just a matter of time 
until we have another Paradise. So, thank you so much, I am 
looking forward to working with you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Collins. The lady yields back. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Burlison for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Secretary Buttigieg, since taking the role, 
you have traveled quite a bit, including private flights. How 
often do you take private flights?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I assume by private flights you 
mean the use of Government aircraft assigned to my agency. And 
I knew this might come up, so, I brought some numbers.
    Since getting this job I have taken--these are estimates, 
give or take a couple, but I have taken 638 flights----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. And are any of those 
commercial?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Say that again?
    Mr. Burlison. Are any of those commercial?
    Secretary Buttigieg. 607 of them were commercial, 10 of 
them were on military aircraft such as Air Force One, and 21 of 
them were on FAA aircraft, representing about 3 percent of the 
flights.
    Mr. Burlison. There was a Freedom of Information Act 
request made of your office to reveal the costs of the travel. 
Have you provided those costs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would have to check back with the 
office to see how the--on the traffic. But I can tell you that, 
yes, we are going to complete----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Because I understand----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Comply with all FOIA 
requests.
    Mr. Burlison [continuing]. It has been months, and you have 
not provided the financial numbers for that travel.
    Secretary Buttigieg. OK. Again, I can check on the status 
of the FOIA request, but I can also----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. But you will commit to 
providing that information?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We will always comply with FOIA. But I 
appreciate the chance to discuss this, because I can't help get 
the sense that some people want to make it sound as if I don't 
travel----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Mr. Secretary----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Most of the time on 
commercial aircraft, which, of course, is untrue.
    Mr. Burlison. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I think the irony for 
most people in my district is that they are being told that 
they are going to have to convert to electric vehicles to 
reduce their carbon footprint, and yet not everyone gets to 
travel the way that you do.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Just once again, the way I usually 
travel is in economy class aboard an airliner like everybody 
else. When we do it differently, it is often because it will 
save taxpayer money.
    Mr. Burlison. I want to get on to----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. I am so glad you asked 
this, because I am kind of excited to share some of the 
details----
    Mr. Burlison [continuing]. Secretary Buttigieg, I want to 
ask----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And put some----
    Mr. Burlison. I want to ask, you have done some--you have 
had some interesting policies since you have taken office. Some 
of them include that you spent $1 billion to fight against 
racist highways, which is befuddling to me. You are forcing 
training manuals that divide Americans. You have climate 
policies that appease the radical environmentalists. You 
renamed the NOTAM system to be gender neutral.
    And yet at the same time, while that is happening--those 
are your efforts--you have a failure of the NOTAM system, which 
has not been updated under your leadership; you had the East 
Palestine event that occurred, which took you nearly 3 weeks to 
show up for. The American citizen is currently facing countless 
flight delays--just ask them--and yet we have still supply 
chain issues.
    So, my question is: Why are you pushing those policies when 
we have nuts-and-bolts issues to deal with?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, if you want to talk nuts-and-
bolts issues, let's talk about the investments we are making to 
improve port infrastructure, for example, that has helped with 
supply chain issues. Let's talk about the fact that during the 
same season in which many critics said that Christmas would be 
canceled because of supply chain issues, we worked with ports, 
with the private sector and the public sector, and workers to 
see to it that by the end of that year, there was an all-time 
record high in retail sales and goods movement through our 
ports.
    Now, talk nuts and bolts issues. Let's talk about the 
37,000 physical infrastructure projects so far and counting 
supported through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    And since you raised East Palestine----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Secretary----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. I hope that is an 
indication that we can get you on the record in favor of the 
Railway Safety Act.
    Mr. Burlison. Secretary, about railway safety, it is an 
interesting--when you look at the trends, according to data 
from the Federal Railroad Administration, the numbers since 
2000 have dramatically improved: main line, Class I railroads, 
the accident rate is down 48 percent since 2000. You have 
derailments that are down 31 percent since 2000. You have even 
hazmat issues are down 73 percent since 2000.
    Across the board, safety has improved. And yet starkly, 
over the course of the last couple of years, according to the 
FRA data, it shows that even though we did have a trend since 
2000 of reductions, these accidents did have an increase under 
your watch of 13 percent compared to the previous year. How do 
you account for that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, actually, so far the rate of 
derailments this year is down compared to last year. But I do 
appreciate you being perhaps the first Republican Congressman 
to acknowledge that overall rail accidents on my watch are 
substantially down from what they were 10 or 20 years ago.
    Now, the question in my view is how to get them down even 
further, which is why I would love to have you stand with us 
and not with the rail lobby on the Railway Safety Act.
    Mr. Burlison. If you care about safety, why did you turn 
down BNSF's ability to use drone technology to check the rails?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Oh, I am so glad you asked that. One 
thing that really frustrates me is the characterization that we 
denied the ability to use drones to inspect rails. That's not 
true.
    What is true is that we required that it be supplemented by 
the traditional human inspection until that technology is 
proven. Now, we are not stopping them for one second from 
using----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. These new technologies--
--
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. [Inaudible] Arbitrary and 
capricious by a court.
    Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Ms. Scholten for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Scholten. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your 
testimony today. You are demonstrating the true grit and grace 
of a Michigander here. I have two lines of questions that I 
want to cover with you today.
    First, again, we are just so grateful for all that you have 
been doing to get money into the hands of communities that need 
it through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Michigan's Third 
Congressional District has benefited from nearly $100 million 
in funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including 
airports, multiple highway bridge projects, air quality 
improvements, and more. So, truly, thank you on behalf of the 
people of Michigan's Third, thank you so much.
    The Department has recently launched the Thriving 
Communities Program, which aims to help communities build the 
capacity they need to compete for Federal grants and deliver 
critical transportation projects. The initiative brings 
together public and private-sector partners with experience in 
providing technical assistance and training, capacity building, 
and planning to help certain target recipients to develop their 
own ability to ultimately build out transportation projects 
that will strengthen their local mobility.
    From my perspective, this project has incredible potential 
to transform local communities by engaging those closest to the 
transportation needs in developing what they need. But 
oftentimes things like technical assistance and planning can be 
really vague and amorphous topics, and don't lead to real 
results. And I am wondering, how will the DOT measure success 
of this program and ensure that the intended beneficiaries are 
getting what they need out of this project?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question, because 
I think technical assistance sometimes doesn't get as much 
attention as construction. But getting it right opens the way 
for construction to happen, especially in communities that may 
not always have had the resources to access Federal dollars. 
Not every city is big enough to have a full-time Federal 
relations staff on board.
    We think we can be part of the solution, and that is part 
of why the Thriving Communities Program, we think, is such a 
positive development.
    We announced our first cohort of selections this spring: 64 
communities in 42 States are getting support. And I think I can 
tell you it is a popular program because we got applications 
from--eligible applications from 311 communities. So, we know 
there are a lot of places, including places like where I used 
to be mayor that have an interest in this kind of technical 
support.
    And I think it is actually part of--to raise something that 
I know is important to everybody, but especially on the other 
side of the dais, it's part of how we accelerate progress 
through things like NEPA, because the technical assistance 
helps project sponsors navigate all of that. So, we really 
believe in the potential of this.
    Of course, it's early days for that first cohort, and we 
are still standing up the processes to work with them, but we 
certainly hope that we will continue to get support to carry 
this program forward, because I think it's going to continue to 
matter to communities where those dollars could go the 
furthest.
    Ms. Scholten. Any takeaways or lessons learned from the 
first round of funding and recipients?
    Secretary Buttigieg. What we found is one size doesn't fit 
all, but there are also lots of different kinds of communities 
with a lot in common. And so, whenever we see affinities 
between different kinds of communities that might even be in 
different States, and we can knit them together in a cohort, 
and they are working with the same capacity builder--that is 
the other entity, often a nonprofit that works through the 
Thriving Communities Program with our funding to help the city 
or town or whoever applied--we think we can build communities 
of practice around better transportation policy that go above 
and beyond any individual physical project that we are going to 
be able to fund in the course of that work.
    Ms. Scholten. That's great. We will look forward to 
following the progress.
    I want to ask briefly in our last minute about airport 
towers. You knew I was going to have a question about our Grand 
Rapids airport tower at Gerald R. Ford International Airport.
    The airport's tower is the oldest in the country of the top 
75 busiest airports in the United States. The tower is out of 
compliance with safety and ADA regulations, raising serious 
safety concerns. The FAA, of course, owns this tower, meaning 
the airport or surrounding community can't update it without 
the FAA. For far too long, we have gone without a set of 
standards or priorities for how we replace these airport 
towers. I'm hoping to change that through my bill, which was 
included in the FAA reauthorization.
    But can you talk about the importance of replacing towers 
at the end of their life cycle, the importance to maintaining a 
safe National Airspace System and reducing travel disruptions?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes. I think it goes 
without saying, but air traffic control towers are one of the 
most essential elements of a safe national airspace. And many 
of those assets, as you mentioned, are out of date. As a matter 
of fact, we have over 240 of them in the national airspace that 
are over 40 years old.
    So, I see that gavel raised, so, I must be about out of 
time. Let me just say we are at work on this. The 
infrastructure law is helping us do that work, and we welcome 
what you are doing with the reauthorization, too.
    Ms. Scholten. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming before the committee 
today. My remarks and questions will be no surprise to anyone 
following the news and policy issues in Oregon: tolling.
    As you know, the Oregon Department of Transportation has 
proposed tolling on Interstates 5 and 205 in Oregon. This 
controversial tolling affects the Greater Portland metro area, 
including significant areas of Clackamas County. ODOT's 
proposal has encountered fierce opposition.
    My position is clear: I oppose tolling.
    At the local level, opposition has united Republicans, 
Democrats, mayors and county commissioners, State legislators, 
and countless residents and commuters. The Governor ordered a 
so-called pause on tolling until early 2026. Even so, ODOT 
continues its preparations for tolling.
    As a former mayor, which I know you would understand, I 
understand that funding and building infrastructure is 
challenging work. But this tolling proposal is not the answer 
for Oregon. I pledge to be part of the solution, but let's not 
burden our commuters or create havoc for small businesses and 
communities who will struggle with the impact of tolling.
    As you know, States proposing tolling or other major 
infrastructure projects are required to conduct an 
environmental study. ODOT's environmental assessment falls very 
short in numerous ways.
    Examples include congestion is not actually addressed, it 
is simply diverted from the highway to nearby city and county 
roads. These communities are not designed for increased traffic 
which leads to safety issues and practical challenges for 
neighboring businesses.
    Number two, no actual mitigation plan or strategy. ODOT may 
mention mitigation or monitoring, but the filings show no 
cohesive mitigation plan. Vague assurances are merely given 
that potential issues will be addressed.
    Number three, tolling is an added cost for every driver, 
but especially low-income residents. The car remains the prime 
means of transportation in the region, and tolls would add to 
the cost of living on top of the hardships imposed by inflation 
and the struggling economy. ODOT has failed to engage the 
public on tolling. In June, an ODOT official admitted that they 
had missed the mark on public outreach.
    Projects involving the Federal Government typically meet 
friction. Surprisingly, when it comes to tolling, it seems that 
the State officials can impose tolling on Federal roads in face 
of public opposition. And despite shoddy planning and outreach, 
where is the due diligence and the accountability?
    So, Mr. Secretary, do you have the authority to deny a 
tolling proposal if you determine the process was conducted in 
a perfunctory way or serious questions remained over the 
project?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, anything that comes through a 
permitting process, including a tolling proposal, has to 
satisfy certain Federal requirements, and we will only sign off 
on those if we are----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. Do you have the 
authority----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Satisfied that those were 
met.
    So, that would be delegated----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. To deny a tolling----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. To the Federal Highway 
Administration, but yes, through that delegated authority, if 
something did not comply with Federal law, we would block it.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Local leaders in Oregon are vocal 
about being left out of the process for tolling. Do you have 
the authority to weigh their concerns and deny tolling if you 
determine those concerns are valid?
    Secretary Buttigieg. As a policy matter, no. But in terms 
of making sure the procedures are followed, then yes.
    In other words, our responsibility is to make sure that the 
appropriate consultation happened. We don't have a position on 
the State policy choice----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. So, you do have the 
authority if those concerns were valid.
    Secretary Buttigieg. If NEPA is not followed, then we have 
the authority to----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. Would you agree that, 
if the State claims they will mitigate the effects of the new 
tolling, that we should see the details in advance on what the 
mitigation before tolling would be approved?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I don't have enough familiarity with 
the NEPA documentation to be able to weigh in on its adequacy. 
But what I will say is that our Federal Highway Administration 
would not have signed off on any NEPA process that it did not 
believe had satisfied those requirements.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Do you agree that tolling should 
accommodate those with lower incomes or anyone from whom 
tolling would pose a hardship?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Again, I am not going to dictate to 
States how their tolling proposals should work, but as a 
philosophical matter, we want to make sure that any 
transportation----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. Do you agree that local 
public outreach is critical before moving ahead with 
substantial changes to Federal highways such as tolling?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sorry, I didn't hear the first part of 
your question.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Do you agree that local public 
outreach is critical before moving ahead with substantial 
changes to the Federal highways such as tolling?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, that is a big part of what NEPA 
is about.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. If the State failed to have sufficient 
public outreach, what actions would you take?
    And can you deny the project?
    Secretary Buttigieg. If a project sponsor fails to do 
appropriate outreach, that can lead to a NEPA failure or a 
title VI concern. And in those scenarios, that could lead to 
the project not getting cleared by the Department----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. Will you deny the 
project if that is sufficient evidence?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Again, any time that a project is 
noncompliant, we won't approve it.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Mr. Secretary, it is nice to meet you 
because I hadn't met you. You did come to Oregon in July. I 
have to tell you, we recognized that, we were not invited, even 
though that was very near my district. I would have loved to 
have had the time to show you exactly the impacts that tolling 
is having in Oregon.
    But thank you for being here today and answering these 
questions, and I will be following up directly because I would 
like you to kill this project.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, we are hopefully near the conclusion of the 
environmental impact statement process for the Union Station 
expansion project. Union Station is a vital transportation hub 
that connects the Nation's National Capital region to the 
Northeast Corridor and multiple Southeast Corridor lines. 
Prepandemic, the station had more than 100,000 travelers and 
visitors passing through it each day, which is more than either 
Reagan National or Dulles International Airport.
    Amtrak, MARC, and VRE are all expecting unprecedented 
growth in ridership, with demand estimated to reach two or 
three times higher than prepandemic levels by 2040. However, 
despite its critical role in local, regional, and national 
connectivity, Union Station has not undergone any 
infrastructure improvements since the 1990s, according to FRA's 
own assessment. Future ridership growth will be constrained 
without it, yet it has taken the Department of Transportation 
and Federal Railroad Administration over 8\1/2\ years to 
complete the environmental impact statement for the project.
    Mr. Secretary, will you commit to making the Union Station 
expansion project a priority for the administration?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question. We 
understand the importance and the priority that this deserves.
    One thing I would mention--and I know this is not the full 
scope of the project--but the President's budget for 2024 did 
request a $15 million set-aside under Fed-State, just for some 
of those immediate state-of-good-repair needs. But yes, we 
continue to be committed to working with all concerned toward 
progress on the larger capital needs of Union Station.
    Ms. Norton. When will the administration issue the final 
environmental impact statement and record of decision?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I don't have news to make on 
that today, but we are continuing to make sure that we work 
expeditiously on this and can get more information to your 
office when I get back to DOT.
    Ms. Norton. I wish you would get that to us as soon as you 
can.
    Mr. Secretary, as the lead Democrat on the Highways and 
Transit Subcommittee, I was proud to help create the 
Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program as part of the 
Inflation Reduction Act. The program provides over $3 billion 
to improve safety, walkability, and affordable transportation 
access, and the first funding application period will close 
later this month.
    This funding comes amid a crisis in transportation safety. 
Pedestrian fatalities are at a 41-year high. Bicyclist 
fatalities are at a 46-year high. This is largely the result of 
years of disinvestment and a misplaced focus on moving cars 
quickly, rather than moving people safely.
    Mr. Secretary, will you ensure that reducing pedestrian and 
cyclist fatalities is a priority when awarding Neighborhood 
Access and Equity grants?
    Secretary Buttigieg. You can count on it. Safety is an 
important criterion, and one of the biggest things we are 
seeing in terms of safety has to do with the safety of 
pedestrians and cyclists.
    I should add, as somebody who is often a pedestrian and/or 
cyclist right here in DC, that I have seen the good work that 
can be done when there is funding to make sure that there are 
safer streets for everybody.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, as the cochair of the 
Quiet Skies Caucus, I am very concerned with the standards for 
what is considered acceptable noise levels. Aviation noise is 
more than a mild disturbance or annoyance.
    The FAA is undertaking a review of its aviation noise 
policy to update these standards and extended its notice and 
comment period to the end of this month to allow more input in 
the review process. Will you ensure that the input of 
communities that are impacted daily by aviation noise is heard 
and utilized to improve the aviation noise metrics?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We care a great deal about community 
input and, yes, we believe that's an important consideration in 
these noise discussions.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Owens for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, and I 
want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for today's 
hearing and the opportunity to listen, learn, and perform our 
constitutional mandate to provide oversight for yet another 
Biden administration department that has routinely engaged in 
regulatory overreach, failure to comply with congressional 
statute, and irresponsible use of taxpayers' funds.
    Record Government spending has failed to alleviate an 
unprecedented supply chain and energy crisis as President 
Biden's Department of Transportation continues to obstruct the 
efficient transport of energy resources and goods throughout 
our Nation. Under this administration, the Department of 
Transportation has picked clear favorites, prioritizing urban 
passenger projects that benefit blue States and cities over 
critical systems, infrastructure, and maintenance upgrades.
    When policymakers prioritize equity and environment over 
competition in the economy, American families are left footing 
the bill.
    In yet another example of this administration's misguided 
efforts to stifle competition and keep prices high, this DOT 
has asserted novel regulatory authority to prevent or delay the 
merger of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines.
    Salt Lake City has the sixth most expensive airport to fly 
in domestically, with an average fare of $423. The same can be 
said for many hubs dominated by legacy carriers. My 
constituents and the American people stand for the benefit of 
free market competition. More flights and more options mean 
lower prices and better service.
    Mr. Secretary, I am increasingly concerned by your 
Department's actions that result in protecting 80 percent of 
market share among the four U.S. carriers. Do you believe that 
maintaining the status quo is a result of your opposition to 
the JetBlue-Spirit merger?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, if we want competition, then we 
have to have fidelity to our watchdog role when it comes to 
mergers. After all, by definition, a merger means that there 
will be fewer competitors than there were before the merger.
    I would--I could not concur with the description of this as 
a novel regulatory----
    Mr. Owens [interrupting]. Excuse me.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Owens. Mr. Secretary, can I just ask a quick question? 
You are saying that we have four major carriers that represent 
80 percent of the traffic and adding another one would stop 
competition?
    Secretary Buttigieg. By definition, a merger doesn't add a 
company, it removes it.
    Mr. Owens. By definition, a merger also gives the other 
four a competition that they don't have presently at 80 
percent.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, our role is to make sure that 
there is more competition, not less. And we will only act to 
prevent a merger if there is a determination that a merger 
would harm competition.
    Mr. Owens. OK, so, let me ask--in other words, we have four 
major airlines representing 80 percent of the traffic, and you 
are saying another competition would be what, not--would not be 
competition? I am trying to----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interposing]. Sure.
    Mr. Owens [continuing]. Understand the math, because----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Think of it in terms 
of----
    Mr. Owens [continuing]. To me, if we add another carrier, a 
national carrier----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. You are taking----
    Mr. Owens [continuing]. You have more competition to the 
four than right now.
    Secretary Buttigieg. My point is taking two airlines and 
turning them into one could mean less competition.
    Mr. Owens. OK. Since you oppose a new national airlines 
competitor, what is your Department doing to remove barriers to 
entry and enable smaller carriers without the scale of the four 
big legacy airlines to effectively compete in the key markets 
for U.S. markets?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you mentioned, there are a 
lot of barriers to entry in aviation: the economies of scale, 
loyalty programs, other things that mean that it doesn't 
function the way a lot of competitive markets do. That is 
exactly why we think it is so important to exercise our 
authority under the law to make sure that there is more 
competition and not less----
    Mr. Owens [interrupting]. OK. Well, what are you doing for 
the smaller--we are talking about the smaller. How can they 
compete with the policies you are now looking at? How will you 
allow them to compete in this market in which four right now 
control it?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, part of what we are doing to 
support them is steps like this, that police the trend toward 
consolidation so that we don't end up with--by the end of this, 
we could be down to Coke and Pepsi. If all of the airlines 
merge, you could wind up with just two. It is hard to picture 
that being a positive outcome for competition.
    But again, our actions on this are always going to be 
guided by the law----
    Mr. Owens [interposing]. OK.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And by our legal 
authorities. We are not asserting any novel regulatory 
authority. To our best of our judgment, we are implementing the 
law as written.
    Mr. Owens. Well, thank you. Let me just wrap up by saying 
this. If the JetBlue and Spirit merger is approved in Federal 
court, I strongly recommend that your Department acts 
expeditiously and consistent with longstanding antitrust 
precedent, and approve the airline certificate transfer, 
allowing the free market--that is what we are talking about--
allow the free market to decide and provide the lowest cost 
possible. Because if we add other airlines, national airlines, 
the prices will go down because there are other options. It 
makes sense to me, because I have been an entrepreneur all my 
life--to provide the lowest cost for consumers.
    And please refrain from the petty protectionism to 
safeguard only one airline's market share. Thank you so much. I 
appreciate it.
    And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Molinaro for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary. The benefits of being a freshman is I get to sit so 
close to those witnesses that I feel as if we are having a 
private conversation. We're not.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Molinaro. But I--yes, agreed. And so, Mr. Secretary, I 
want to jump right in.
    Without question, while I was not here, I think we can all 
acknowledge that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
establishes a significant investment, in particular, I would 
say, representing a large area in New York State. It gives us 
the needed investment that we so desperately needed in the 
Northeast to make necessary improvements to highways, roads, 
and bridges. Without question, New Yorkers know and have seen 
the deterioration of our infrastructure. And yet at the core of 
IIJA is this 5-year surface transportation reauthorization that 
funds those critical road, bridge, and transit projects.
    Now, we know this. I have lived through now three once-in-
a-lifetime infrastructure bills over the course of my service 
in public office. We know that, despite the fact that we are 
now in the third year of IIJA's implementation, projects are 
yet to come to fruition. In particular, I would say in States 
like New York, because of added bureaucracy.
    What specifically is the Department doing to move those 
projects?
    And I would note specifically to move New York, to move 
those projects, so that we see the benefit on the ground.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, both as a current Secretary and 
as a former mayor, nothing is more gratifying to me than a 
groundbreaking, with the possible exception of a ribbon 
cutting. We want to get dirt flying, we want to get projects 
done, and we also need to do it responsibly.
    Now, our first year was spent just getting the bill passed, 
and our second year was spent largely making sure that these 
programs, many of them multibillion-dollar programs that didn't 
even exist before, were stood up properly. What that means is 
we think we are on a good footing now, as we enter the third 
year of the bill and the fourth year of the administration, 
that we are really seeing the money moving and the dirt 
flying----
    Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. Do you feel--Mr. Secretary, do 
you think projects are moving adequately in the State of New 
York? Because both the contractors, municipalities, and local 
officials just don't believe they are.
    And I am not saying it is entirely DOT's issue. It is in 
part pressing the State to move projects. Do you feel they are 
moving adequately in the State?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Look, I think all of our project 
sponsors are doing a great job with limited resources----
    Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. Do you think the State of New 
York----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And limited time----
    Mr. Molinaro [continuing]. Is doing a great job?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, we are getting terrific things 
done with the State of New York, but we always want to move 
faster, and we want our project sponsors to move faster, and we 
want our own gears of Government machinery to move faster. That 
is why we are trying to make sure we simplify categorical 
exclusions, which is 95 percent of our permitting. That is why 
we are doing technical assistance.
    I know New York State or New York City is large and 
sophisticated, but you have got smaller communities in New York 
State that are going to----
    Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. I represent upstate 11 
counties in upstate New York. And so----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Right. So, a lot of 
those players aren't going to have full-time Federal relations 
people on staff. We don't want them to have to, to swiftly 
navigate our processes. We are keeping our foot on the 
accelerator and looking actively for ways we can strip out 
unnecessary----
    Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. OK, so, my--I want to just 
jump to another issue. And my office stands ready to assist, 
and I know that the delegation, Republican and Democratic, want 
to move projects quicker.
    As you know, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed 
in 1990. There was a 20-year timeframe for intercity rail 
stations to be accessible for those with disabilities. As of 
July 2023, Amtrak has only brought 30 percent of their 385 
stations it's responsible for into ADA compliance. Yet we 
continue to fund Amtrak's investment to move ADA projects. In 
fact, IIJA itself included an additional $1.74 billion.
    Can you commit the Department to more aggressively 
enforcing Amtrak's necessity to meet the ADA requirements?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We strongly believe in ADA-compliant--
--
    Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. I understand, but what can we 
do to move Amtrak----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Well, the biggest thing 
we can do is through the ASAP--at least on the transit side--is 
through the ASAP program. And with Amtrak, we want to work with 
them to--I am not going to say we are going to prevent a 
necessary safety or maintenance enhancement from happening 
because we are concerned about ADA compliance. But I agree it 
has got to be a both-and, and we want to do everything we can 
to be helpful.
    Mr. Molinaro. I will take you at your word, and I 
appreciate that. I will say that it is a remarkable 
embarrassment that we continue to send taxpayer dollars to 
Amtrak for the purposes of ADA compliance, and yet they have 
historically and continuously not met that obligation.
    And I would just say there are countless Americans who are 
denied access because of Amtrak's failure. Yet during the 
pandemic and post-pandemic, Amtrak saw, in its infinite wisdom, 
to divvy up significant bonuses to its executive leadership 
team, while employees were left home and those with 
disabilities were left on the sidelines.
    My time is up. I would like to work with the Department to 
ensure that we force Amtrak to meet that expectation.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Understood.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burchett for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Van 
Orden was next, if I was told correctly. Was I mistaken? It 
doesn't matter. OK.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I was a county mayor, and that 
was the best dadgum job I ever had. I know we both come from 
that background. That is about where the similarities end. And 
since I am the 435th most powerful Member of Congress, and I am 
one of the last people to ask you the questions, all the good 
ones have been asked, all the gotchas that are going to get me 
a good YouTube plug are gone. So, I am just going to ask you 
some serious stuff, if that is OK with you, brother.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sounds good.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. I am worried about the charging 
stations for cars that we don't have on the road right now, and 
I am wondering just how many of these charging stations have 
been funded by the Federal Government.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Most of the charging----
    Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. EV, I am sorry, EV----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Yes. So, most of the 
charging infrastructure out there today was installed without 
Federal funding because those were the early adopters and the 
first moves done by the private sector, companies like Tesla 
and even municipalities installing their own.
    But by the end of this year, we expect those for--that 
first wave of the ones that are benefiting from the NEVI 
program----
    Mr. Burchett [interposing]. Right.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. To begin to go out there. 
And our goal is to have 500,000 chargers by the end of the 
decade, some of which will have Federal dollars in them and 
some of which will not.
    Mr. Burchett. Do you know how many?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would have to go back and--we are in 
the tens of thousands right now in terms of the private-sector 
installed base. But I would have to go back and pull that 
number.
    Mr. Burchett. If you could get that for me, I would really 
appreciate it, get it to my office. That would be great.
    Another issue I am concerned about is asphalt. It is the 
most recycled product, probably, in the world. I don't know. I 
think we put down more than 89 million tons in new asphalt 
construction. Why have State departments of transportation been 
slow to use reclaimed asphalt pavement? Because it is 
basically--it is just two or three ingredients.
    I mean, it is gravel, it is the oil-based product, which I 
would like to see plastic substituted at some time. And you 
provide a little heat, and maybe a little sand for a little bit 
more filler, but you get the picture. You were a mayor. Why are 
these locals not using it more? Are they not being encouraged 
to do it? It just seems it's crazy to put that stuff in the 
landfill.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think it's a great question. And 
maybe another area it turns out we have something in common is 
a belief that we ought to be paying more attention to 
materials, the sourcing of pavement, the durability of 
pavement.
    One thing I would mention is that I think often local 
jurisdictions are under such pressure in the short term just to 
get the potholes filled. You and I, I think, both experienced 
it with the roads we were in charge of, that even if you were 
offered something that represented a savings for the long run, 
unless it lets you get another X number of lane-miles done this 
year, you might feel compelled to say no.
    We would like to change those incentives. The Federal 
Highway Administration takes seriously that it is not our job 
to dictate to local governments things as detailed as what kind 
of construction materials they ought to use, but we are trying 
to get--and we have published information trying to get more 
out there about reclaimed and recycled pavements. And more 
generally, we do have some research that we fund at many 
institutions around the country on improving pavement 
durability generally, because I think there is a--if you can 
make the pavement, the asphalt we do have last just 1 or 2 
percent longer, in effect you are saving billions of dollars 
right there.
    Mr. Burchett. Absolutely.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think it deserves more attention.
    Mr. Burchett. Let me ask you--it's not in my notes, it's 
something that I have been researching for over a year now. 
They started it in India, and I don't necessarily say we ought 
to do it like they do, but they use plastic. They substitute 
plastic for oil in their asphalt. And plastic, of course, it's 
an oil-based derivative. And what they did over there was they 
basically get a pothole, fill it full of gravel, and burn a 
bunch of plastic bottles. I don't want to do that.
    And I know in England there is a cat over there who did it, 
and he's got a patented process, or whatever they call it. And 
there are people in this country doing it. Could you commit to 
me that you would have somebody from your office get with me, 
and let's work on that?
    Because plastics are--they are forever. I mean, heck, they 
are out there, they are floating in your streams and my 
streams, they are in the ocean, these horrible pictures you 
see. I hate seeing some poor animal out there, one of God's 
great creatures, got a six-pack thing around their neck, 
choking them out. And I just don't dig that at all. And I would 
hope that we could work through that.
    I mean, there is a use for some of this stuff, and 
technology--yes, we are going to phase it out, but it is still 
going to be there. And it is ridiculous to throw this stuff in 
the landfill. It is just wasted. If you would just commit to me 
to have somebody call me, this isn't a gotcha, this is an 
honest situation. I think we could get a bipartisan group to 
work on that. Could you do that for me, brother?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would be happy to. I would love to 
explore that with you.
    Mr. Burchett. And tell me how to say your last name one 
more time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Buttigieg. You can just call me Pete, 
sir.
    Mr. Burchett. Buttigieg, OK. I am Burchett, and nobody ever 
gets that right, either, so, we are good.
    But thank you, brother. It has been a pleasure.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I yield back nothing to you.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Orden for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you for coming, Mr. Secretary. And I just want to be 
super clear. All of these subjects are incredibly important, 
but I want to kind of return to a bit of the things that my 
great friend and colleague from the State of Minnesota was 
discussing with you, and that is the actual real effects of 
some of the Biden administration's policy.
    I come from the State of Wisconsin, which is the home of 
the Republican Party. Ripon, Wisconsin. The Republican Party 
was established by a group of abolitionists whose sole intent 
for forming the Republican Party was to abolish slavery in the 
United States of America. And I think that is an incredibly 
proud tradition that we have as Republicans.
    We were preceded in abolition by the British, but the 
British approached this in a very interesting method. They 
didn't come out and abolish slavery immediately. They did 
something called the Slave Trade Act of 1807, where they 
essentially abolished the ability for people to transport human 
beings as chattel on British vessels. And as you know, at the 
time, the British and the Dutch were--they had the 
preponderance of global trade.
    So, what that did, Mr. Secretary, is it essentially dried 
up the ability for people to sell human beings. And it wasn't 
until 1833, with the Slavery Abolition Act, that they actually 
abolished slavery. The United States didn't abolish slavery 
officially until December 6, 1865. That is when the 13th 
Amendment was ratified, and that's after 360,222 Union soldiers 
died.
    So, it is my understanding the Biden administration wants 
50 percent of all new production vehicles to be electric by 
2030, is that correct?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, that's the goal.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. Well, I mean, honestly, it sort of begs 
the question of whether or not you discussed that with the UAW 
prior to coming up with that timeline. But that's a subject for 
another day.
    Are you aware that approximately 4.3 percent of electric 
batteries are comprised of cobalt at this time, as of 2023?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am sorry, I had a little trouble 
hearing you--4.3 percent?
    Mr. Van Orden. Do you understand that approximately 4.3 
percent of all electric batteries are comprised of cobalt?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. Do you understand that approximately 70 
percent of the world's cobalt is produced by the Democratic 
Republic of Congo?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. Van Orden. Do you understand that 15 to 30 percent of 
the cobalt that is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo is 
mined in something called an artesian mine?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I haven't seen that figure, but it's 
credible.
    Mr. Van Orden. It is correct.
    Will you pull that up real quick? Let's pull this picture 
up.
    [Slide shown.]
    Mr. Van Orden. I want you to look at this. Do you believe 
the United States Government has a moral obligation to try to 
end child slavery?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Of course.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. And that would be regardless of the 
impact it would have on your 2030 date for electrification of 
50 percent of the fleet?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. It is why we are working so hard 
to have domestic sourcing of both the supply chain and the raw 
materials that go into electric----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. My time is limited. I do not 
mean to cut you off, but I am going to.
    So, are you telling me that you are willing to move that to 
the right, your goal of 2030, 50 percent of all the fleet 
electrified, if it can help end child slavery?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am telling you that the solution to 
this is not to ban cell phones or give up on electric 
vehicles----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. I am not saying----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. It is to make sure that 
more of their components are sourced ethically----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Mr. Secretary, I am asking 
you a very straightforward----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And domestically.
    Mr. Van Orden [continuing]. Question about the most 
horrific thing that exists in the planet today, and that is 
slavery.
    So, I am going to ask you another question. Knowing what 
you know about the Democratic Republic of Congo, the mining of 
cobalt by children, including those kids right there 
[indicating slide], right here [indicating picture]--that's 
cobalt. So, knowing what you know about that, what is your 
office's estimate of how many children will be required to mine 
your cobalt?
    And how many of these children do you estimate will die to 
make sure that you can make your goal of 2030? Have you done 
that work?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We have better data on how many 
children will die if we allow climate change to increase 
unimpeded.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. You know what, man? I am absolutely not 
taking that. That is a dodge, and it is junk.
    Secretary Buttigieg. It is the truth, Representative.
    Mr. Van Orden. Let's do this again. Let's do this again, 
Mr. Secretary [indicating picture].
    Secretary Buttigieg. Congressman, what that child, and that 
child, and that child, and that child----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. How about this?
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. And the child behind that 
child, and the child behind that child deserve----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. I am not going to allow you 
to hide behind climate change----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Is your support for 
domestic and ethical sourcing of the components that go into 
all of the products that we buy in this country.
    Mr. Van Orden. So, what you are telling me is this, is that 
your office is putting your goal of 2030 above the welfare of 
those children, and you are encouraging and subsidizing child 
slavery.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is nonsense, Representative.
    Mr. Van Orden. You are, sir.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is nonsense, Representative.
    Mr. Van Orden. That is not nonsense. That is a fact.
    And by the way, I am going to submit for the record a whole 
ton of paperwork for you, Mr. Secretary. I would like you to 
review it. And the top of that is going to be this picture.
    [The photograph follows; additional information submitted 
for the record by Mr. Van Orden is on pages 138-153:]

                                 

     Photograph Submitted for the Record by Hon. Derrick Van Orden


 The artisanal mining industry in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
is rife with forced and child labor, unreported deaths and human rights 
abuses, writes academic and modern slavery researcher Siddharth Kara in 
 his new book ``Cobalt Red'' (Siddharth Kara). [Photo and caption are 
from `` `Here it is better not to be born': Cobalt mining for Big Tech 
   is driving child labor, deaths in the Congo,'' Louise Boyle, The 
      Independent, February 23, 2023; the article is on page 138.]

    Secretary Buttigieg. That picture is full of children who 
deserve----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. I will have no part----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Policies that will 
support domestic and ethical sourcing----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Of these materials, and 
help to prevent----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. I will have no part in 
subsidizing child slavery.
    Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. You may have one that 
you are not thinking about----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Welcome, Mr. Secretary. This is my industry. My background 
is in trucking. I am second generation. As a matter of fact, I 
started at 12 years old working in my family's operation, and I 
had a lifelong career at it, a hard but rewarding career. And 
now the next generation, the third generation, is now running 
that trucking company.
    I also want you to know I have never been elected to 
anything in my life. I have spent my entire career in the 
private sector. And so, what I thought I would do is just kind 
of go over my first 9 months here on the job as it deals with 
your agency.
    So, when we got here, real shortly--I mean, it was real 
quick in January--we had the NOTAM incidents, NOTAM, however 
you want to pronounce it, a shutdown of an entire aviation 
industry, and it was because one person did something, deleted 
a file, pushed the wrong button, whatever. The industry went 
down.
    And this software program is 30 years old. Now, your agency 
was more focused on writing a 179-page bill, spent tens of 
thousands of dollars to rename NOTAM from Notice to Airmen to 
Notice to Air Missions. And I guess what I am asking is, did 
that make the aviation industry any safer?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We have been working on modernizing 
the NOTAM system since we got here. And one thing that would 
help is if you would back away from the cuts to funding that 
would help us do it quicker.
    We take deadly seriously----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. Mr. Secretary, I have got to 
keep moving, I have got----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. The upgrading of the 
NOTAM system.
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. Several things I want to go--when 
you ramble, that tells me no, it didn't make it any safer.
    You move on. Shortly after that we had the East Palestine 
train derailment. Countless lives were ruined and an entire 
town was devastated. What was the cause of that derailment?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I am not going to speak to the 
cause before the NTSB reveals its final reporting. But what we 
know----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. I can tell you what the cause 
was.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Opened the eyes of the 
United States----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. It was easy.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. To the need for tougher 
regulation----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. It was the lack of grease on 
wheel bearings. You had a railroad company that was out there 
and more focused on DEI, which your agency is pushing. It is 
even stated in their annual letter to their shareholders. What 
they should have put in there was that we are going to focus on 
hiring the most qualified mechanics that we can to keep grease 
on wheel bearings. Now, that is what I have seen so far in just 
the major headlines.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Are you seriously suggesting----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. But what I want to tell you----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. That a court report on 
DEI is related to----
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. What I----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. The amount of grease on 
wheel bearings?
    Mr. Collins. What I want to tell you--I want to keep moving 
on. I am down--I am almost down to half now. What I want to 
keep doing is--this is what else I have learned.
    Now, we have had double the average, the annual average of 
train derailments this year, double the average.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is false.
    Mr. Collins. And that is just since----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. That is----
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. Since spring.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is not right.
    Mr. Collins. We have also had record near-misses at 
airports because aircraft controllers--and you said it--we have 
got a shortage. They are strained. And it is because the FAA 
agency is more worried about hiring people based on DEI 
qualifications instead of being qualified----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Not only is that false, 
that is an insult to the----
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. To do the job. I am getting----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Qualifications of every 
air traffic controller.
    Mr. Collins. Sir, I am--I did not ask a question. This is 
my time to talk.
    Congestion on our roads is up. Trucks--right now drivers 
are out there. They spent 51 hours last year sitting in 
congestion, sitting in traffic. That is up 15 hours year over 
year, or 30 percent, while you were focused----
    Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Part of why we are 
building more roads----
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. You have been focused on racist 
bridges and bike paths.
    Secretary Buttigieg. This is why we are building----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. You are in charge, sir. You are 
in----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. We are building roads 
and----
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. You are in charge of one of the 
largest----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. [Inaudible] highest in my 
lifetime, Representative----
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. Sir, I----
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Including in your 
district. You know that.
    Mr. Collins. You are in charge of one of the largest 
agencies in the Federal Government. Your jurisdiction is over 
an industry in which you have zero experience.
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is also false.
    Mr. Collins. Let me tell you something, Mr. Secretary. Our 
industry, we don't make our living sitting inside four walls at 
a desk all day.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Neither do I. I travel around, 
Representative.
    Mr. Collins. People in this industry, we are out there on 
the waterways, the airways, and the roadways with you, your 
family, everybody's family, and my family. You should be 
concentrating, and your concentration should be on hiring the 
most qualified people out there to help administrate and have 
jurisdiction to keep these roadways safe and improve efficiency 
in the whole transportation industry.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Which is exactly what we are doing----
    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. But instead, sir, you are 
pushing a far-left, woke, DEI, socialistic experiment on this 
agency and our industry, and have been for 2\1/2\ years. And 
sir, the results speak for themselves.
    And with that, I yield back the rest of my time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Do I get a response?
    Mr. Collins. I yield--I have yielded back my time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I don't even get to respond to 
that. There wasn't even a question.
    Mr. Collins. That is correct. We want to thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. OK.
    Mr. Collins. 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 the witness for your testimony.
    I ask for unanimous consent that the record of today's 
hearing remain open until such time as our witness has provided 
answers to any of the questions that may be submitted to him in 
writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comment and information 
submitted by the Members or the witness to be included in the 
record of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    This committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


 Letter of September 20, 2023, 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
                                                September 20, 2023.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chairman,
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen and Members of the U.S. 
House 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 member companies, we thank you for holding the 
hearing, ``Oversight of the Department of Transportation's Policies and 
Programs,'' with U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg.
    As the committee continues to lead Congress' oversight of the DOT, 
including important issues like the implementation of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and electric vehicle 
infrastructure policies, ABC will comment on specific DOT policies that 
the department is pursuing outside of congressional authorization/
intent.
          Implementation of IIJA and Project Labor Agreements:
    ABC has consistently and vigorously opposed government-mandated 
PLAs and PLA preferences on federal government and federally assisted 
construction projects, as well as state and local government 
infrastructure projects. PLAs needlessly increase costs, chill 
competition and steer hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of 
construction projects funded by taxpayers to well-connected special 
interests, i.e., construction unions and contractors signatory to 
specific construction unions party to a PLA.
    Despite this, ABC has identified a significant number of Biden 
administration federal agency grants--totaling more than $230 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 a fiscal year 2023 Rebuilding American 
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity grant program DOT Notice 
of Funding Opportunity, the department includes 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.
    ABC has urged the DOT to abandon these exclusionary and 
inflationary policies, and instead welcome the entire construction 
workforce to participate in rebuilding America's vital infrastructure. 
ABC would recommend that the committee closely examine the DOT's 
policies favoring PLAs to ensure DOT is maximizing return on the 
massive investment of taxpayer dollars represented by the IIJA.
       Restrictive Requirements on the National Electric Vehicle 
                    Infrastructure Formula Program:
    The DOT is also pushing union labor requirements on the National 
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program. The NEVI Formula 
Program will implement provisions of the IIJA that includes $7.5 
billion for electric vehicle charging stations (including $5 billion 
over five years to install EV chargers mostly along interstate 
highways). The intent of the program is to support the installation of 
500,000 electric vehicle chargers across the country by 2030 as part of 
the administration's push to shift away from gas-powered vehicles.
    The final rule contains a number of concerning labor provisions. It 
requires that all electricians working on electric vehicle supply 
equipment either be certified by the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers' Electric Vehicle Industry Training Program or be a 
graduate or recipient of a continuing education certificate from a 
government-registered apprenticeship program with a focus on EVSE 
installation approved by the U.S. Department of Labor in consultation 
with the DOT. Additionally, the final rule requires all NEVI-funded 
projects that require more than one electrician to use at least one 
GRAP-enrolled apprentice.
    ABC previously submitted comments in response to the proposed rule 
and a request for information, urging the DOT to avoid union labor 
requirements and to instead welcome all qualified contractors to build 
EV chargers. Unfortunately, the agency disregarded these 
recommendations in the final rule which took effect on March 30, 2023.
    Thank you for your consideration of ABC's concerns.
            Sincerely,
                                        Kristen Swearingen,
                 Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs,
                               Associated Builders and Contractors.

                                 
Article entitled, `` `Here It Is Better Not To Be Born': Cobalt Mining 
 for Big Tech Is Driving Child Labor, Deaths in the Congo,'' by Louise 
Boyle, The Independent, February 23, 2023, Submitted for the Record by 
                         Hon. Derrick Van Orden
   `Here It Is Better Not To Be Born': Cobalt Mining for Big Tech Is 
                Driving Child Labor, Deaths in the Congo
Child labor, sexual assault, birth defects, abject poverty, workers 
buried alive: A new expose on artisanal cobalt mining in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo lifts the curtain on a nightmarish world in which 
billions of people are unwittingly complicit. Senior climate 
correspondent Louise Boyle reports

by Louise Boyle

The Independent, February 23, 2023
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/phone-electric-
vehicle-congo-cobalt-mine-b2277665.html

    During one of his many visits to the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, Siddharth Kara, an author and Harvard academic who has spent 20 
years researching modern slavery, met a young woman sifting dirt for 
traces of cobalt.
    Priscille told him she had suffered two miscarriages and that her 
husband, a fellow ``artisanal'' miner, died of a respiratory disease.
    ``I thank God for taking my babies,'' she said. ``Here it is better 
not to be born.''
    It is just one of many devastating personal accounts in Cobalt Red, 
a detailed expose into the hidden world of small-scale cobalt mining in 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
    The ``quaint'' moniker of artisanal mining, Mr. Kara points out, 
belies a brutal industry where hundreds of thousands of men, women and 
children dig with bare hands and basic tools in toxic, perilous pits, 
eking out an existence on the bottom rung of the global supply chain.
    The miners are the first step in the race for precious metals and 
minerals by some of the world's most powerful companies, with 
multibillion-dollar valuations and whose founders and CEOs are 
household names.
    If you own a smartphone, tablet, laptop, e-scooter, electric 
vehicle (or all of the above), then it is a system in which you are 
unwittingly complicit.
    ``At no point in human history has so much suffering generated so 
much profit and been directly linked to the lives of billions of people 
around the world,'' Mr. Kara writes in the book.
    Around 75 per cent of the world's cobalt is mined in the DRC--and 
the world cannot get enough of it. The rare, silvery metal is an 
essential component to every lithium-ion rechargeable battery, a 
necessary part of the booming electric vehicle (EV) industry.
    The number of EVs are increasing exponentially as most high-
polluting economies have made them integral to decarbonising emissions-
heavy transport sectors.
    There were 7.8 million EVs sold in 2022, according to The Wall 
Street Journal. That number is set to explode to 66 million by 2040, 
according to BloombergNEF's Economic Transition Scenario.
                       `The slave farm perfected'
    For centuries, the DRC, a landscape of near unmatched natural 
resources, has been looted by colonizers: first for slaves, ivory and 
gold and then rubber, copper, palm oil and minerals.
    The genocidal regime of Leopold II, the Belgian king who murdered 
and mutilated as many as 10 million Africans at the turn of the 19th 
century, was followed by decades of Western-backed, kleptocratic 
leaders who enriched themselves and their cronies, leaving the country 
to wither. By most metrics of health, wealth and progress, the DRC 
ranks among the worst in the world.
    The DRC's industrial mines are typically structured as joint 
ventures between the national government and foreign operators, for the 
most part Chinese companies. China produces three-quarters of the 
world's refined cobalt, the keys to the kingdom in the battery market.
    ``Everyone's playing catch up. China cornered the global cobalt 
supply chain before anyone knew what was going on,'' Mr. Kara told The 
Independent in a phone interview earlier this month. ``Ten years later, 
western Europe and North America suddenly realize this vital mineral is 
required for our green energy future and gadget device-driven economy, 
and they can't access it except through China.''
    About two-thirds of cobalt mining is carried out in industrial 
mines with the use of heavy machinery, and accompanied by health and 
safety standards.
    Artisanal production makes up the remaining share. However, Mr. 
Kara writes in Cobalt Red that ``[b]ecause ASM is almost entirely 
informal, artisanal miners rarely have formal agreements for wages and 
working conditions.''
    There are an estimated two million artisanal miners in the DRC, 
according to DelveDatabase, a global online data platform.
    Cobalt deposits form near the surface like ``raisins'', meaning the 
mineral can be dug in shallow pits. In some cases, industrial mines 
dump tons of stone and dirt beyond their compounds. Mr. Kara describes 
in his book how he witnessed hundreds of children crouching in the 
rubble, picking for cobalt fragments.
    The author describes the appalling living conditions of Congolese 
artisanal miners. Many live in tarp-covered shacks with no sanitation, 
medical care and few opportunities for education. Access to electricity 
is sparse; few miners have ever seen a cameraphone.
    Cobalt Red also documents many unreported deaths, including those 
of children buried alive in makeshift mining tunnels, and their bodies 
never recovered.
    The author shares the stories of Congolese miners who have 
experienced life-changing injuries, sexual assault, physical violence, 
corruption, displacement and abject poverty.
    ``Cobalt mining is the slave farm perfected,'' Mr. Kara writes.
    Cobalt is toxic to touch and breathe in, and can be found alongside 
traces of radioactive uranium. Cancers, respiratory illnesses, 
miscarriages, headaches and painful skin conditions occur among adults 
who work without protective equipment.
    Children in mining communities suffer birth defects, developmental 
damage, vomiting and seizures from direct and indirect exposure to the 
heavy metals.
    Mr. Kara describes children standing knee-deep with their bare skin 
in toxic pools, and babies carried in slings on their mothers' backs 
into pits. Female miners, who earn less than the average two dollars 
per day paid to men, typically work in groups as sexual assault is 
common in mining areas.
    In one passage, Mr. Kara meets Bisette, a mother whose son was 
buried alive with others after a mining tunnel collapsed. Later in the 
book, the author learns that Bisette's nephew died in another mining 
tunnel collapse.
    ``Our children are dying like dogs,'' she cries.
    The tunnel collapse at a mining site in central DRC on 21 
September, 2019 killed 63 men and boys who were buried alive, Mr. Kara 
reports, with only four bodies recovered. No one accepted 
responsibility for their deaths and the accident was never 
acknowledged.
    ``All the death here counted for nothing. The loot is all,'' Mr. 
Kara writes.
                        `It's not going to Mars'
    To enter the world of artisanal mining involved great personal risk 
for the author. The DRC's mining operations are heavily-guarded by 
soldiers from the DRC's Armed Forces or company-paid militias, and 
located in areas far off the beaten track and known to erupt in 
conflict.
    Throughout Cobalt Red, Mr. Kara protects the identities of his 
guides and the miners who speak to him, for fear of deadly reprisals on 
them and their families.
    ``There are many mining areas I never got into and they're heavily 
guarded. It's all by design, these layers of obfuscation, and the 
shroud of secrecy,'' he told The Independent. ``They're desperate that 
the truth should not come out, that the Congolese people should not be 
heard and the realities on the ground should not emerge into the global 
consciousness.''
    The major tech and EV companies extol commitments to human rights, 
zero-tolerance for child labor, and clean supply chains in financial 
disclosures and on ethics pages of their company websites.
    Mr. Kara described these statements as ``utterly inconsistent'' 
with what's happening on the ground.
    ``There are hundreds of thousands of Congolese people, tens of 
thousands of children, digging hundreds of thousands of tons of copper-
and-cobalt ore per year. Where is it going if no one up the chain is 
buying it?'' he said. ``It's not going to Mars, they are not digging it 
for sport. There is an enormous supply-demand imbalance, on the demand 
side. Every last ounce of copper-cobalt ore being scrounged out of the 
ground, in these hazardous conditions by artisanal miners, is flowing 
into the formal supply chain. How on earth can any consumer-facing tech 
or EV company reasonably say that artisanal contribution is not in 
their supply chain?''
    Many of the major tech, EV and battery companies have joined 
initiatives tasked with cleaning supply chains and stamping out human 
rights abuses and child labor. The two leading coalitions are the 
Global Battery Alliance (GBA) and the Responsible Minerals Initiative 
(RMI).
    RMI has more than 400 companies and associations as members 
including Amazon, Apple, Boeing, Disney, Ford, General Electric, 
General Motors, Meta, Samsung and Toyota. Membership is $7,500 per year 
for companies with annual revenues under $9 billion, and $15,000 for 
those making above $9bn.
    Its flagship program--the Responsible Minerals Assurance Process 
(RMAP)--offers ``an independent, third-party audit that determines 
which smelters and refiners can be verified as having systems in place 
to responsibly source minerals in line with current global standards''.
    The GBA is supported by more than 120 organisations including 
Tesla, Microsoft, Volkswagen, BMW, Glencore, and Hitachi High-Tech 
Europe. They are also funded by membership fees on tiers related to how 
much money a company makes.
    GBA is working on a Battery Passport program to ``provide 
transparency in practices and the impact of the battery along the value 
chain to all relevant stakeholders in the battery value chain''.
    Neither initiative operates on the ground in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, representatives for RMI and GBA told The 
Independent, and mine site assessments are not part of their work.
    ``Our audit program until now has focused on the mineral processing 
portion of the supply chain, the smelters or refiners. We do not have a 
presence at mine sites anywhere globally as part of our staff,'' 
Jennifer Peyser, RMI's Executive Director, told The Independent.
    Ms. Peyser said that RMI was ``aware of the conditions'' around 
artisanal and small scale mining (ASM) of cobalt.
    ``What we've been working on with stakeholders is to build out a 
set of expectations, so one day those sites can be audited,'' she said. 
``That is the goal. As a collective industry, we want to be able to do 
assessments at those sites. But at this time, that is not something 
that's currently being done.''
    Alexandra Cech, Director of Responsible Sourcing at the Responsible 
Business Alliance (of which RMI is an initiative), also told The 
Independent that the complexity of ASM makes it very challenging to 
assess.
    ``At this time, the primary entity would be considered the DRC 
government agency, SAEMAPE [the mining sector regulator]. It can be 
extremely hard to assess these entities especially if you're not the 
legal authority or a law enforcement agency. The scope of our influence 
is really of the refiners that enter into our program,'' Ms. Cech said 
in a phone interview this month.
    Between 2020 and 2021, GBA set up a ``Cobalt Action Partnership'' 
(CAP) to ``immediately and urgently eliminate child and forced labor 
from the cobalt value chain, contribute to the sustainable development 
of communities, and respect the human rights of those affected''.
    Among CAP's actions are supporting responsible production and 
sourcing of Congolese cobalt, formalizing the ASM industry in the DRC, 
and supporting a fund for the prevention of child labour in mining 
communities.
    Inga Petersen, GBA's Executive Director, told The Independent that 
a number of local partners in the DRC helped inform CAP's framework.
    These included United Nations' agencies, UNICEF and the 
International Labour Organisation, the non-governmental organisation 
Pact, and Fair Cobalt Alliance--co-founded by a number of companies 
including mining multinational Glencore and Huayou Cobalt, the world's 
largest single cobalt refiner--to ``improve the lives of mining 
communities in the DRC''.
    ``We convened stakeholders to agree on a set of expectations on the 
sustainable sourcing of artisanal cobalt,'' Ms. Petersen said in a 
phone interview. ``When it comes to the validation of individual sites, 
this is not within our mandate or our capacity. For us, it was about 
achieving a consensus on how these conditions can be improved, because 
they are systematic levers for change.''
    The DRC's Ministere des Mines, the government department 
responsible for mining sector policy, did not respond to an email 
seeking comment from The Independent.
    Mr. Kara argued in his discussion with The Independent that 
``there's not much happening of any merit to assist the people of the 
Congo in addressing the human rights and environmental violations 
taking place every day as a consequence of cobalt mining.''
             `People of good conscience won't stand for it'
    A measure of hope exists with the DRC's current leader, President 
Felix Tshishekedi, who has undertaken an anti-corruption campaign to 
investigate previous contracts made with Chinese mining companies, 
including the dealings of the country's former president [and his one-
time political ally] Joseph Kabila.
    Mr. Tshishekedi also seems interested in building a relationship 
with the United States. Last month, he signed a joint ``Memorandum of 
Understanding'' with the Biden administration and Zambia to 
``strengthen the electric vehicle battery value chain''.
    Mr. Tshishekedi is up for re-election later in 2022, and, per Mr. 
Kara, Mr. Kabila is reportedly poised to launch a political comeback 
with the support of Chinese backers.
    If there is not swift action for the Congolese people, an even 
greater injustice waits in the wings, he adds.
    ``Some 20 years from now the people of Congo will be left with dirt 
and nothing to show for it aside from the utter destruction of their 
environment, and all the injury, assault and death they've endured 
across that period of time,'' Mr. Kara told The Independent.
    Mr. Kara hopes that Cobalt Red will shine a light on the rampant 
human rights abuses of the Congolese miners, and force companies to 
take action by ``investing in the communities upon whose labor and 
resources their great fortunes are being built''.
    ``But for the enormous demand of cobalt from consumer-facing tech 
and EV companies, this entire subsequent chain of injustice would not 
be taking place. Demand starts at the top, so that's where solutions 
have to start as well,'' he said. ``If it were colonial times, they 
could probably ignore, quash it and carry on. But we live in a period 
in history when the dignity and human rights of poor African people is 
equal to our own. People of good conscience won't stand for Africans to 
be treated in these subhuman, colonial ways.''
    Or, as he writes in Cobalt Red: ``We would not send the children of 
Cupertino to scrounge for cobalt in toxic pits, so why is it 
permissible to send the children of the Congo?''

                                 
    Blog post entitled, ``The DRC Mining Industry: Child Labor and 
   Formalization of Small-Scale Mining,'' by Michele Fabiola Lawson, 
  Wilson Center, September 1, 2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                           Derrick Van Orden
 The DRC Mining Industry: Child Labor and Formalization of Small-Scale 
                                 Mining

by Michele Fabiola Lawson

Wilson Center, September 1, 2021
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/drc-mining-industry-child-labor-
and-formalization-small-scale-mining

    Last year, many took to social media using the hashtag 
#NoCongoNoPhone to fight against the cobalt supply chain that fosters 
child labor and the exploitation of small-scale artisanal miners. The 
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has some of the world's most 
valuable minerals, such as copper, gold, coltan, cobalt, and diamonds, 
and has the earth's second-largest forest after the Amazon. Yet, the 
DRC is one of the world's poorest countries as poverty and humanitarian 
crises plague its citizens.
    More than half of the world's cobalt resources are located in the 
DRC, and over 70% of the world's cobalt mining occurs there. Artisanal 
miners produce 20% of the country's cobalt output. The remainder comes 
from foreign-owned firms, primarily Chinese, whose rechargeable battery 
industry accounts for around 60% of global cobalt demand.
    Cobalt is an essential raw material used by large tech companies 
for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, electronic devices, and 
electric cars. However, the DRC's valuable cobalt industry comes at a 
price: extraction of the mineral is linked to child labor, safety 
risks, environmental abuses, and corruption. If the DRC fails to adopt 
and enforce stricter regulations to protect small-scale miners, these 
trends will increase alongside the technology-driven surge in cobalt 
demand, projected to grow by 60% by 2025.
                              Child Labor
    Small-scale mining in the DRC involves people of all ages, 
including children, obligated to work under harsh conditions. Of the 
255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children, some as young 
as six years. Much of the work is informal small-scale mining in which 
laborers earn less than $2 per day while using their own tools, 
primarily their hands.
    As global demand for Congolese mineral resources increases, so do 
the associated dangers that raise red flags for Congolese miners' human 
rights.
    Numerous big-tech companies like Apple, Alphabet (Google's parent 
company), Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla were cited in a lawsuit over 
deaths and serious injuries sustained among child laborers in DRC 
cobalt mines. The attempt to hold big-tech accountable is a positive 
step that must be accompanied by increased public awareness of child 
labor exploitation and the deplorable work conditions of small-scale 
mining.
                       Environmental Implications
    Growing global demand for cobalt implies that Congo's environment 
will suffer, especially if precautions are not taken to ensure 
sustainability. The extraction of DRC mineral resources includes 
cutting down trees and building roads, negatively impacting the 
environment and biodiversity. Moreover, although cobalt is a crucial 
component in global greening and renewable energy, its quick extraction 
contributes to global warming. Cobalt mining operations generate 
incredibly high carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions and 
substantial electricity consumption. These emissions contribute to the 
fact that Africa produces five percent of carbon dioxide emissions 
globally.
   Big Tech Efforts to Formalize Artisanal Small-Scale Mining Sector
    In response to these pressures, several global big-tech companies, 
including BMW Group, BASF, Samsung SDI, and Samsung Electronics, 
launched Cobalt for Development in 2019 to support ethical and safer 
practices in the DRC's cobalt mining industry. Volkswagen joined the 
project in 2020. With the aim of making artisanal small-scale cobalt 
mining more sustainable, Cobalt for Development will run for an initial 
period of three years to analyze how the workers' lives, work 
environment, and communities can be improved. This initiative solicits 
local input to ensure sustainability and enhance local ownership. 
Cobalt for Development is carrying out impactful activities that have 
benefited over 1,800 community members in the DRC's Kisote and 
neighboring areas by increasing access to education and holding 
workshops on topics ranging from bread-making to women's rights, 
positive parenting, and conflict resolution. This approach helps 
parents diversify their incomes and reduce or eliminate families' 
reliance on child labor.
    Tesla Inc., projected to need more cobalt as it expands production 
and sales in Europe and China, joined the fledgling Fair Cobalt 
Alliance in 2020. This new initiative aims to support artisanal miners, 
as carmakers and mining companies seek to reassure customers they are 
adhering to appropriate safety regulations. The Alliance's stated goal 
is to improve workers' conditions and cease child labor in DRC cobalt 
mines. Glencore, an Anglo-Swiss multinational commodity trading and 
mining company, has also joined the initiative. Tesla also announced in 
2021 a pilot blockchain program to trace cobalt from mine to product as 
a way of introducing transparency into the supply chain.
    Out of fear of being associated with mining firms that access 
cobalt through child labor, some individual tech companies have decided 
to stop purchasing from small-scale miners altogether. This strategy 
threatens livelihoods in many DRC communities that depend heavily on 
small-scale mining for jobs and income.
    This, in turn, underscores the importance of fully formalizing the 
DRC's small-scale cobalt mining industry, which accounts for 20% of the 
country's cobalt output.
    With the assistance of multinational companies in the big tech and 
other sectors, measures can be taken to make cobalt extraction 
sustainable and safer for the communities mining the mineral.
    This assistance will enable Congo's small-scale miners to be better 
compensated, have the proper equipment, and operate safely while 
eradicating child labor. An additional benefit is that artisanal miners 
can work small deposits that would be uneconomical for large mining 
companies.
                             Call to Action
    Informed consumers need to be aware of the technology sector's 
impact on the Congolese people and the environment. The explosive 
growth in worldwide cobalt is driven by consumers around the globe and 
has global environmental effects. Ensuring workers' safety and 
protecting the environment will benefit not only Congolese miners but 
also humankind's efforts against global warming. Consumers must be 
aware that quickly disposing of old cell phones and other gadgets 
powered by cobalt to acquire the latest models can come at the expense 
of others' lives. One's concern for Congolese children working in the 
mines should not stop at online activism; it must extend to real-world 
choices.

                                 
Article entitled, ``The Dark Side of Congo's Cobalt Rush,'' by Nicolas 
  Niarchos, The New Yorker, May 24, 2021, Submitted for the Record by 
                         Hon. Derrick Van Orden
                  The Dark Side of Congo's Cobalt Rush
Cell phones and electric cars rely on the mineral, causing a boom in 
demand. Locals are hunting for this buried treasure--but are getting 
almost none of the profit.

by Nicolas Niarchos

The New Yorker, May 24, 2021
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/31/the-dark-side-of-congos-
cobalt-rush

    In June, 2014, a man began digging into the soft red earth in the 
back yard of his house, on the outskirts of Kolwezi, a city in the 
southern Democratic Republic of the Congo. As the man later told 
neighbors, he had intended to create a pit for a new toilet. About 
eight feet into the soil, his shovel hit a slab of gray rock that was 
streaked with black and punctuated with what looked like blobs of 
bright-turquoise mold. He had struck a seam of heterogenite, an ore 
that can be refined into cobalt, one of the elements used in lithium-
ion batteries. Among other things, cobalt keeps the batteries, which 
power everything from cell phones to electric cars, from catching fire. 
As global demand for lithium-ion batteries has grown, so has the price 
of cobalt. The man suspected that his discovery would make him 
wealthy--if he could get it out of the ground before others did.
    Southern Congo sits atop an estimated 3.4 million metric tons of 
cobalt, almost half the world's known supply. In recent decades, 
hundreds of thousands of Congolese have moved to the formerly remote 
area. Kolwezi now has more than half a million residents. Many 
Congolese have taken jobs at industrial mines in the region; others 
have become ``artisanal diggers,'' or creuseurs. Some creuseurs secure 
permits to work freelance at officially licensed pits, but many more 
sneak onto the sites at night or dig their own holes and tunnels, 
risking cave-ins and other dangers in pursuit of buried treasure.
    The man took some samples to one of the mineral traders who had 
established themselves around Kolwezi. At the time, the road into the 
city was lined with corrugated-iron shacks, known as comptoirs, where 
traders bought cobalt or copper, which is also plentiful in the region. 
(In the rainy season, the earth occasionally turns green, as a result 
of the copper oxides beneath it.) Many of the traders were Chinese, 
Lebanese, and Indian expats, though a few Congolese had used their 
mining profits to set up shops.
    One trader told the man that the cobalt ore he'd dug up was 
unusually pure. The man returned to his district, Kasulo, determined to 
keep his find secret. Many of Kasulo's ten thousand residents were day 
laborers; Murray Hitzman, a former U.S. Geological Survey scientist who 
spent more than a decade travelling to southern Congo to consult on 
mining projects there, told me that residents were ``milling about all 
the time,'' hoping for word of fresh discoveries.
    Hitzman, who teaches at University College Dublin, explained that 
the rich deposits of cobalt and copper in the area started life around 
eight hundred million years ago, on the bed of a shallow ancient sea. 
Over time, the sedimentary rocks were buried beneath rolling hills, and 
salty fluid containing metals seeped into the earth, mineralizing the 
rocks. Today, he said, the mineral deposits are ``higgledy-piggledy 
folded, broken upside down, back-asswards, every imaginable geometry--
and predicting the location of the next buried deposit is almost 
impossible.''
    The man stopped digging in his yard. Instead, he cut through the 
floor of his house, which he was renting, and dug to about thirty feet, 
carting out ore at night. Zanga Muteba, a baker who then lived in 
Kasulo, told me, ``All of us, at that time, we knew nothing.'' But one 
evening he and some neighbors heard telltale clanging noises coming 
from the man's house. Rushing inside, they discovered that the man had 
carved out a series of underground galleries, following the vein of 
cobalt as it meandered under his neighbors' houses. When the man's 
landlord got wind of these modifications, they had an argument, and the 
man fled. ``He had already made a lot of money,'' Muteba told me. 
Judging from the amount of ore the man had dug out, he had probably 
made more than ten thousand dollars--in Congo, a small fortune. 
According to the World Bank, in 2018 three-quarters of the country's 
population lived on less than two dollars a day.
    Hundreds of people in Kasulo ``began digging in their own plots,'' 
Muteba said. The mayor warned, ``You're going to destroy the 
neighborhood!'' But, Muteba said, ``it was complicated for people to 
accept the mayor's request.'' Muteba had a thriving bakery and didn't 
have time to dig, but most locals were desperate. In Congo, more than 
eighty-five percent of people work informally, in precarious jobs that 
pay little, and the cost of living is remarkably high: because the 
country's infrastructure has been ravaged by decades of dictatorship, 
civil war, and corruption, there is little agriculture, and food and 
other basic goods are often imported. For many Kasulo residents, the 
prospect of a personal cobalt mine was worth any risk.
    About a month after the man who discovered the cobalt vanished, the 
local municipality formally restricted digging for minerals in Kasulo. 
According to Muteba, residents implored the mayor: ``We used to mine in 
the bush, in the forest. You stopped us. You gave all the city to big 
industrial companies. Now we discovered minerals in our own plots of 
land, which belonged to our ancestors. And now you want to stop us? No, 
that is not going to work.'' Muteba recalled, ``People started to throw 
rocks at the mayor, and the mayor ran away. And, when the mayor fled, 
the digging really started.''
    Odilon Kajumba Kilanga is a creuseur who has worked in the Kolwezi 
area for fifteen years. He grew up in southern Congo's largest city, 
Lubumbashi, which is near the Zambian border, and as a teen-ager he 
worked odd jobs, including selling tires by the roadside. One day when 
he was eighteen, a friend who had moved to Kolwezi called him and urged 
him to join a cooperative of creuseurs which roamed from mine to mine, 
sharing profits. ``There were good sites that you could just turn up to 
and work,'' Kajumba said, when we met in Kolwezi.
    In those days, it took eight hours to get from Lubumbashi to 
Kolwezi by bus, on a rutted two-lane road. The thickets on either side 
of the highway crawled with outlaws, who occasionally hijacked vehicles 
using weapons they'd leased from impoverished soldiers. Once, bandits 
stopped a bus and ordered the passengers to strip; the hijackers took 
everything, even people's underwear.
    Kajumba knew that the journey to Kolwezi was dangerous, but he said 
of the creuseurs, ``If they tell you to come, you come.'' At first, the 
work, though strenuous, was exciting; he began each shift dreaming of 
riches. He had some stretches of good luck, but he never made the big 
score that would transform his life. Now in his mid-thirties, he is a 
laconic man who becomes animated only when he is discussing God or his 
favorite soccer team, TP Mazembe. Mining no longer holds romance for 
him; he sees the work as a symptom of his poverty rather than as a path 
out of it. When you are a creuseur, he said, you are ``obliged to do 
what you can to make ends meet,'' and this necessity trumps any fears 
about personal safety. ``To be scared, you must first have means,'' he 
said.
    Kajumba joined the mining economy relatively late in life. In 
Kolwezi, children as young as three learn to pick out the purest ore 
from rock slabs. Soon enough, they are lugging ore for adult creuseurs. 
Teen-age boys often work perilous shifts navigating rickety shafts. 
Near large mines, the prostitution of women and young girls is 
pervasive. Other women wash raw mining material, which is often full of 
toxic metals and, in some cases, mildly radioactive. If a pregnant 
woman works with such heavy metals as cobalt, it can increase her 
chances of having a stillbirth or a child with birth defects. According 
to a recent study in The Lancet, women in southern Congo ``had metal 
concentrations that are among the highest ever reported for pregnant 
women.'' The study also found a strong link between fathers who worked 
with mining chemicals and fetal abnormalities in their children, noting 
that ``paternal occupational mining exposure was the factor most 
strongly associated with birth defects.''
    This year, cobalt prices have jumped some forty percent, to more 
than twenty dollars a pound. The lure of mineral riches in a country as 
poor as Congo provides irresistible temptation for politicians and 
officials to steal and cheat. Soldiers who have been posted to Kolwezi 
during periods of unrest have been known to lay down their Kalashnikovs 
at night and enter the mines. At a meeting of investors in 2019, Simon 
Tuma Waku, then the president of the Chamber of Mines in Congo, used 
the language of a gold rush: ``Cobalt--it makes you dream.''
    After Kasulo's mayor fled, many residents began tearing away at the 
ground beneath them. Some wealthier locals hired creuseurs to dig under 
their houses, with an agreement to split the profits. Two teams of 
creuseurs could each work twelve-hour shifts, chipping at the rock with 
hammers and chisels. A pastor and his congregation began digging under 
their church, stopping only for Sunday services.
    By the end of 2014, two thousand creuseurs were working in the 
neighborhood, with little regulation. Kajumba and his cooperative soon 
joined in the hunt for minerals. One man on Kajumba's team, Yannick 
Mputu, remembers this period as ``the good times.'' He told me, ``There 
was a lot of money, and everybody was able to make some. The minerals 
were close to the surface, and they could be mined without digging deep 
holes.''
    But the conditions quickly became dangerous. Not long after the 
mayor formally prohibited excavating for minerals, a mine shaft 
collapsed, killing five miners. Still, people kept digging, and by the 
time researchers for Amnesty International visited, less than a year 
after the discovery of cobalt in Kasulo, some of the holes made by 
creuseurs were a hundred feet deep. Once diggers reached seams of ore, 
they followed the mineral through the soil, often without building 
supports for their tunnels. As Murray Hitzman, the former U.S.G.S. 
scientist, pointed out, the heterogenite closest to the surface often 
contains the least cobalt, because of weathering. Creuseurs in Kasulo 
were risking their lives to obtain some of the worst ore.
    One of Kajumba's teammates told me that their cooperative of six 
used to regularly extract two tons of raw material from a single pit in 
Kasulo. But most of the best sites were quickly excavated, and the 
yield from newer pits was less than half as much. The team was also 
ripped off by unscrupulous traders and corrupt officials. Kajumba said 
that lately he has struggled to pay his rent of twenty-five dollars a 
month. ``Whenever we dig up a few tons, I send some money to my 
family,'' he added.
    Drug and alcohol use are rampant among creuseurs. Kajumba said 
that, though many people he knew in Kasulo wasted all their earnings on 
narcotics, he avoided such temptations. Whenever I met up with him, he 
made a point of drinking a cola.
    Children who work in the mines are often drugged, in order to 
suppress hunger. Sister Catherine Mutindi, the founder of Good Shepherd 
Kolwezi, a Catholic charity that tries to stop child labor, said, ``If 
the kids don't make enough money, they have no food for the whole day. 
Some children we interviewed did not remember the last time they had a 
meal.''
    Researchers estimate that thousands of children work in mining in 
Kolwezi alone. Mark Canavera, a faculty member at Columbia University 
who focusses on child welfare, has spent time in Kolwezi. ``I don't 
think the government has any capacity to monitor children's involvement 
in this,'' he told me. ``Even if it did, it doesn't have a framework 
for thinking about what is child labor and what isn't.'' In such a poor 
region, parents often expect their children to supplement the family's 
income, even if the work is dangerous.
    At a school run by Good Shepherd, I met Ziki, a serious boy with 
large dark eyes. He was fifteen but, because he had been malnourished 
for long periods, he looked much younger. His parents had been killed 
in a roadside accident when he was three; afterward, he was sent to 
live with his father's sister. ``My aunt sent her kids to school but 
sent me to the mines,'' he said. ``I was full of bitterness.'' He 
joined a team of boys who roved across Kolwezi.
    I was initially skeptical that Ziki had begun working at such a 
young age, but Mutindi said that she has seen many such cases. ``The 
younger children of four, five, six, seven, these will mainly be 
collecting--picking stones,'' she said. ``It's amazing how they know 
the value.'' Children are eventually given such jobs as washing ore or 
carrying heavy sacks of rocks to traders who loiter near the sites on 
motorcycles. When I visited Kolwezi, streams alongside the city's main 
roads teemed with women and children washing minerals.
    As Ziki and his friends grew older, they began entering pits dug by 
creuseurs. The tunnels were square, four or five feet across, and about 
sixteen feet deep. It was infernally hot inside them, and oxygen was 
scarce. ``As you were descending, there were rocks that you held on 
to,'' he recalled. ``If you held on to the wrong rock and it loosened 
from the wall, you would tumble into the hole. I would bump into older 
people who were going down into the pits, and they would tell us, `You 
children, if you enter you will die.' ''
    Ziki worked at mine sites around Kolwezi for eleven years. Although 
Congo's government periodically claimed that it was cracking down on 
child labor, few adults tried to stop him from working. ``Soldiers 
would hunt us,'' he recalled. ``If they caught you, they would beat 
you.'' He went on, ``If you sold your minerals, when you had money, 
there were street kids, thugs, who could stop you on the road and 
snatch your money. To pass safely, you had to pay five hundred 
francs''--about fifty cents--``so you could have safe passage. If you 
gave them nothing, they would beat you.''
    Copper has been mined in Congo since at least the fourth century, 
and the deposits were known to Portuguese slave traders from the 
fifteenth century onward. Cobalt is a byproduct of copper production. 
In 1885, Belgium's King Leopold II claimed the country as his private 
property and brutally exploited it for rubber; according to ``King 
Leopold's Ghost,'' a 1998 book by Adam Hochschild, as many as ten 
million Congolese were killed. But, because of local resistance and the 
inaccessibility of the region, large-scale commercial mining didn't 
begin in the south until the twentieth century.
    Kolwezi was founded in 1937 by the Union Miniere du Haut-Katanga, a 
mining monopoly created by Belgian royal decree. These colonialists may 
not have matched the atrocities of King Leopold, but they still saw the 
country in starkly exploitative terms. They understood that the best 
way to extract Congo's mineral wealth quickly was to create 
infrastructure. The company cleared the thickets of thorny acacias and 
miombo trees that had grown atop Kolwezi's rich mineral deposits and 
built the town across the area's rolling hills, with wide streets and 
bungalows for Europeans, whose neighborhoods were segregated from those 
where Congolese workers lived. Locals were used to create this 
infrastructure, and to labor in the mines, but, as Hitzman put it, 
``the whites ran everything.''
    After independence, the southernmost province, Katanga, was viewed 
as a prize by Cold War powers. In the sixties, Katanga unsuccessfully 
tried to secede, with the support of Belgium and the Union Miniere. 
Then, in 1978, Soviet-armed and Cuban-trained rebels seized Kolwezi and 
several hundred civilians were killed. Before the insurrection, the 
Soviet Union appeared to have been stockpiling cobalt, and, according 
to a report by the C.I.A., the attack set off ``a round of panic buying 
and hoarding in the developed West.'' Cobalt, the report declared, ``is 
one of the most critical industrial metals.'' Then, as now, the mineral 
was used in the manufacture of corrosion-resistant alloys for aircraft 
engines and gas turbines.
    The West's solution to the market instability was to prop up the 
country's dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, who presided over an almost 
farcically kleptocratic regime. The country's elite sustained 
themselves, in part, on the profits from the mines. Gecamines, a state-
controlled mining company, ran a virtual monopoly in Katanga's copper-
and-cobalt belt, and owned swaths of the cities that had been built to 
house miners.
    By the early nineties, Mobutu and his cronies seemed to have stolen 
everything they could, and Congo was falling apart. As the country 
drifted toward civil war, the Army pillaged Gecamines, and former 
workers sold off minerals and machine parts in order to feed their 
families. In 1997, Mobutu went into exile. The disintegration of 
Gecamines transformed Congo's mining landscape. Creuseurs began digging 
at the company's largely abandoned sites, selling ore to foreign 
traders who had stayed behind after Mobutu was deposed.
    Congo became mired in a series of wars in which more people were 
killed than in any other conflict since the Second World War. The 
country's next leader, Laurent-Desire Kabila, was assassinated, in 
2001, and his son Joseph took over. Both Kabilas funded their war 
efforts by selling Gecamines sites to foreigners. By the time Hitzman 
arrived, in the mid-two-thousands, Gecamines had become a shell. ``Some 
of the best geologists I've ever met in my life were still working for 
Gecamines, and hadn't been paid for three years,'' Hitzman said. ``It 
was sad as hell.''
    Some creuseurs in Odilon Kajumba Kilanga's collective used to work 
for Gecamines. Yannick Mputu, who is from Likasi, three hours east of 
Kolwezi, told me that he once reprocessed tailings at a company mine in 
his home town, adding, ``When Gecamines closed, we had to go to 
Kolwezi.''
    The collective regularly sneaked into open-pit mines that are now 
owned by companies like the Swiss multinational Glencore. ``We enter at 
night, we work, and leave early in the morning,'' Mputu told me. He 
noted that creuseurs put something aside for the soldiers and the 
police who supposedly prohibit outsiders from entering: ``We give them 
a percentage of our earnings, and they let us in.''
    In June, 2019, more than forty creuseurs were killed in a landslide 
after breaking into a Glencore-owned mine in Kolwezi. Kajumba and his 
friends were also at the site that night, but they were working a 
different seam. ``The worst thing I've seen as a miner is the sheer 
number of dead bodies when there were cave-ins,'' Kajumba said. The 
night after the Glencore landslide, a mining-company employee told me, 
``people snuck back in and continued digging.''
    Videos of Kasulo taken during the height of the 2014 cobalt rush 
show orange tarpaulins covering fresh pits and bags of minerals 
littering the streets. Michael Kavanagh, a journalist, visited the 
district a year later, and published an article in the Times observing 
that the profusion of holes made it look ``as if it had been bombed.'' 
At one point, after creuseurs tunnelled beneath the main road running 
west to Angola, the road collapsed.
    Kajumba and his team were part of this initial frenzy. They knew 
that picking at the rock beneath Kasulo's sandy soil was treacherous, 
especially during the rainy season, but they were happy not to be 
risking arrest, as they were when they broke into the big mines. One 
day in December, 2014, Kajumba and other creuseurs were working a pit 
at Kasulo when they felt a rumble. ``It was as if something was falling 
deep underneath us,'' Kajumba recalled. They knew that, the previous 
day, a group of creuseurs working in a neighboring hole had asked a 
local chief to perform a ritual over a new area where they had been 
digging. Creuseurs, many of whom have little formal education and enter 
pits every day fearing that they might die, can be superstitious. Magic 
practitioners, known as feticheurs, are sometimes employed in the hope 
of increasing the chances that a fresh pit will contain bounties of 
cobalt and copper.
    Such rituals are often benign, but they can have a sinister side. 
Among the prevailing superstitions in the region is a belief that 
having sex with a virgin girl will enhance one's luck in the mines. 
While I was in Kolwezi, Mutindi, of Good Shepherd, showed me 
photographs of the bruised corpse of an eight-year-old girl who had 
been abducted and raped by a creuseur the previous week. (The miner was 
later apprehended; she sent me a video of him in prison.) Children 
frequently die while being raped. In one case, Mutindi said, she saw 
the body of an eighteen-month-old infant who had been raped by a 
creuseur.
    At Kasulo, the feticheur who had performed the ritual over the 
neighboring pit had warned the miners not to enter it for three days, 
to avoid angering a dragon that, he said, lived at the bottom. The 
creuseurs were told that the pit would then be safe--and full of 
minerals. Rumors of the pit's riches spread, and a day later some 
miners decided to disobey the feticheur. ``Creuseurs have curiosity,'' 
Mputu said. ``They wanted to see what was down there.''
    After Kajumba and Mputu felt the ground shudder, they rushed to the 
neighboring hole. Part of the tunnel had caved in, trapping their 
neighbors deep below. Some fifty people vaulted into the darkness, 
desperate to save their friends. Rescuers nearly suffocated in the 
subterranean passages. Eleven of the trapped miners died, as did four 
rescuers.
    Following another series of feticheur rituals, and another period 
of waiting, all the bodies were pulled from the hole. Some were 
horrifically burned. ``The last person who escaped from the pit said 
that he saw a huge flame,'' Mputu told me. The fire's origin was 
unclear, but artisanal miners can unearth pockets of flammable gas. To 
Mputu and his colleagues, the accident had supernatural trappings. 
``The cause of the flame was none other than the dragon,'' he told me.
    Nine months after the cave-in, another group of creuseurs in Kasulo 
burned a tire in an underground gallery, in an attempt to crack open a 
stubborn rock face. Five people asphyxiated from the fumes; thirteen 
others were hospitalized. After the incident, Radio Okapi, a media 
group sponsored by the United Nations, interviewed Kolwezi's mayor, who 
said that a year earlier he had sent a report to his superiors urging 
the closure of the artisanal pits. According to Radio Okapi, the mayor 
``expressed regret that no site was closed because of this request.'' 
The report noted that more than a thousand holes had been dug in 
Kasulo.
    The Democratic Republic of the Congo was reorganized in 2015, and 
Kolwezi became the new capital of a region called Lualaba. The first 
governor of Lualaba, Richard Muyej Mangez Mans, promoted himself as 
Papa Solution. In Kolwezi, many benches at bus stops were painted with 
his nickname. In an interview with the magazine Mining and Business, 
Muyej spoke critically of the cobalt ``contagion'' in Kasulo. ``A plan 
is needed to avoid hasty movements that could turn into a humanitarian 
tragedy,'' he said. ``We have made a project proposal that we will 
submit to the authorities.''
    The proposal, which Muyej didn't disclose at the time, involved 
granting the mineral rights at Kasulo to a foreign company: Congo 
Dongfang International Mining, a subsidiary of Zhejiang Huayou, a 
Chinese conglomerate that, among other things, has supplied materials 
for iPhone batteries. China is the world's largest producer of lithium-
ion batteries, and Huayou has made a huge investment in Congo. After 
acquiring mineral rights in the region, in 2015, it built two cobalt 
refineries. According to an internal presentation, by 2017 Huayou 
controlled twenty-one percent of the global cobalt market. (A Huayou 
spokesperson said that Congo Dongfang followed international standards 
in developing Kasulo, and plans to ``gradually eradicate all forms of 
human-rights violation with a responsible supply chain.'')
    China and Congo have a long history. During Leopold's reign, 
Chinese workers were shipped to Congo to help build the national 
railroad. In the nineteen-seventies, Mobutu turned to Mao's regime for 
technical collaboration on infrastructure projects. By the nineties, 
the Chinese were becoming the bosses: the Beijing government and myriad 
Chinese businesses began making heavy investments in Africa, 
particularly in resource-rich and regulation-poor countries like the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Peter Zhou, a Chinese-born financier 
who has worked on a few mining deals in Congo, said that in such 
countries ``there is corruption, there is lack of the rule of law, 
which gives you more autonomy to be entrepreneurial.'' (Zhou emphasized 
that he hadn't directly witnessed or engaged in corruption.) In 2007, 
Joseph Kabila made a six-billion-dollar infrastructure deal with China 
that included a provision allowing the Chinese to extract six hundred 
thousand tons of cobalt.
    The journalist Howard French, in his 2014 book, ``China's Second 
Continent,'' writes that in Zambia, Congo's neighbor, Chinese companies 
invested so extensively in copper mines that the flood of foreign money 
was said to be influencing elections. Beijing was blamed for increasing 
Africa's debt burden, and an essay in the magazine New African accused 
China of ``a new form of colonialism.''
    These days, most of the cobalt in southern Congo comes from 
industrial mines, which are largely owned by Chinese companies. In 
2016, China Molybdenum paid the U.S. company Freeport-McMoRan $2.65 
billion for a controlling stake in Tenke Fungurume, a giant copper-and-
cobalt mine about two hours east of Kolwezi; three years later, China 
Molybdenum acquired another stake, for $1.14 billion. Zhou, who worked 
on the Tenke Fungurume deal, divided the current Chinese involvement in 
Congo into two phases. At first, he said, companies had to take 
significant financial risks, because ``there was a lack of 
infrastructure--the cost base is high to transport all the materials.'' 
They also had to pay bribes to government officials and Gecamines 
executives. During this phase, Chinese companies were incentivized to 
make money by whatever means possible. ``If you conduct your business 
without, you know, a proper return, then you can't justify the risk,'' 
Zhou told me. During this period, he said, mines had few safety 
protections.
    With sufficient infrastructure in place, Zhou went on, the 
``Chinese are now conducting business in a more moral way. They have to 
keep the people in a peaceful mind-set, so they started to build a 
social relationship--training locals in how to grow out their culture, 
their schools.'' He continued, ``There's less gray conduct now, and 
more of a sort of transparent business.''
    In 2017, Chinese workers arrived in the village of Samukinda, half 
an hour northwest of Kasulo, and quickly constructed two dozen houses 
with corrugated-iron roofs. Kasulo residents were ordered to leave 
their neighborhood within two weeks. The Congolese government revealed 
that a mining permit had been granted to Congo Dongfang, which would 
remove the topsoil and then wall off what had once been the 
neighborhood. Creuseurs from an approved cooperative would be allowed 
to mine the site, and Congo Dongfang would become the exclusive buyer 
of Kasulo's ore.
    Congo Dongfang offered the families of Kasulo either a lump sum for 
their plots--up to twenty-five hundred dollars--or a new home in 
Samukinda. A consortium of local organizations wrote to Governor Muyej, 
protesting that the evictions were illegal, but he pressed on. Muteba, 
the baker, told me that on a rainy day a couple of months later, 
employees of Congo Dongfang ``came with huge trucks to crush our 
houses.''
    Around this time, Joseph Kabila announced that, after eighteen 
years in office, he would not run for reelection. In January, 2019, 
Felix Antoine Tshisekedi Tshilombo became President. The following 
spring, I met with Governor Muyej at his fortified compound in the 
center of Kolwezi. Muyej said that Tshisekedi would likely maintain the 
course set by Kabila--``a flight that we must take to get out of 
poverty.''
    Muyej told me that he hoped to diversify the local economy through 
tourism and agriculture. Mining, he said, exacerbated inequalities--
``enormous mineral wealth beside a population that lives in enormous 
precarity.'' In 2018, Forbes praised Muyej's governorship as ``a model 
for bringing together economic prosperity, political transparency and 
social impact.'' Yet it's hard to imagine Kolwezi becoming a travel 
destination anytime soon. On a recent trip there, I tried to visit 
Katebi Lodge, a new lakeside resort. At the entrance, a metal gate 
topped with barbed wire, I was shooed away by a police officer toting a 
Kalashnikov. Apparently, the lake was too polluted to allow visitors.
    Muyej often cited the building of a new governorate office--a gaudy 
structure rising above a sea of ramshackle cinder-block houses--to show 
how he had modernized Kolwezi. Renovations of the local soccer stadium 
and the town's central roundabout, which features a statue of mine 
workers, were financed by mining companies.
    Muyej told me that he hoped to reform the mining sector, in part, 
by reducing child labor and by centralizing the market where traders 
buy cobalt, thus instilling transparency in the supply chain. Critics 
have called such reforms cynical bids to control and tax artisanal 
production for personal gain. Muyej, his family, and officials close to 
him have profited from the mining boom. The Governor's son Yves is the 
C.E.O. of a logistics company in Kolwezi; on LinkedIn, one of his 
employees describes himself as the site supervisor of the Congo 
Dongfang mine. Muyej's cabinet chief, Yav Katshung, is a lawyer whose 
firm does work for Congo Dongfang. (Katshung and Yves Muyej both 
declined to speak to me.)
    Muyej said that as many as a hundred and seventy thousand creuseurs 
work informally in his province. Among the forty or so sites where 
artisanal miners are employed as day laborers is the Congo Dongfang 
mine in Kasulo. Only eight hundred or so creuseurs work there, however, 
and that has stoked resentment. Jacques Kayembe, the president of an 
artisanal mining collective, told me, ``Kasulo is a village that is 
built on mineral deposits, but not enough creuseurs can legally work on 
official artisanal deposits, and that's a problem.''
    Whenever Muyej tried to reason with creuseurs who had sneaked onto 
industrial concessions, he was attacked with stones, and in 2019 there 
was so much unrest in Kolwezi that the military was sent in. It has 
become common to see soldiers carrying machine guns and rocket 
launchers around the city. When I first visited the area, in 2019, a 
toll booth outside the city was riddled with bullet holes. A local 
journalist travelling with me said that a policeman at the booth had 
recently been murdered by gangsters.
    Since the emergence of COVID-19, Congo's south has endured a series 
of lockdowns. Kajumba said that creuseurs like him ``continue to work, 
but the situation is difficult.'' Companies have furloughed workers, 
adding to their frustration. Several months ago, a Congolese friend 
sent me a video of miners protesting for back pay at a Chinese-run mine 
in Kolwezi. As pandemic restrictions continued, my friend sent me 
footage of protesters burning tires in the streets.
    Last year, the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa 
announced that two Congolese citizens had leaked documents revealing 
numerous improprieties at Afriland First Bank, a Cameroon-based 
institution where Muyej had at least one account. Muyej, it was 
revealed, had been moving hundreds of thousands of dollars through the 
bank. He is now under investigation in Congo for corruption, and his 
vice-governor is running Lualaba. According to Radio France 
Internationale, the Congolese authorities have accused Muyej of not 
being able to justify forty percent of his cabinet's expenses. (A 
representative for Muyej said that the Governor had done nothing wrong, 
and welcomed an audit of his finances.)
    Huge sums of money continue to change hands in the region. In 
December, China Molybdenum paid Freeport-McMoRan half a billion dollars 
to acquire a controlling stake in Kisanfu, a copper-and-cobalt 
concession east of Kolwezi. At a recent conference sponsored by the 
Financial Times, Ivan Glasenberg, the C.E.O. of Glencore, said, 
``China, Inc., has realized how important cobalt is.'' He continued, 
``They've gone and tied up the supply.'' He warned that if Chinese 
companies stopped exporting batteries, this could hamper the ability of 
non-Chinese companies to produce electric vehicles. Last month, CATL, a 
Chinese conglomerate that develops and manufactures lithium-ion 
batteries, acquired a hundred-and-thirty-seven-million-dollar stake in 
the Kisanfu mine. Tesla works with the company to make its car 
batteries, and CATL has supplied batteries to Apple. Recently, 
according to witnesses at Kisanfu, a cave-in killed at least four 
creuseurs.
    In the spring of 2019, I visited the Congo Dongfang mine in Kasulo, 
escorted by company representatives. Signs by the gate said that 
children and pregnant women were forbidden to enter. Inside the 
compound, the land that had once been a bustling neighborhood was now a 
giant red crater. (I saw no children during my visit, but Kajumba told 
me that they still find their way in.) My minders cautioned me not to 
wander too close to the creuseurs, as they were liable to be violent. 
Not long before my arrival, a group of them had set some company trucks 
on fire.
    Kajumba said that Congolese had been employed to mediate between 
the creuseurs and company officials. Often, the creuseurs' demands were 
not met and they went on strike. ``You go in to work and say, `No, I 
won't do anything,' '' Kajumba said. ``The Chinese will feel unsafe and 
call in the police.'' The police, he said, do the company's bidding: 
``They know they will get a gift from the Chinese, so they will 
threaten you with teargas and batons.'' Kajumba said that he had been 
teargassed by police at Kasulo: ``Everyone ran to save his life. We 
felt defenseless.''
    At some sites, the treatment of Congolese by their Chinese bosses 
is reminiscent of the colonial period. In a video shared with me by 
Mutindi, of Good Shepherd, a Congolese guard with a Kalashnikov slung 
across his back beats a man who is lying, semi-naked, in mud, his arms 
bound. Behind the camera, a man otherwise speaking Mandarin starts 
yelling ``Piga!''--the Kiswahili word for ``beat.'' In the background 
are seven of the trucks that Congo Dongfang uses to transport cobalt 
ore.
    Upon my arrival at the mine, I had been given a long explanation of 
safety protocols, but as I approached the creuseurs it was clear that 
they had only rudimentary equipment. Plastic jerricans, cut roughly in 
half and tied to ropes, were being used to haul ore. Many creuseurs 
were shoeless, and I saw none wearing helmets or goggles, despite the 
fact that a confidential 2018 audit, by the Korean conglomerate LG 
Chem, had criticized the site for a lack of proper safety equipment.
    Some creuseurs washed ore in dirty ponds by the pits. ``The Chinese 
are cheating us,'' one of them murmured. ``They're telling us the ore 
is less pure than it is.'' Kajumba said that he had stopped working at 
Kasulo six months earlier because he felt that he was being treated 
unfairly. ``It's as if you were working to suffer even more,'' he told 
me.
    In a warehouse at the site, I watched a man, his face grim, 
pulverizing ore on a concrete floor as two Chinese overseers 
scrutinized creuseurs from behind a barrier of chicken wire. No Chinese 
employee interacted with me, and nobody responded when I waved in 
greeting.
    One night in Kolwezi, I went to a Chinese-run casino with a few 
Congolese friends. I was immediately allowed inside, but they were 
stopped at the door and told that they could not gamble. Black 
Africans, the casino's staff explained, can't be trusted with money. At 
a roulette table, a host of drunken white South Africans addressed a 
Congolese croupier as ``Black man.''
    It's unclear how many Chinese live in Congo, though estimates range 
from fewer than ten thousand to as many as a hundred thousand. Before 
the pandemic, Ethiopian Airlines' daily flights from Addis Ababa into 
Lubumbashi were filled with Chinese passengers. When these workers 
arrive in a mining town, signs in Mandarin guide them to Chinese-run 
hotels, shops, and restaurants. Outside work, the Chinese rarely mingle 
with the locals. Very few of them know French or Kiswahili, the most 
commonly spoken languages of Congo's south. In a 2017 essay, the 
Congolese political scientist Germain Ngoie Tshibambe wrote that many 
Chinese find their time in Congo lonely and difficult. ``It is no 
paradise for migrants,'' he noted.
    Few locals patronize Chinese restaurants, which tend to be 
relatively expensive and not to their taste, but Chinese health clinics 
have become popular. The clinics offer a rare opportunity for casual 
social interaction--perhaps more so than at the mines themselves. In 
2011, Jean Jolly, a French journalist, reported that one of Congo 
Dongfang's directors of external relations had never visited the mine 
that he represented, two miles away.
    Congolese who work at Chinese-run mines said that their supervisors 
were often racist. A Congolese translator who speaks Mandarin told me, 
``Chinese people are coming here for business to make money, so they 
can never be our friends.'' He had overheard Chinese employers saying 
of the Congolese, ``These people, they don't really think.''
    Creuseurs around Kolwezi frequently complained to me that Chinese-
owned mines had replicated the harsh conditions of China's own mining 
industry. Congolese often say, ``If they work without shoes there, how 
can they be expected to give us shoes to work here?'' A Western mine 
official told me he had visited a mine in Congo, owned by a small 
Chinese company, that had many Chinese laborers. It reminded him of an 
internment camp: ``The Chinese were barefoot, they were digging with 
shovels, and they couldn't leave.''
    Peter Zhou, the Chinese-born financier, referred to the locals in 
Congo as his ``Congolese brothers,'' and argued that many big Chinese-
run mines in the region had implemented strong safety standards. 
Recalling his first visit to southern Congo, Zhou said, ``I wasn't too 
surprised about the poverty, because I grew up in Shanxi Province, in 
the interior of China.'' When he met with Congolese families in roughly 
constructed homes, he was reminded of the cinder-block rooms of his 
youth.
    Zhou acknowledged that there was ``a lot of corruption'' in Congo's 
mining sector, but he maintained that, with enough economic prosperity, 
the gray economy in Congo will fade, much as it has in China. ``My 
Western friends come to it and say, `There are significant risks 
associated with business here,' '' he said. ``I see something 
familiar.''
    During one of my visits to Kolwezi, Kajumba invited me to the 
cramped room that he shares with Yannick Mputu and Mputu's brother, 
Tresor. I followed Kajumba down an alley in one of the town's sprawling 
working-class neighborhoods. We entered a courtyard, hung with drying 
linens, that smelled strongly of sewage, then passed through a green 
doorframe covered with printed fabric.
    Inside, the walls were painted various bright colors. Above a bed 
facing an old cathode-ray television was a rack of neatly pressed 
suits, shirts, and jackets, many with natty checks and patterns. Even 
though Kajumba struggles to get by, he keeps up with the latest 
fashions. On the day that I visited, he was wearing an orange gingham 
button-down paired with a black-and-white-speckled baseball cap.
    Creuseurs take pride in the ingenuity required to do their job 
well, and some of them told me that they like the irregular working 
hours. But Tresor Mputu, who has two children living in Likasi, told 
me, ``As a father, I wouldn't accept my son going to the mines.'' 
Yannick nodded. ``I would want, through my labors, to enable my 
children to go further,'' he said. ``I want them to be able to study in 
good conditions, and for them to be able to leave the country to 
develop themselves.''
    Even if artisanal mining supports poor families in the region, it's 
hard to applaud it. The lives of most creuseurs are short and marked by 
suffering. Many have physical and psychological injuries from mine 
collapses and other accidents, and from violent confrontations with the 
police and the Army. Ziki, the former child creuseur, recalled an 
incident that took place when he was about twelve: ``One Friday, we 
were sitting down, and soldiers came into the mine--they caught us. 
They threw us to the ground. They sprayed us with water and then began 
to whip us. We began to cry and ask for mercy. And we swore to them 
that we would never come again to this place.''
    Soon afterward, Ziki left his group of friends, who had begun 
drinking and smoking heavily, and wandered around mine sites by 
himself. He began sleeping at sites, eating little and being abused by 
soldiers. At one point, he was taken hostage by older creuseurs who 
accused him of stealing their wares. In a stroke of luck, members of a 
CBS News crew met him while he was washing minerals. They encouraged 
his family to take him and his siblings out of the mines. ``They asked 
my grandmother, `Aren't these children capable of studying?' '' he 
said. ``My grandmother promised to take us back to school.'' (CBS 
viewers donated money for their schooling.)
    I asked Ziki what he thought of people who profited from cobalt 
mining. ``I have sadness in my heart when I think of people who buy the 
minerals,'' he said. ``They make so much money, and we have to stay 
like this.'' When I told him that Americans paid more than a thousand 
dollars for the latest iPhone, he replied, ``It really hurts me to hear 
that.''
    The companies that use lithium-ion batteries periodically respond 
to public pressure about the conditions in cobalt mines by promising to 
clean up their supply chains and innovate their way out of the problem. 
There is also a financial incentive to do so: cobalt is one of a 
battery's most expensive elements.
    Last year, Tesla pledged to use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, 
which do not contain cobalt, in some of its electric cars. Huayou stock 
plummeted. Still, Reuters noted, ``it was not clear to what extent 
Tesla intends to use L.F.P. batteries,'' and the company ``has no plans 
to stop'' using batteries that contain cobalt. (L.F.P. batteries aren't 
used in cell phones: to achieve the required voltage, the batteries 
would have to be doubled up, adding unacceptable bulk and heft.)
    After Amnesty International published a report on unethical cobalt 
mining, in 2016, Apple issued a statement saying that it ``believes 
every worker in our supply chain has a right to safe, ethical working 
conditions,'' and that ``underage labor is never tolerated.'' The 
following year, after a report by Sky News showed that cobalt mined by 
children was still being used in the company's devices, Apple suspended 
purchases of hand-mined cobalt, but once the media attention died down 
the practice continued. Huayou remains part of Apple's supply chain.
    In December, 2019, attorneys from International Rights Advocates, a 
law firm in Washington, D.C., sued Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft, and 
Tesla for involvement in the injuries or deaths of child miners. 
``These boys are working under Stone Age conditions for paltry wages, 
and at immense personal risk, to provide cobalt,'' the complaint 
alleges. ``The hundreds of billions of dollars generated by the 
Defendants each year would not be possible without cobalt mined in the 
D.R.C.''
    Terry Collingsworth, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, believes that 
the brutal conditions must have been apparent from the start. ``I can't 
imagine that a company like Apple would become dependent upon a supply 
chain without having spent quite a bit of time on the ground,'' he told 
me. In response, Apple said that it had been improving standards since 
2014 and contended that it is ``constantly working to raise the bar for 
ourselves, and the industry.'' It also said that it had made 
innovations in cobalt recycling. (In August, 2020, the companies being 
sued jointly filed a motion to dismiss, and in October the plaintiffs 
filed a brief in opposition.)
    The outcry over working conditions has led industry players to 
found the Fair Cobalt Alliance, an organization that, among other 
things, supports small-scale mining with safety equipment and clean 
water. The group is now present at Kasulo and at another site. 
Glencore, Huayou, and Tesla have joined the alliance.
    Ziki, who is now in school, likes studying and playing soccer, and 
administrators have given him basic supplies to take home to his 
family. When I asked him what he hoped for in life, he replied, ``I 
have the hope that I can become the governor!''
    One Sunday morning, I met Kajumba and Tresor Mputu at the Temple 
Evangelique de Carmel, a hangar-style megachurch in the center of 
Kolwezi. The sign outside proclaims that it is the ``thirtieth 
Pentecostal community in Congo.'' Kajumba and Mputu attend services 
every Sunday. ``When someone finds themselves in difficulties, they can 
come to the church, they can pray,'' Kajumba said.
    Inside, people swayed and sang, their hands outstretched. A few 
congregants spoke in tongues. On a stage covered with flowers, one of 
the pastors declared that the church was ``worth more than any 
enterprise.'' He promised that spiritual riches awaited even his 
poorest parishioners.
    After church, Kajumba, Mputu, and I went to a local bar to watch 
the broadcast of a soccer match between a Malagasy team and TP Mazembe, 
which is passionately supported throughout the south. When Mazembe 
scored the first goal, Kajumba smiled. Suddenly, the television 
crackled, and the programming switched to another game, in Kinshasa, 
the nation's capital. ``They always forget us down here in the south,'' 
someone said. Kajumba sighed and said that he should probably head 
home.
    One day, driving north out of Kolwezi, I noticed how deeply faith 
permeated everything around me: the Mount Carmel health clinic, the 
Salon Apocalypse hairdresser, the Light of God tire shop. Eventually, 
the road became unpaved. Trucks carrying sulfuric acid threw up plumes 
of dust as they trundled toward factories where raw minerals are 
processed.
    I turned onto a side road and crossed a creek where men, women, and 
children were washing cobalt ore. On the other side lay a cluster of 
mud-brick houses. This was Samukinda, the village where new houses had 
been built for the exiled residents of Kasulo.
    The sun was punishingly hot that day, and I was grateful when Nama 
Mavu, the local chief, invited me into her home for a chat. ``My 
ancestors came from Angola, and they set up the village in 1941,'' she 
said. On her parlor wall there was an image of Jesus, and a poster 
advertising a copper-and-cobalt mine. ``My ancestors came here to build 
the railroad, and, when the construction of the railroad finished, they 
stayed.''
    For years, the villagers farmed the surrounding bush, growing large 
crops of manioc, but about a decade ago the land became polluted after 
some foreign businessmen opened a cobalt-processing plant nearby. This 
left no source of employment for the villagers, except as low-paid day 
laborers. In 2018, the residents of Kasulo who had been displaced by 
the Congo Dongfang mine began to arrive.
    As I walked through the village, children laughed and pointed at 
me, shouting ``Chinese! Chinese!'' Mavu said that the villagers were 
seldom visited by foreigners, even though their factories and mines now 
surrounded the town. She assigned two young men to escort me to the 
houses that Congo Dongfang had built. A row of modern-looking white 
buildings rose in the distance. As they came into focus, it was clear 
that their construction was slapdash.
    Few of the homes were even occupied, as most of the original 
residents of Kasulo had accepted money instead. Those families who had 
chosen to take a house had been shown a brochure with beautiful 
pictures. But the homes turned out to have no electricity or bathrooms. 
The roofs leaked, and the well at the corner of the development was 
dry. Most of the families moved away.
    Muteba, the baker, was one of the few arrivals from Kasulo who had 
remained in Samukinda. Now in his seventies and retired, he wore a 
soiled lab coat over his emaciated body. He welcomed me into his house, 
which was stifling hot. The roof was only roughly attached to the 
walls. He had dug himself a lavatory pit, which was covered with a 
board. ``The water here, it's not good,'' he said. ``The smell of acid 
and pollutants comes out of any hole we try to dig for water.''
    Muteba, who was ill with diarrhea, wistfully recalled his home in 
Kasulo. ``It was a big parcel of land,'' he said. ``It had at least 
fifteen trees--avocado trees, mango trees. All this was mine.'' He 
continued, ``We were chased out of our homes like animals, and now we 
suffer like strangers.''
    Mavu told me that her village can hardly support its own 
inhabitants, much less the new ones from Kasulo. She has no means of 
transport, and Governor Muyej has refused to come and see her in order 
to take stock of the village's problems. She asked me to change about 
twenty dollars' worth of Zambian money that she had carefully folded 
away after making a trade with food importers. There is no school at 
Samukinda, and the nearest shops are miles away.
    During my meeting with Governor Muyej, I raised some of the 
complaints I had heard at Samukinda. He insisted that I had ``a bad 
comprehension of the issues.'' He promised to address the dry well and 
the poor housing construction. When I returned to the village, five 
months later, Mavu told me that Papa Solution still hadn't sent anyone: 
``All that has changed is that I am older.''
    At the end of my first visit to Samukinda, I noticed mining 
tailings spread across a path. The residents had put them there to 
check erosion during the rainy season. I wondered if the tailings 
contained any cobalt, and a young villager told me that they probably 
did--after all, the entire region rested on mineral deposits. I then 
asked him if the residents of Samukinda had considered digging beneath 
the village. The young man shrugged and said that the people in his 
village didn't want to suffer the same fate as those in Kasulo. Then he 
made a prediction: ``In the end, they will come and kick us out of 
here.''



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
           Department of Transportation, from Hon. Sam Graves

    Question 1. Over the summer, the White House and you publicly 
discussed the importance of in-person work.\1\ The Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) then announced that they would bring the larger 
workforce back three days a week starting in October.\2\ Given the 
operational and safety oversight role of the agency, it is important 
the FAA prioritizes this transition. What is the status of the in-
person work transition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Kayla Tausche, White House Asks Cabinet Agencies to 
`Aggressively Execute' Return to In-Person Work, CNN, (Aug. 4, 2023), 
available at https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/white-house-
cabinet-in-person-work/index.html.
    \2\ Ann Giaritelli, Biden pick to lead FAA promises hard push to 
end work-from-home policies, Washington Examiner, (Oct. 4, 2023), 
available at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-
national-security/biden-faa-nominee-promises-end-work-from-home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The FAA has thousands of employees who report to their 
worksites every day, including air traffic controllers, safety 
inspectors, engineers; and many more--all of whom support the safe 
operation of the nation's aerospace system. When consistent with 
mission requirements, the FAA offers employees in certain positions 
work schedule flexibilities, such as telework and remote work. Guided 
by our safety mission and to meet the demands of the growing and 
diversifying aviation and aerospace industry, FAA notified telework-
eligible employees of the expectation that they will report in-person 
to their official worksite an average of four (4) days per pay period 
beginning on January 28, 2024. FAA also provided managers with guidance 
to ensure the decisions they make about telework agreements focus on 
mission, operational, and business needs and follow applicable 
collective bargaining agreements and policy provisions.

    Question 1.a. Members of this Committee have heard numerous 
constituent stories of Federal agencies and remote workers ignoring 
their questions. Can you detail how the FAA is ensuring remote workers 
are promptly responding to outreach?
    Answer. FAA's leadership expects that all employees--irrespective 
of duty station location--meet performance requirements outlined in 
their job duties and performance plan. FAA's telework policy and 
agreements require employees on telework and remote work agreements to 
complete required work assignments and to fully engage in 
communication, accessibility, and collaboration. FAA's telework policy 
also entrusts managers with the responsibility to ensure telework 
supports the work of the team and does not result in diminished 
individual, group/team, or organizational performance. Employees are 
expected to prioritize work effectively and maintain a performance 
rating of record of at least fully successful, or equivalent. In 
support of this, and as part of the agency's effort to hold the 
workforce accountable, we have launched additional training on managing 
and working in hybrid teams for FAA managers and employees to amplify 
this expectation.

    Question 1.b. Do you intend to return the FAA to a five-day, in-
person work week or remain in a hybrid posture?
    Answer. The FAA will continue to have thousands of employees who 
report to their worksites five days a week, including air traffic 
controllers, safety inspectors, engineers, and many more--all of whom 
support the safe operation of the Nation's aerospace system. FAA has 
longstanding workplace flexibilities for eligible employees that 
support recruitment and retention of the specialized skillsets the FAA 
needs to meet future demands. Maintaining availability of these 
flexibilities, including telework, remain essential toward FAA being 
competitive as an employer of choice as compared to other agencies and 
private sector. Prior to the pandemic, one third of our workforce 
teleworked at least occasionally. We believe this posture supports a 
healthy operating environment--one that promotes in-person work and 
collaboration and continues leveraging workplace flexibilities where 
they make sense. Additionally, in the coming months we will be working 
to ensure alignment with Section 221 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 
2024 which authorizes the Administrator to set telework policies in a 
manner that does not adversely impact attainment of the FAA's mission.

    Question 1.c. Please provide the Committee with an update on the 
telework posture of the other modes within the Department of 
Transportation (DOT or Department). Have any returned completely in-
person?
    Answer. DOT has thousands of employees who report to their 
worksites every day across the modes, including air traffic 
controllers, safety inspectors, engineers, and many more. Consistent 
with the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-292), DOT has 
for many years offered employees in certain positions work schedule 
flexibilities, including telework, when consistent with mission 
requirements and the nature of their job duties and functions. In July 
2023, with the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency over and in accordance 
with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memo M-23-15 (Apr. 13, 
2023), DOT announced plans to increase onsite presence by increasing 
the minimum number of days per pay period that employees with telework 
agreements in place are expected to report in person to their official 
duty location. DOT employees with a telework agreement are expected to 
report in person to their official duty location a minimum of four (4) 
days per pay period and nationally, around 76 percent of hours are 
performed in-person/onsite by DOT employees.

    Question 2. The FAA recently published a proposed rule that will 
govern how powered-lift aircraft, an emerging industry of battery 
powered vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, will operate within our 
National airspace system. However, there are concerns the proposal 
diverges from the recommendations of the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) and in some cases could even require a total 
redesign of an aircraft for the sole purpose of conducting flight 
training. Flight simulators are valuable tools that can prepare pilots 
for any event they may encounter in a real aircraft and are almost 
universally used today.
    Please describe how the Department and the FAA will maximize the 
use of advanced flight simulators for training and testing the next 
generation of powered-lift pilots.
    Answer. The FAA published the ``Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot 
Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to 
Rotorcraft and Airplanes'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in June 
2023. In this NPRM, the FAA noted that, pursuant to existing 
regulations (14 CFR Sec.  61.64(a)), an applicant for an aircraft type 
rating may use a Full Flight Simulator (FFS) for training and testing, 
provided the FFS represents the category, class, and type of aircraft 
for the rating sought. The FFS must be qualified and approved by the 
Administrator and used in accordance with an approved course of 
training under title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 
141 or 142, or under 14 CFR part 121 or 135 if the applicant is a pilot 
employee of that air carrier operator.
    Additionally, the FAA proposed to allow 15 hours of pilot-in-
command training to be logged in an approved device (FFS level C) 
towards the aeronautical experience requirements under 14 CFR Sec.  
61.129(e). The FAA is carefully reviewing comments in this regard.
    The FAA has proposed a process to address the qualification of 
flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) for powered lift. In the 
NPRM, the FAA proposed a process to permit qualification of FSTDs of 
powered-lift using components of existing standards for airplanes and 
helicopters, where applicable, as determined by the FAA, that would 
provide an equivalent level of safety to existing requirements. 
Further, in instances where existing standards are not found to be 
sufficient to fully evaluate an FSTD for a special class of aircraft, 
other FSTD qualification standards as proposed by the FSTD sponsor may 
be accepted by the Administrator as providing an equivalent level of 
safety. When establishing the qualification basis, the FAA will publish 
the proposed standard in the Federal Register for public notice and 
comment, including an explanation of the FAA's safety determination. 
The ability to qualify an FSTD for powered-lift in this manner, as well 
as the notice and comment process, would closely follow the established 
process used to certify special classes of aircraft.
    The FAA has already employed a similar process to enable the 
qualification of an FFS for a tilt-rotor aircraft.

    Question 3. It is important that the Department of Transportation 
and the Maritime Administration are using up-to-date and accurate data 
for annual cargo tonnages handled at ports when deciding if ports are 
eligible for the small port set aside under the Port Infrastructure 
Development Program.
    Please describe how the Department of Transportation and the 
Maritime Administration will ensure that accurate annual tonnage 
information specific to the applicant is being used, instead of broad 
regional data that does not reflect the true size of a port.
    Answer. Consistent with the provisions in 46 U.S.C. Sec.  
54301(b)(1), the Department and Maritime Administration rely 
principally on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) data to determine 
the annual average tonnage of cargo at a port when assessing whether an 
applicant is eligible for the small project at small port set aside 
under the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). Relying on 
Corps data ensures that MARAD is basing its decision on the most 
accurate and independently-verified data set available. Corps data on 
port tonnages is also the most uniform and comprehensive information 
that is publicly accessible. Thus, the use of Corps data ensures that 
MARAD, and an applicant, are able to rely on the same set of data that 
reflects the most accurate and consistent information about cargo 
tonnages.
    To ensure a fair and uniform approach to the process of applying 
for PIDP funding, MARAD publishes information in the notice of funding 
opportunity soliciting applications for PIDP grants that identifies how 
it will determine whether an applicant qualifies as a small port. MARAD 
then hosts webinars for applicants. During the webinars, MARAD staff 
discuss the details of applying for PIDP grants and review the process 
MARAD will use in evaluating applications. MARAD hosts several webinars 
each year, with at least one dedicated to the small project at small 
port eligibility of PIDP. A portion of that webinar explains in detail 
how MARAD evaluates applicant eligibility for the small project at 
small port set aside. Finally, MARAD staff is available for 
consultation prior to application deadline in the event an applicant 
wants to verify its eligibility for the small project at small port set 
aside (or for any other questions related to the application process).

    Question 4.a. Can you explain why the Department of Transportation 
and Maritime Administration continue to rely on the United States Coast 
Guard to do work that is not their responsibility, such as conducting 
environmental assessments for potential deepwater ports?
    Answer. The Department's response is in the process of interagency 
clearance and will be provided to the Committee separately upon 
approval.

    Question 4.b. Does the Department of Transportation and Maritime 
Administration have plans to reach an agreement or memorandum of 
understanding with the United States Coast Guard so that the Coast 
Guard no longer has to perform the deepwater port processing work that 
is statutorily the Department's responsibility?
    Answer. The Department's response is in the process of interagency 
clearance and will be provided to the Committee separately upon 
approval.

    Question 5. The Biden Administration released signage requirements 
for projects that receive funding from the Infrastructure and 
Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58).\3\ Has the Department of 
Transportation released guidance for implementing signage terms and 
conditions to comply with these requirements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The White House, Building a Better America, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, Project Funding Source Sign Assembly, available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Building-A-
Better-America-Brand-Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Yes. The Office of Management and Budget has determined 
that the use of signing to increase public awareness of and 
transparency regarding the investments made by the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) is a reimbursable expenditure under federal 
law.

    Question 5.a. If yes, please provide a copy of the guidance.
    Answer. The revised guidelines are available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Investing-in-America-
Brand-Guide.pdf.

    Question 5.b. If not, please describe if the Department plans to 
issue guidance and the time frame in which that guidance can be 
expected.
    Answer. N/A.

    Question 6. In May, the Department of Transportation suffered a 
data breach that was classified as a ``major incident'' because more 
than 100,000 individuals' information was compromised.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ David Shepardson, Data of 237,000 US government employees 
breached, Reuters, (May 15, 2023) available at https://www.reuters.com/
world/us/data-237000-us-government-employees-breached-2023-05-12/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 6.a. Can you describe actions the Department has taken to 
address the vulnerabilities exposed by the May data breach?
    Answer. The DOT Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief 
Information Security Officer (CISO) assumed direct control and 
management of response and recovery activities upon awareness of the 
Adobe Cold Fusion incursion. The CIO assembled a team composed of the 
CISO, other OCIO personnel, representatives from the DOT Enterprise 
Security Operations Center (SOC), the information system owners for the 
affected systems, program personnel, and supporting contractors. 
Establishing daily meetings to coordinate response and recovery 
efforts, the CIO directed the development of short-term, mid-term, and 
longer-term actions to return systems and servers to an operational 
state, to assess for root cause and systemic vulnerabilities and 
weaknesses, and to identify and initiate action to remediate the 
identified vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
    As part of the initial response phase of the effort aimed at 
identifying compromised systems, removing threat actors, improving 
monitoring and detection where needed, and strengthening security 
controls, at the direction of the CIO and CISO, the Department 
undertook the following response actions, among others, directed to 
this specific incursion by the perpetrator. The actions immediately 
below were over and above those done in the ordinary course, pursuant 
to ongoing measures already in place to protect DOT's cybersecurity, 
such as blocking of malicious IP addresses as they are identified, 
scanning of the enterprise for threat indicia, and recurring training 
for all network and systems users.
      Immediate blocking of malicious IP addresses identified 
as associated with the threat actor.
      Scanning by DOT's Enterprise Security Operations Center 
(SOC) and the DOT Cybersecurity Team of the entire DOT enterprise for 
indicators of compromise and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) 
associated with the specific threat actor.
      Upon identification of the specific threat actor's TTPs, 
immediate blocking of malicious IP addresses identified in DOT's 
forensic analyses as associated with that threat actor.
      Engagement of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency (CISA) and a contract response team, Palo Alto's Unit 
42, for additional assessment support and guidance.
      Assessment and reporting of a ``major incident'' to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), CISA, the DOT Office of 
Inspector General, and Congressional Committees.
      Change of all passwords for the affected systems and 
devices, including those for non-interactive and/or administrative 
service accounts with elevated privileges and access that support 
databases and applications.
      Implementation of robust Multi-Factor Authentication 
(MFA) for internal, external, and privileged users where it had not 
already been implemented.
      Standardized training of System Owners, Information 
System Security Managers and Officers (ISSMs and ISSOs), developers and 
technical support staff of the affected systems on cyber requirements.
      Reconfiguration of critical security tools to adjust the 
weights for the scoring of risk to more readily identify impacted 
systems and networks in scans and reports.
      Scanning of the entire DOT enterprise for instances of 
similarly affected third-party software.
      Continued update of third-party application software to 
the latest versions under active support by the manufacturers.
      Review of developer and system administration contracts 
for the affected systems for compliance with the DOT Transportation 
Acquisition Regulation (TAR) and other good IT and cybersecurity 
practices, in coordination with the Department's Office of the Senior 
Procurement Executive and Departmental contracting officials.
      Provided notification and credit monitoring to users of 
the TRANServe system (i.e., the Parking and Transit Benefits System).

    As the Department made progress on response efforts, the CIO and 
Departmental leadership began transitioning activity to the recovery 
phase and restoring the affected systems and critical services to end 
users and stakeholders. As part of recovery efforts, the Department:
      Rebuilt compromised systems including associated 
development and test environments.
      Patched and applied application updates to third-party 
software to address all Critical, High and Medium vulnerabilities 
either as reported by CISA, or as identified by the Department's 
cybersecurity tools.
      Implemented an improved security architecture to include 
Web Application Firewalls and Next Generation Firewalls.

    Following the response and recovery activities set out above, the 
Department is taking preemptive measures to protect against the adverse 
consequences of further incursions. These measures include:
      Continued implementation of enterprise-wide logging in 
accordance with OMB Memorandum M-21-31, Improving the Federal 
Government's Investigative and Remediation Capabilities Related to 
Cybersecurity Incidents, and CISA implementation guidance, to reach 
required maturity levels and to support ongoing incident detection and 
vulnerability management.
      Updating the DOT Vulnerability and Weakness Management 
Guide to document requirements to prohibit storing Personally 
Identifiable Information (PII) on public facing servers, enhance patch 
management processes, and clearly identify prioritization of weakness 
remediation.
      Reviewing the definition and assignment of roles and 
responsibilities in accordance with OMB, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), and DOT policies to ensure that the 
appropriate officials have been identified for key roles (Authorizing 
Officials, Business Owner, System Owner, Information System Security 
Manager/Officer) for each information system in the DOT Federal 
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) system inventory, and that 
they receive appropriate training on their responsibilities.
      Establishing expanded IT governance, project management, 
and other IT support for the Office of the Secretary (OST) to more 
rapidly and better identify IT spending and activity, ensure 
application of Federal best practices, and to identify technology, 
cybersecurity and privacy issues in the ongoing care and maintenance of 
existing systems, and ensure ``secure by design'' principles in the 
development of new and modernized systems.
      Initiating an effort in collaboration with the Office of 
the Senior Procurement Executive (OSPE) to work with the DOT Operating 
Administrations (OAs) to assess IT contracts and procurement processes 
for weaknesses, and to develop recommendations and actions to improve 
both future acquisitions, and to remediate weaknesses at opportune and 
cost-effective acquisition boundaries.

    Question 6.b. Please provide an update on the Department's progress 
in implementing its cyber-modernization plan.
    Answer. The Department's information security focus continues to be 
modernizing its enterprise and modal IT to improve cybersecurity, 
performance, value, and other features. DOT uses specific 
appropriations and the Department's Cyber Security Initiative (CSI) 
Appropriation.
    Cyber modernization accomplishments and areas of progress:
      Multi-Factor Authentication--The Department has achieved 
99% implementation of multi-factor authentication (MFA) on agency 
networks where personnel log-in from a desktop or laptop for access to 
agency resources and systems, and as of June 2024, DOT has achieved 87% 
\5\ MFA compliance for agency traditional IT mission and operating/
business systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Completion status historically has been based on internal 
tracking of DOT traditional Information Technology systems. Beginning 
in late CY2023, Executive Branch reporting requirements were revised to 
include not only Information Technology, but also Operational 
Technology (OT) i.e., control devices, industrial system components. As 
a consequence, more systems are encompassed within the reported figures 
than previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)--The Department has 
achieved greater than 92% implementation of EDR across the entire DOT 
enterprise--servers, desktops/laptops, and mobile devices--and is 
closing remaining gaps.
      Enterprise Logging--The Department has fully achieved 
logging at Event Level 2 (EL2) maturity as defined by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).
      Data Encryption--The Department has achieved 77% 
compliance for encrypting data at rest for FISMA reportable IT systems 
that contain sensitive data. The Department has also achieved 62% 
compliance for encrypting data in transit for those same systems.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Like MFA statistics, see supra, encryption compliance figures 
have been impacted by recent revisions to reporting requirements to be 
inclusive of both IT and OT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Skilled Workforce--The Department recruited additional 
cyber-skilled personnel to staff the Department's enterprise 
cybersecurity, privacy risk management, and records management 
programs, increasing from 17 full-time positions to 36.

    Other relevant accomplishments over this past year include:
    (1)  development of an agency penetration testing capability and 
team to assess DOT high-value asset and other information systems,
    (2)  establishment of a vulnerability disclosure program capability 
with specific focus on assessment of DOT's public-facing websites and 
applications, and
    (3)  reorganization of the Office of Cybersecurity and Information 
Protection under the DOT CISO to apply additional resources to security 
engineering in support of ``secure by design'' principles and to 
enhance the capacity and capability of the team addressing 
cybersecurity findings from audits and overseeing the cybersecurity 
programs of DOT Operating Administrations (OAs).

    As part of a new line of effort focusing on prioritizing and 
enabling mission and business system modernization, the Department 
secured approval from the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) Board for 
the funding of two key Department priorities in the IT space. The TMF 
is a federal entity that provides funding to federal agencies for 
transformative technology modernization projects. The first proposal to 
the TMF Board provides for the modernization of a portfolio of systems 
within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The other initiative 
will provide for modernization of a system within the Office of the 
General Counsel in the Office of the Secretary (OST) supporting the 
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection's work, including aviation 
consumer complaint handling and processes. Both approvals resulted from 
close coordination by DOT with the TMF project management office.
    The FAA project is currently underway and reporting progress to the 
TMF Board. The OST project was approved by the Board in September and 
began with a focus on requirements and development of a minimal viable 
product to be hosted on a DOT-approved low-code/no-code software- and 
platform-as-a-service solution in the cloud.

    Question 6.c. Please provide a copy of the Department's cyber-
modernization plan.
    Answer. Please see the attached material, prepared at the request 
of the Committee at a previous briefing convened by the Chairman.

    Question 6.d. What concerns do you have about the Department's 
vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks and what are you doing to prevent 
future attacks?
    Answer. The Department's concerns and priorities regarding 
vulnerability to cyber-attacks and the investments necessary to mature 
DOT's cybersecurity capabilities, overcome historical underinvestment, 
and modernize information systems are reflected annually in the 
President's budget request. Support for these requests is essential to 
continued maintenance and operation of capabilities already developed 
for the agency. These capabilities include, among others, Enterprise 
Continuous Diagnostic and Mitigation (CDM), Multi-factor Authentication 
and encryption solutions, and investments in people, processes and 
technology as part of DOT's implementation of Zero Trust. Support for 
these requests also facilitate the agency's engineering and operation 
of capabilities to respond to new threats, and modernization of OA 
mission and business systems.
    The Department is constantly engaged in cybersecurity reviews and 
threat assessments as the risk environment evolves. We will continue to 
work to ensure that needed investment levels are reflected annually in 
the President's budget request. We also welcome the opportunity to 
brief the Committee on plans developed and deployed in response to the 
evolving threat environment.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Rick Larsen

    Question 1/Invitation. Mr. Secretary, during the hearing, there 
were instances where you were not afforded an opportunity to respond to 
a question or address a Member's comments. I welcome your written 
submission on any topic raised in the hearing for which you were not 
provided a full chance to respond, or for which you would like to 
supplement or correct the record on any statements made about the 
Department's work and performance.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, during the hearing, a Member argued that 
near-misses at airports occur because of a shortage of air traffic 
controllers, and because ``the FAA agency is more worried about hiring 
people based on DEI qualifications instead of being qualified to do the 
job.'' You stated in response ``Not only is that false; that is an 
insult to the qualifications of every air traffic controller.'' Can you 
please provide information on the FAA's work to address controller 
staffing?
    Answer. The FAA is actively engaged in increasing the number of Air 
Traffic Controller (ATC) trainees and subsequently increasing the total 
number of fully certified ATCs. The FAA has a robust hiring process in 
place to ensure that the best candidates are selected and placed at 
facilities with the greatest need. The FAA achieved its FY 2022 
controller hiring goal of 1,020 and its FY 2023 controller hiring goal 
of 1,500. The FAA is committed to attaining the necessary Certified 
Professional Controller (CPC) staffing levels to meet current traffic 
demands, which have returned to, or in some markets have exceeded, pre-
pandemic levels. The 2024 Controller Workforce Plan released in April 
2024 includes facility-specific staffing targets from both the Staffing 
Standards process and the collaborative Resource Workgroup process.
    Additionally, the FAA has taken the following actions to recruit, 
train, and hire the best candidates for ATC positions:
      Requires all Academy applicants to take the Air Traffic 
Skills Assessment (ATSA) implemented in 2016. Only those who score 
highly (well qualified) on the ATSA are selected for further 
consideration.

      Awarded a contract to complete a Job Task Analysis for 
the Air Traffic Controller position, which will establish new standards 
for the applicant assessment process.

      Developed a national prioritization staffing tool that 
ensures that new hires and transferring employees are matched with the 
facilities with the greatest staffing needs.

      Uses a two-pool national vacancy announcement for 
applicants with no previous air traffic control experience in 
accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (NDAA) 
which requires the agency to separate applicants into multiple 
selection pools, based upon educational background and veteran status. 
The FAA also hosts at least one national vacancy announcement annually 
for candidates possessing at least 52 weeks of certified air traffic 
control experience. These candidates are mainly prior military or 
Federal Contract Tower controllers.

      Collaborates regularly with the National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association to execute a centralized Employee Request for 
Reassignment process and National Release Policy that expedites the 
movement of controllers from healthy facilities to those with the 
greatest staffing need.

      Uses an Executive Steering Committee comprised of leaders 
from various stakeholder staff offices and lines of business outside of 
the Air Traffic Organization which meets monthly to resolve issues, 
establish policy, and monitor the hiring and placement process.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, in June 2022, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking on 
Airplane Fuel Efficiency Certification. The implementation of these 
fuel efficiency requirements would allow manufacturers to certificate 
their aircraft for fuel efficiency in the United States. It is an 
important step both in terms of the environment and the competitiveness 
of the US aerospace industry. What is the status of this rulemaking and 
when can we expect the rule (RIN 2120-AL54) to be finished?
    Answer. The FAA signed the final rule on December 13, 2023. The 
final rule, along with associated incorporation by reference (IBR) 
document, were transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). 
The FAA worked to address comments from the OFR on the IBR section of 
the rule and had to modify the document accordingly. The FAA received 
OFR approval on the IBR request on January 19, 2024.The final rule 
published on February 16, 2024.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
   Department of Transportation, from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford

    Question 1. In January 2023, an exemption application (Docket ID 
FMCSA-2023-0071) was submitted to FMCSA to allow future autonomous 
commercial motor vehicles to use a flashing light-based system to warn 
other drivers when they are stopped on the road or shoulder of the 
highway, instead of the currently required hand-placed triangles or 
flares.
    Please provide the status of this pending application with FMCSA.
    Answer. On March 3, 2023, FMCSA published a Federal Register 
notice, 88 FR 13489 (clarified, and comment period extended, Mar. 9, 
2023, 88 FR 14665) announcing that it received an application from 
Waymo LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc. (Waymo/Aurora) for a 5-year 
exemption from the warning device placement requirements of 49 CFR 
Sec.  392.22(b), the utilization of a warning device that does not meet 
the steady-burning lamp requirement of 49 CFR Sec.  393.25(e), and the 
utilization of a warning device for stopped vehicles that is not 
currently identified in 49 CFR Sec.  393.95(f). The application 
requests that the exemption apply to motor carriers operating 
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are being operated by a Level 4 
automated driving system (ADS). Instead of the traditional warning 
devices placed around a stopped autonomous CMV, as required by current 
regulations, these motor carriers would be allowed to operate Level 4 
CMVs with warning beacons mounted on the truck cab. The Secretary may 
grant an exemption only if it would likely achieve a level of safety 
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be 
achieved absent such exemption, and the Agency must analyze the 
petitioner's technical proposal to determine whether such standard can 
be met. If granted, the exemption would allow ADS-equipped CMVs to 
operate with warning beacons mounted on the truck cab. FMCSA is 
currently reviewing and considering the public comments received in 
response to the Federal Register notice.

    Question 2. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) was directed by Congress in House Report 116-106, which 
accompanied Public Law 116-94, to ``study the safety effectiveness of 
rear-end collision avoidance systems that mitigate and prevent rear-end 
collisions.'' Among the technologies NHTSA was required to study were 
``pulsating light systems in motor vehicles.'' The report went on to 
direct that ``NHTSA should initiate a rulemaking to revise Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, establish parameters for the types 
of systems that should be permitted, and issue a minimum performance 
standard for those systems.''
    To date, NHTSA has neither conducted the required study nor started 
any rulemaking process. Not only has NHTSA ignored a Congressional 
directive, but it's in the process of implementing its interpretation 
of the current Standard 108 rule regarding pulsating lights, which were 
specifically mentioned by Congress as needing to be further studied and 
potentially changed.
    Please provide an explanation as to why NHTSA has not conducted the 
Congressionally-directed study or started a rulemaking process.
    Answer. NHTSA has conducted extensive studies related to the safety 
and effectiveness of rear-end collision avoidance systems, as 
referenced in House Report 116-106, in connection with automatic 
emergency braking (AEB), a technology proven to be effective in 
reducing rear-end crashes. On the basis of this research, in June 2023, 
NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require AEB on 
all light vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks) within three years 
of the proposal being adopted, 88 FR 38632 (June 13, 2023). NHTSA and 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration subsequently issued a 
joint notice of proposed rulemaking requiring AEB for heavy vehicles, 
88 FR 43174 (July 6, 2023). On May 9, 2024, NHTSA finalized a new 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that requires AEB and 
pedestrian AEB systems on light vehicles. NHTSA projects that this new 
standard, FMVSS No. 127, will save at least 360 lives a year and 
prevent at least 24,000 injuries annually.
    NHTSA is also undertaking a new study on pulsating light systems, 
as referenced in the House Report, and will consider rulemaking if the 
study indicates that data support safety improvements. Prior to the 
House Report, NHTSA conducted several studies regarding flashing lamps. 
NHTSA has also developed a research project plan to better understand 
where both potential benefits and potential disbenefits of non-steady 
burning stop lamps may exist.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Brian Babin

    Question 1. Is the Department of Transportation using any federal 
funds to provide free or subsidized transit benefits to illegal 
immigrants?
    Answer. No, as current law prohibits the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) from regulating transit operations or fares. 
Additionally, eligible recipients of FTA funds do not include 
individual passengers.

    Question 2. Are any States using Department of Transportation 
funding to provide free or subsidized transit benefits to illegal 
immigrants?
    Answer. The FTA is prohibited by law from regulating transit 
operations or fares and does not subsidize fares for individual 
passengers.

    Question 3. Is the Department of Transportation reimbursing States 
forced to pay to send illegal immigrants to other states or sanctuary 
cities? If so, what accounts are being used to fund these transfers? If 
not, why is the Department of Transportation not doing this?
    Answer. The Department is not aware of any authority by statute or 
otherwise to provide reimbursement to states for such expenses under 
any of DOT's existing programs.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
         Department of Transportation, from Hon. Garret Graves

    Question 1. Given the safety benefits of ADS-B, what additional 
measures can DOT and FAA take to incentivize further ADS-B equipage?
    Answer. The FAA is exploring options including Traffic Awareness 
Beacon System (TABS) and portable ADS-B to provide additional low-cost 
options for pilots to improve their conspicuity to other users of the 
National Airspace System (NAS), while also ensuring those systems can 
reliably, accurately, and consistently provide position and 
identification information. While these systems do not meet the 
requirements for ADS-B Out in order to enter airspace in which ADS-B is 
required, the FAA recognizes the safety benefit that these novel 
devices may provide.

    Question 2. Other technologies, such as TABS (or Traffic Awareness 
Beacon System), can also bring about enhanced safety through improved 
traffic awareness. These technologies provide important alternatives to 
ADS-B for gliders, balloons and aircraft without electrical systems. 
What measures could be taken to make these technologies more widely 
available in order to enhance the safety of the National Airspace 
System?
    Answer. The FAA is committed to ensuring the safety of the National 
Airspace System (NAS) and ensuring safe separation between all users, 
including gliders, balloons, and aircraft without electrical systems, 
in addition to new users like unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The FAA 
developed a standard order (TSO-C199) that allows manufacturers to 
certify equipment with the desired functionality. As with many 
technologies, market need drives investment. To date, the FAA is not 
aware of any TSO-C199 transmitter solution used on gliders and 
balloons. The FAA ADS-B Out mandate drove down prices and sizes for 
Mode S transponders in general aviation (GA) aircraft, such that the 
differentiation between a modern GA Mode S transponder and a TABS 
device is relatively insignificant. These factors have reduced demand 
for manufacturers to develop TABS avionics and are beyond the FAA's 
control, limiting the FAA's influence on TABS utilization.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. David Rouzer

    Question 1. In August 2017, the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) issued an unclassified alert entitled ``Da Jiang Innovations 
(DJI) Likely Providing U.S. Critical Infrastructure and Law Enforcement 
Data to Chinese Government'' that concludes ``with moderate confidence 
that Chinese-based company DJI Science and Technology is providing U.S. 
critical infrastructure and law enforcement data to the Chinese 
government.'' In December 2020, the Department of Commerce then added 
DJI to the Entities List for activities contrary to U.S. foreign policy 
interests and enabling wide-scale human rights abuses within China, 
which restricts U.S. critical components from being sold to DJI. In 
July 2021, the Department of Defense issued a public statement that 
``systems produced by Da Jiang Innovations (DJI) pose potential threats 
to national security'' and followed up by naming DJI as a Chinese 
military company in its 1260H list released in October 2022. Further, 
the Department of Treasury declared DJI as a Chinese Military-
Industrial Complex company in December 2021.
    In light of the clear and compelling information that China is 
actively seeking to conduct surveillance of critical infrastructure in 
the United States, as confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security, 
the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense and the 
Department of the Treasury, can you please provide answers to the 
following:
    Question 1.a. How many Chinese drones are owned or leased by the 
Department of Transportation and its sub-agencies? Please identify the 
number of drones and the sub-agency or office that owns or leases such 
drones.
    Answer. The Department's Office of Aviation and International 
Affairs is working with other offices in the Office of the Secretary 
and the DOT Operating Administrations to conduct an assessment on the 
number of Chinese-made drones owned or leased by DOT. For example, the 
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and the Transportation 
Safety Institute together own seven Chinese-made drones for research 
and training purposes, all purchased before issuance of E.O. 13981, 
Protecting the United States From Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
(January 22, 2021). Of these, only one continues to be in use, and it 
is not connected to any federal government information systems.

    Question 1.b. How many Chinese drones are operated under contract 
for services requested by the Department of Transportation or its sub-
agencies? Please identify the number of drones and the sub-agency or 
office that contracted for operations performed by such drones.
    Answer. The Department's Office of Aviation and International 
Affairs is working with other offices in the Office of the Secretary 
and the DOT Operating Administrations to conduct an assessment on the 
number of Chinese-made drones operating under contract by DOT.

    Question 1.c. How many Chinese drones have been purchased, leased 
or contracted for by entities that received federal taxpayer funding 
from the Department of Transportation or its sub-agencies? Please 
identify the number of drones, the sub-agency or office and the 
specific grant program that funded the purchase, lease or contract 
performed by such drones.
    Answer. Many of the Department's partners at all levels of 
government, their contractors and subcontractors, universities and 
other research partners, use drones for bridge inspections, accident 
assessments, surveying of roadways and other public infrastructure, 
risk identification, disaster response, and many other uses, to save 
time and money, and increase safety and efficiency. However, we do not 
have information on the type of drones they use or whether those drones 
were purchased with Federal funds, as we generally do not approve 
project costs at that level of detail. The FAA did, however, identify 
an instance where it provided an organization funding that was used to 
procure 2500 drone kits to middle and high school students through the 
Know Before You Fly program as a STEM outreach effort in 2023. Those 
kits included Chinese made components.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
           Department of Transportation, from Hon. Mike Bost

    Question 1. The Motorcyclist Advisory Committee (MAC) was 
reauthorized in Section 2411 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act. That section states that the MAC shall be seated within 90 days of 
passage of the act. We are nearly 2 years later in the MAC still has 
not been seated. When do you intend to seat the MAC?
    Answer. The Federal Register Notice of establishment of the 
Motorcyclist Advisory Council was published on September 25, 2023, and 
the Charter was posted on the FACA GSA database on September 19, 2023. 
The time period for solicitation of applications for membership closed 
December 15, 2023, and DOT is considering the applications received.

    Question 2. One of the challenges I've heard about from small 
business truckers, as well as from others in the transportation 
industry, is the rising level of fraud in the freight marketplace. What 
steps is DOT taking to address ongoing criminal activity related to 
fraud that is hurting small trucking businesses? And do you think your 
department has the resources necessary to combat this? From what I have 
been hearing, these scams are growing both in number and in 
sophistication.
    Answer. Freight fraud and freight theft are issues that FMCSA is 
acutely aware of, and the Agency is taking action pursuant to its 
existing authority and resources. FMCSA has been investigating ``double 
brokering'' complaints and will be citing entities for unlawful 
brokerage activities as appropriate. As part of its anti-fraud efforts, 
FMCSA is actively engaged in information technology modifications to 
identify fraudulent brokers and motor carriers during the FMCSA 
operating authority registration process.
    FMCSA also issued guidance in June 2023, as required by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), clarifying the definitions of 
``broker'' and ``bona fide agent'', and examining the role of dispatch 
services in the transportation industry. 88 FR 39368 (June 16, 2023). 
This guidance may help deter entities from acting as brokers without 
the required authority. In November 2023, FMCSA issued a final rule, 
titled ``Broker and Freight Forwarder Financial Responsibility,'' 
amending its regulations on financial security requirements for brokers 
of property and freight forwarders. 88 FR 78656 (Nov. 16, 2023). Among 
other measures, this rule defines the type of assets considered to be 
``readily available'' for broker payment of claims made by motor 
carriers and implements a new process for immediately suspending a 
broker's operating authority for non-payment of claims. An intended 
effect of this rule is to prevent brokers from accruing numerous claims 
against their financial security, which should provide protection for 
motor carriers and increase the amount of compensation motor carriers 
receive for legitimate claims.
    Additionally, FMCSA has taken action in the area of household goods 
(HHG) consumer protection through its ``Protect Your Move'' 
initiatives, designed to target HHG motor carriers and brokers that 
engage in deceptive practices, including theft of individual property. 
In 2023, we pursued nearly 100 separate enforcement actions against 
motor carriers and brokers involved in HHG fraud.
    FMCSA is required by DOT Order (DOT 8000.8A) to refer suspected 
criminality to the Department's Office of Inspector General for further 
investigation and action. While the Agency takes fraud in the freight 
marketplace seriously FMCSA must balance its efforts regarding fraud in 
the freight marketplace with Congress's mandate that FMCSA focus on 
motor carrier safety as its highest priority. FMCSA is pursuing 
collaborative efforts with other Federal agencies that have authority 
and investigatory resources to pursue freight theft and fraud cases 
where possible.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Doug LaMalfa

    Question 1. California Air Resources Board's In-Use Locomotive 
Regulation will require railroads to phase out locomotives over 23 
years old in 2030 and in 2035, require all new trains to be zero 
emission. This rule will be especially impactful to the short line 
freight industry which is typically small businesses who cannot afford 
investments in new equipment. CARB itself recognized the impact on the 
short line freight industry stating that some short line railroads 
would be eliminated by the costs.
    At the Federal level, are you concerned about the impact the CARB 
In-Use Locomotive Regulation will have on the short line freight 
industry and the nation's rail network and supply chain, in general?
    Answer. The mission of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 
to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and 
goods for a strong America, now and in the future.
    Specifically, FRA is supporting the short line industry in efforts 
to reduce emissions through its Locomotive Replacement Initiative which 
utilizes Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements 
(CRISI) grant funds for the purchase of cleaner locomotives, including 
zero-emission battery-electric switcher locomotives.
    Additionally, FRA supports industry through research and 
development of clean energy solutions. Most recently, FRA's Offices of 
Railroad Safety, and Research, Data and Innovation hosted an 
international workshop on rail decarbonization [https://
railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/rail-getting-
track-decarbonization] from May 15-18, 2023, in Denver, CO. The 
workshop convened in-person discussions between U.S. and international 
rail and clean energy experts on rail decarbonization technologies and 
strategies.

    Question 2. Currently, we do NOT have zero emissions freight 
locomotives operating in the United States. They are only in the 
testing phase. Short line associations have sued CARB accusing them of 
compelling the industry to use technology that has not been 
sufficiently tested in prototypes nor is commercially available.
    Are you concerned about the impact to our national security and 
supply chain if freight locomotives cannot comply with these rules and 
thus not transport freight from our ports in Oakland or Long Beach to 
the rest of the country?
    Answer. See response above.

    Question 3. NHTSA recently weighed in on the 2020 Right to Repair 
law in Massachusetts. The agency objected to the Commonwealth Attorney 
General enforcing the law, citing cybersecurity concerns, before 
announcing that it supports implementation of the law. In short, the 
agency's guidance has been inconsistent.
    Question 3.a. Do you believe that vehicle owners have the right to 
repair and modify their cars, trucks, and motorcycles?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation continues to have 
unwavering support for consumers' right to choose where to take their 
vehicles for service and repair. Fostering competition is a bedrock 
principle of the Administration, and that includes the automotive 
repair sector. Therefore, vehicle owners should have the right to 
repair and modify their vehicles as they choose provided that the work 
does not compromise safety. NHTSA has been consistent in stating that 
consumer choice should be advanced in a manner that does not pose an 
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.

    Question 3.b. What does right to repair mean to you?
    Answer. A consumer's right to repair is their ability to choose 
where to have their vehicles serviced and repaired--whether that repair 
is completed by a dealership, an independent repair facility, or 
through a do-it-yourself repair without compromising motor vehicle 
safety.

  Question to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
        Department of Transportation, from Hon. Bruce Westerman

    Question 1. As a side effect of changes in security protocols 
adopted after the September 11 attacks, life-saving organs that had 
been transported in the cabin of commercial aircraft were redesignated 
as cargo. Commercial airlines' cargo systems were not designed to move 
life-saving organs. Although organs are recovered and transplanted at 
all hours of the day, every day of the week, cargo operations have 
limited hours and not all airlines transport cargo. For example, one-
third of the airlines servicing the Little Rock airport do not 
transport cargo, which limits the options for an out-of-state organ 
procurement organization trying to get a kidney to a patient waiting 
for a transplant at Arkansas Children's Hospital or UAMS Medical 
Center.
    Kidneys are most often transported by commercial air because they 
can be viable outside of the body for up to 36 hours. The number of 
kidney transplants performed has increased significantly--14,279 kidney 
transplants were performed in 2001 compared to 25,500 in 2022. Advances 
in organ preservation technologies allow organs to travel further to 
reach the sickest patients in need of a transplant. As a result, the 
volume of organs being transported by commercial air has increased. Now 
is time to set forth a process by which to improve the transportation 
of organs with the goal of minimizing the burden on air carriers and 
reducing the risk for delayed, lost, or damaged organs.
    Please describe the barriers that exist for the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that 
prevent collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and stakeholders 
to jointly establish policies that would enable life-saving organs to 
be transported in the cabin of a passenger airplane as they were prior 
to the September 11 attacks.
    Answer. The FAA has not identified any barriers that would inhibit 
our continued ability to support our partners at the Department of 
Homeland Security and TSA as they work with the Health Resources & 
Services Administration to find solutions to effectively and 
efficiently transport life-saving organs by airplane.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Pete Stauber

    Question 1. As you may know, NHTSA was directed by House Report 
116-106 for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2020 to 
study the effectiveness of rear-end collision avoidance systems that 
were the subject of a July 28, 2023 letter from NHTSA to Williams & 
Lake. The report language further directed NHTSA to undertake a 
rulemaking after completing necessary research. Despite this, NHTSA has 
yet to undertake the directed review and the consequent rulemaking.
    Question 1.a. Are you aware of any research that indicates the 
rear-end collision avoidance systems sold by Williams & Lake improve 
safety and reduce the number and severity of rear-end collisions? Can 
you share that research with the committee? Have you asked Williams & 
Lake if they are in possession of such research?
    Answer. On October 25, 2023, Williams & Lake and another 
manufacturer filed a lawsuit against DOT and NHTSA in the U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. In light of the pending 
litigation, the Department cannot comment further about its 
interactions with Williams & Lake.

    Question 1.b. In the absence of the Congressionally-directed 
review, why did the agency send the enforcement letter to Williams & 
Lake (Pulse) in late July? Was the agency uncertain as to congressional 
intent?
    Answer. On October 25, 2023, Williams & Lake and another 
manufacturer filed a lawsuit against DOT and NHTSA in the U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. In light of the pending 
litigation, the Department cannot comment further about its 
interactions with Williams & Lake.

    Question 1.c. Will you commit to us that NHTSA will complete the 
review as directed in 2019 prior to pursuing additional actions--
enforcement or otherwise--associated with the July 28 letter to 
Williams & Lake?
    Answer. On October 25, 2023, Williams & Lake and another 
manufacturer filed a lawsuit against DOT and NHTSA in the U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. In light of the pending 
litigation, the Department stipulated to temporarily hold in abeyance 
the planned actions until a court hearing and ruling on a motion for a 
preliminary injunction.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
       Department of Transportation, from Hon. Jefferson Van Drew

    Question 1. Are there any records of communication between the 
Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security 
regarding the August 2023 proposal to shelter immigrants at the 
Atlantic City Airport?
    Answer. At this time, the FAA has been unable to find any 
responsive records.

    Question 2. If yes, do such communications include DoT offering 
consent for DHS to use the federal FAA campus on which the airport is 
located, or include any evaluation by DoT of the practicality of the 
DHS Atlantic City airport sheltering proposal?
    Answer. The housing of migrants on a federally obligated airport 
would require FAA approval. No such approval was requested, nor did FAA 
provide approval for such a request.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
         Department of Transportation, from Hon. Troy E. Nehls

    Question 1. On August 29 the FAA issued a Notice of Intent to 
conduct a rulemaking that would limit the types of air carriers that 
may operate public charters, for unspecified safety reasons. Mr. 
Secretary, what is the safety concern that prompted this action? Can 
you provide the most recent data the Department utilized for this 
Notice of Intent?
    Answer. The FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking to address public 
charter operations that, in light of recent high-volume operations, 
appear to be offered to the public as essentially indistinguishable 
from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic 
operations under 14 CFR part 121 [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-
14/part-121]. Specifically, the size, scope, frequency, and complexity 
of charter operations conducted as ``on-demand'' operations under the 
part 135 operating rules has grown significantly over the past 10 
years--increasing by over 3,300 percent. While the FAA has adjusted its 
oversight of these increased operations, the NOI announced that FAA is 
considering whether a regulatory change may be appropriate to ensure 
the management of the level of safety necessary for those operations 
that are indistinguishable from part 121 operations. To better inform a 
future rulemaking, the NOI specifically solicited information regarding 
the effects of any removal of the public charter exception (including 
any effect on service to small and underserved communities); potential 
impacts on competition, innovation, and emerging technologies; 
alternative regulatory structures that could achieve FAA's safety 
goals; and the reasonable period of time needed to allow affected 
operators to transition their operations to the applicable operating 
parts of 14 CFR.
    The FAA evaluated approximately 60,000 public comments received in 
response to the NOI and on June 17, 2024, announced next steps. The FAA 
intends to initiate a rulemaking to amend part 110 definitions of 
``scheduled,'' ``on demand,'' and ``supplemental'' operations. If 
finalized, the effect of this proposed rule change would be that public 
charters will be subject to operating rules based on the same safety 
parameters as other non-public charter operations.
    Additionally, the FAA will convene a Safety Risk Management Panel 
(SRMP) to assess the feasibility of a new operating authority for 
scheduled part 135 operations in 10-30 seat aircraft. The panel will 
dig into the data as we work to address the risks that exist today as 
well as think about the future of the national airspace system.

    Question 2. BNSF Railway, with support from the Brotherhood of 
Railway Carmen (BRC), has petitioned the FRA to approve expansion of 
its current Brake Health Effectiveness (BHE) waiver, which allows for 
the use of wayside technology to help determine the health of train 
braking systems. Several years' worth of collected safety data shows 
that BHE is over 10 times more effective than a walking visual 
inspection (at an intermediate inspection point) in identifying brake 
defects on trains, which are then remediated by professional carmen 
represented by the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (BRC). The Joint 
Waiver Test Committee, which is comprised of railroad labor and 
management representatives along with FRA professional staff, voted 
unanimously on June 6 of this year to approve expanded use of this 
technology to monitor the brake health of BNSF coal trains. Given rail 
management and labor support along with the demonstrated and compelling 
safety improvements from utilization of BHE, what is the anticipated 
timeline for Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approval of the 
pending waiver expansion petition, which we understand has already been 
reviewed by the FRA's Safety Board?
    Answer. The FRA has broad discretionary authority to waive the 
requirement to comply with any rule, regulation, or order upon finding 
that doing so is ``in the public interest and consistent with railroad 
safety.'' 49 U.S.C. Sec.  20103(d). FRA received a petition from BNSF 
to expand its BHE waiver. FRA considers every request for waiver on its 
own merits and strives to act on waiver petitions in as timely a manner 
as possible. FRA investigates and analyzes the facts and circumstances 
of each petition to determine whether granting the requested relief is 
justified. In doing so, FRA staff conduct a preliminary review of an 
incoming petition to determine whether it meets the minimum regulatory 
requirements and is complete. If a petition meets these requirements, 
FRA will provide a public comment period. FRA will also conduct an 
appropriate technical analysis and may conduct a field investigation. 
Only after consideration of all relevant information and data, 
including any public comments received, may FRA issue a decision on the 
incoming request, explaining the reasons for granting or denying the 
request. FRA will make a determination on this waiver petition once 
review is complete.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Lance Gooden

    Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, please give an estimate of how 
much the government plans to spend on high-speed rail. Will new taxes 
be paying for these high-speed rail projects?
    Answer. Several programs funded under the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law (BIL) could support high-speed rail projects. Congress has not 
enacted legislation providing dedicated tax revenue for high-speed rail 
nor grant programs dedicated only to high-speed rail. FRA grant 
programs that may fund high-speed rail are competitive grants under 
which applicants compete against various types of rail projects.
    Recent announcements of funding that benefit high-speed rail 
projects include $49 million from the FY21 and $20 million from the 
FY23 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity 
(RAISE) program for the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), 
approximately $3 billion each to Nevada Department of Transportation 
for the Brightline West Project and to CHSRA under the FY22-23 Federal-
State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program, and up to 
$201.95 million from the FY22 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and 
Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program for CHSRA. CRISI funds for CHSRA 
will complete grade separations of roads intersecting with parallel 
existing freight and new high-speed rail lines. In June of 2023, $25 
million was provided from the 2023 RAISE program for the San Bernadino 
County Transportation Authority for the stations to serve the 
Brightline West high-speed rail. Additionally, under the FY22 Corridor 
Identification and Development Program, FRA selected several new high-
speed rail corridors to receive up to $500,000 for early corridor 
planning efforts: Amtrak Texas High-Speed Rail Corridor; Brightline 
West High-Speed Corridor; California High-Speed Rail Phase 1 Corridor; 
Cascadia High-Speed Ground Transportation; Charlotte, North Carolina, 
to Atlanta, Georgia, Corridor; Fort Worth to Houston High-Speed Rail 
Corridor; and High Desert Intercity High-Speed Rail Corridor.

    Question 2.a. Secretary Buttigieg, why did NHTSA not conduct this 
study before the Office of Vehicle Safety and Compliance (OVSC) decided 
to inform hundreds of dealerships that these safety devices were not in 
compliance?
    Answer. Pulsing brake lights are not permitted under the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), which require brake lights to 
be steady burning. NHTSA has issued interpretations dating back over 40 
years making clear that pulsing lights are not steady burning and 
therefore not permitted under the FMVSS. Automakers cannot and do not 
produce new vehicles with pulsing brake lights. NHTSA is concerned that 
a small number of companies are nevertheless selling aftermarket 
products to alter those required brake lights in a way that takes them 
out of compliance with the FMVSS. These aftermarket products are not 
directly regulated by NHTSA, and we are concerned that other 
stakeholders--including some states that have allowed pulsing brake 
lights on the road and some dealerships to whom these products are 
being marketed--are being misled or are unaware of the federal 
requirement of steady burning brake lights. That federal requirement 
helps ensure safety, including by providing a consistent, well-
understood signal to other road users when a vehicle is braking. 
Because of the federal requirement, dealerships installing these 
aftermarket products are at risk of violating the law, potentially 
subjecting them to civil penalties. NHTSA expects entities to comply 
with the requirements of the FMVSS.

    Question 2.b. In your response to a letter my colleagues and I sent 
on September 15, 2023, your agency said NHTSA ``is working to conduct 
the research specified in House of Representatives Report 116-106.'' 
\1\ When can Congress finally expect NHTSA to publish this study?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Acting Administrator Ann Carlson, Response to Rep. Gooden's 
September 15, 2023, Letter on Pulsating Brake Lights, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
September 22, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The Department expects the new pulsing lights study to be 
published as soon as practicable after the research is completed, which 
may take several years. Effective research programs often take years to 
complete to ensure that they are designed and implemented to ensure 
reliable data and meaningful findings. This new study is in addition to 
our ongoing program of research related to flashing and pulsing lights. 
Previous research in this area has examined the potential to capture 
visual attention with pulsating or flashing lamps. NHTSA's ongoing 
research, which has included literature reviews and coordination with 
other parts of the Department and other government agencies, informed 
its plan for a new program of study. This study will explore potential 
benefits and consequences of pulsing lights, including distraction and 
safety impacts on advanced technologies and vehicle automation.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Tracey Mann

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, the Department of Transportation has 
failed repeatedly to comply with Congressionally set deadlines. One of 
these delayed decision-makings has had a significant impact on 
communities like Hays, Dodge City, Garden City, Liberal, and Salina in 
the Big First district, as well as several rural communities across 
America. SkyWest Airlines waited months for a decision regarding its 
safety application for SkyWest Charter, to operate flights in small 
communities, and is still waiting on a decision regarding its economic 
application. Mr. Secretary, what is the timeline for this decision? Are 
you able to commit to that timeline in writing in 2 weeks?
    Answer. This application is under active consideration, and the 
merits of the application cannot be commented on as it is currently 
under review. The importance of the application is recognized. It 
entails both economic and safety authorities that must be considered, 
and it requires a very thorough and conservative look. The Department 
is not in a position at this time to provide an update regarding the 
date of the disposition but can affirm that the matter is under active 
consideration.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
         Department of Transportation, from Hon. Rudy Yakym III

    Question 1. The drone industry currently lacks an established 
regulatory structure setting standards for beyond visual line of sight 
(BVLOS) operations, creating a great deal of uncertainty that is 
impeding the growth of the drone industry.
    Our Committee heard testimony from American drone companies safely 
completing hundreds of thousands of deliveries--in other countries. 
They're forced abroad because these other countries have regulatory 
structures in place to allow for safe and routine beyond visual line of 
sight (BVLOS) drone operations. The FAA, meanwhile, has moved all too 
slowly in publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking on BVLOS 
operations.
    When can we expect a proposed and final BVLOS rule from the FAA?
    Answer. As noted in the Fall Unified Agenda, the FAA anticipates 
publication of the Notice of Public Rulemaking (NPRM) in August 2024. 
After publication of the NPRM, the FAA will devote the necessary 
resources to publish the final rule as quickly as possible.

    Question 2. The process to designate FAA Recognized Flying Areas 
(FRIAs) has been inconsistent and resulted in the denial of sites that 
have been operating, without incident, for decades. Sites have been 
denied that have even gone through the FAA's Safety Risk Management 
process and were approved to fly at altitudes above 400 feet.
    Question 2.a. Will you provide my office the policies, performed 
safety analysis, and data used to justify a denial of FRIA status to 
existing UAS flying sites?
    Answer. The regulations requiring the remote identification of 
unmanned aircraft mandate that the FAA assess FAA Recognized Flying 
Area (FRIA) applications against the criteria in 14 CFR part 89. The 
FAA will consider the proximity of airports and heliports to a proposed 
FRIA location. The FAA must be able to identify UAS operating over and 
near airports and heliports to ensure the safe and efficient use of the 
airspace in areas where aircraft are taking off and landing. When 
aircraft are operating close to the ground, the potential for 
interactions between unmanned aircraft (UA) and other aircraft 
increases, as does the severity of potential consequences from failing 
to comply with applicable operating rules. The FAA will deny a request 
to establish a FRIA if the FAA determines that operations of UA without 
remote identification in the requested area may pose an unacceptable 
risk to the safe and efficient use of the airspace near an airport or 
heliport.

    Question 2.b. Will you also explain how FRIA status promotes the 
safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft and the safety and 
security of persons or property on the ground?
    Answer. FRIAs are approved or denied after the FAA evaluates the 
proposed FRIA location in accordance with the applicable regulatory 
standards. The FAA considers factors such as how operations of UA 
without Remote ID at the proposed FRIA location could affect the safe 
and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft and the safety and 
security of persons or property on the ground. If a FRIA is approved, 
the FAA has determined that the safe and efficient use of airspace by 
other aircraft and the safety and security of persons or property on 
the ground are not adversely affected by operations of UA without 
Remote Identification at that FRIA location.
    The purpose of a FRIA is to provide an area in which a person may 
operate a UA without remote identification, subject to certain 
conditions. In assessing whether the establishment of a FRIA would 
affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft, the 
FAA will consider the proximity of airports and heliports to a proposed 
FRIA location. The FAA needs to be able to identify UA operating over 
and near airports and heliports in order to ensure the safe and 
efficient use of the airspace in areas where aircraft are taking off 
and landing. When aircraft are operating close to the ground, the 
potential for interactions between UA and other aircraft increases, as 
does the severity of potential consequences from failing to comply with 
applicable operating rules. The FAA also considers the proximity of a 
proposed FRIA to areas of known aviation-related activity such as 
parachute jump areas, hang glider launch areas, and hot air balloon 
launch areas.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, there have been numerous public reports 
about the severe shortage of air traffic controllers. As you know, 
there are 1,200 fewer fully certified controllers today than ten years 
ago, and you have said publicly that the FAA needs to have about 3,000 
additional controllers to return to healthy staffing levels. How can 
you reassure our Committee that DOT and FAA will prioritize this issue, 
conduct maximum hiring of new controllers, and continue to request 
adequate resources from Congress to address this problem?
    Answer. Ensuring that FAA returns to healthy staffing levels is 
among my top priorities. For FY 2024, the FAA plans to hire and train 
1,800 controllers, an increase of 300 above the levels for FY 2023. The 
President's FY 2025 budget request includes funding for the hiring and 
training of an additional 2,000 controllers The FAA Academy's FY 2024 
training schedule will support the FAA's overall goal to hire 1,800 
controllers. The budget request will allow the FAA to continue progress 
toward attaining the necessary Certified Professional Controller 
staffing levels to meet current traffic demands, which have returned 
to, or in some markets exceeded, pre-pandemic levels. The 2024 
Controller Workforce Plan released in April includes facility-specific 
staffing targets from both the Staffing Standards process and the 
Collaborative Resource Workgroup process.
    Congress can help us ensure that we return quickly to healthy 
controller staffing levels through your continued support during the 
annual budget.

    Question 4. Earlier this year, the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) put forward a new rule that would require railroads to phase out 
older locomotives and retrofit and convert them to newer locomotives 
over the next few years. It appears that this rule may cause problems 
for our nation's supply chain.
    Short-line freight railroads have raised grave concerns about the 
enormous cost to comply with this mandate. In fact, CARB acknowledged 
in its May 26, 2022 Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment that some 
short-line railroads ``would be eliminated'' due to the cost to comply.
    Question 4.a. Given your role as a leader on the White House Supply 
Chain Disruptions Task Force, are you concerned about the impact that 
this rule will have on supply chains?
    Answer. The mission of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 
to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and 
goods for a strong America, now and in the future.
    Specifically, FRA is supporting the short line industry in efforts 
to reduce emissions through its Locomotive Replacement Initiative which 
utilizes Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements 
(CRISI) grant funds for the purchase of cleaner locomotives, including 
zero-emission battery-electric switcher locomotives.
    Additionally, FRA supports industry through research and 
development of clean energy solutions. Most recently, FRA's Offices of 
Railroad Safety, and Research, Data and Innovation hosted an 
international workshop on rail decarbonization [https://
railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/rail-getting-
track-decarbonization] from May 15-18, 2023, in Denver, CO. The 
workshop convened in-person discussions between U.S. and international 
rail and clean energy experts on rail decarbonization technologies and 
strategies.

    Question 4.b. Given your role as the Secretary of Transportation, 
are you concerned about the impact this rule could have on the short-
line freight industry?
    Answer. FRA is always concerned about the effect state regulations 
have on industry. As stated above, FRA is supporting the short line 
industry in efforts to reduce emissions through its Locomotive 
Replacement Initiative and through research and development efforts.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
     Department of Transportation, from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, this committee has long supported the 
Recreational Trails Program (RTP). The RTP is premised on funding by 
non-highway recreational fuel taxes being used in support of the 
nation's trails. In July 2021, the Department of Transportation 
submitted a report to Congress that indicated:

        `` . . . for the past 3 years for which data are available, the 
        estimated amount of taxes on non-highway use of recreational 
        vehicles is $843,422,069 (average of $281,140,690/year). The 
        annual funding amount provided by the Fixing America's Surface 
        Transportation Act for the Recreational Trails program is 
        approximately $84 million.''

    Would you support reducing this significant gap between what is 
owed to RTP and what is actually funded each year?
    Answer. The amount of funds set aside for each state for the 
Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is determined by statute. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) continued the RTP as a set-aside 
under the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside. Per 23 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec.  133(h)(5) and 133(h)(6)(A), an amount equal to the State's 
Fiscal Year 2009 RTP apportionment is set aside from the state's TA 
Set-Aside funds for recreational trails projects unless the state opts 
out. Recreational trails provide safe, accessible, equitable, and 
comfortable connections for transportation and recreation networks and 
are part of a resilient transportation system. The RTP supports various 
trail uses, encourages trail user cooperation, and drives economic 
development in both urban and rural communities.
    In addition to RTP, several formula and discretionary programs are 
available for trail and related projects. FHWA published a 
comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities [https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/
funding_opportunities.pdf] table to highlight potential eligibility for 
pedestrian and bicycle activities and projects under DOT surface 
transportation funding programs.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, the Recreational Trails Program 
continues to fund and maintain trails throughout the country, which is 
consistent with the Administration's commitment to outdoor recreation. 
Please describe your commitment to this important program and how we 
can grow it.
    Answer. As part of the America the Beautiful initiative, DOT 
recognizes the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) as supporting states 
in developing, maintaining, and improving access to park and recreation 
facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail 
users. The Department is committed to outdoor recreation efforts, and 
FHWA has published numerous guidance documents and other publications 
that are available to stakeholders on its website on a wide range of 
topics, such as trails and resilience and electric bicycles. FHWA is 
coordinating with the U.S. Forest Service to provide Forest Service 
publications and videos to the public and is working with the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to 
develop training on transportation and trail networks.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
         Department of Transportation, from Hon. John Garamendi

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to see your Department 
implementing the President's policy and mine on ``Make It In America.'' 
On March 17, 2023, the Federal Highway Administration announced public 
comment on the 1983 waiver of ``Buy America'' requirements for 
manufactured products used in federally funded road projects. I and 
other members of the Congressional Labor Caucus submitted a comment 
letter asking that the wavier be repealed in full so that taxpayer 
dollars spent on roadway infrastructure support American manufacturing.
    Mr. Secretary, when can we expect the Federal Highway 
Administration to rescind that blanket 1983 waiver of Buy America for 
manufactured produced used in federally funded roadway projects?
    Answer. FHWA published its review of its existing general 
applicability waivers via a request for comment in the Federal Register 
on March 17, 2023, soliciting comments on FHWA's long-standing general 
waiver for manufactured products, with the comment period ending May 
22, 2023. In September 2023, DOT announced its plans to publish a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the application of Buy America 
to manufactured products. This rulemaking would consider withdrawing 
the 1983 waiver of Buy America requirements for manufactured products 
while also proposing standards and requirements to determine the extent 
to which a manufactured product must comply with Buy America. FHWA 
published an NPRM on March 12, 2024 proposing to discontinue its 
general waiver of Buy America requirements for manufactured products. 
The comment period closed on May 13, 2024, and FHWA is currently 
reviewing comments.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, Section 24111 of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act reauthorized the Motorcyclist Advisory Council 
through November 15, 2027. The 2021 law also directed USDOT to 
reestablish the Advisory Council within 90 days of enactment.
    Can you please confirm when USDOT expects to re-constitute and 
solicit appointments to the Motorcyclist Advisory Council?
    Answer. The Federal Register Notice of establishment of the 
Motorcyclist Advisory Council was published on September 25, 2023, and 
the Charter was posted on the FACA GSA database on September 19, 2023. 
The time period for submitting applications for membership closed 
December 15, 2023, and DOT is currently reviewing the applications 
received.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
         Department of Transportation, from Hon. Julia Brownley

    Question 1.a. Do you agree that DOT should ensure federal grant 
funding is not being used on Chinese military technology that creates a 
national security surveillance risk, such as drones, LIDAR, 
telecommunications hardware, and cameras? What safeguards does the 
Department have in place to ensure American tax dollars do not go to 
Chinese military fusion companies?
    Answer. The Department does not have a separate system or protocol 
to address this important issue but relies on systematically 
implementing the appropriate laws and Executive Orders, and their 
implementing guidance, as issued by the Federal Acquisition Council, 
and through the many agencies with responsibility for national and 
homeland security, and for trade matters. In execution of contracts, 
grants, and formula funding, the Department ensures that all 
requirements, such as Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) 
requirements, flow down to those executing projects.
    Specifically, the Department agrees that federal grant funding 
should not be used on Chinese military technology that creates a 
national security surveillance risk. However, we acknowledge that the 
FAA needs to continue to utilize Chinese-made drones when testing/
evaluating UAS detection/mitigation technologies/systems and in UAS 
Airport Applications research. For each UAS research project, the FAA 
ensures that contractors we support follow Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) guidance on the use of foreign manufactured drones, and 
that operations are conducted in a manner that will not pose a threat 
to national security or the national airspace.

    Question 1.b. Further, I understand that the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) still uses drones made by Chinese companies in its 
work, and may permit third party contractors to fly DJI drones to 
inspect the FAA's national infrastructure. Can you commit to reviewing 
this matter and ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are not used to 
fund the operation of Chinese drone technology?
    Answer. The Department met the requirements of E.O. 13981, 
Protecting the United States From Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
(January 22, 2021), on schedule, and completed implementation steps. 
The Department remains committed to implementing the procurement, 
contracting, and grantmaking guidance provided by the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, Executive Orders, various import and trade 
restrictions, Buy American requirements, and similar directives. I 
commit to reviewing this important matter with the FAA.

    Question 2. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) 
Program minimum standards required that all EV chargers meet mandatory 
interoperability, network portability, and smart charge management 
capability standards.
    While these requirements do not apply to the Federal Transit 
Administration's (FTA) Low- and No-Emission Vehicle Program, as it is 
not a title 23 funded program, the need for interoperability and smart 
charge management capabilities is equally critical to transit charging.
    Question 2.a. Will the Department use its existing authority under 
the next round of Low No to require all EV chargers to conform to 
interoperability standards as is required in the NEVI Program?
    Answer. In general, transit vehicle manufacturers already are using 
a common standard for vehicle charging infrastructure. FTA will 
consider whether it is appropriate to include NEVI standards as a 
consideration in future Low-No notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs).

    Question 2.b. What steps is the Department and the Federal Transit 
Administration taking to future proof these critical investments made 
in communities across the country?
    Answer. For zero-emission vehicles funded under FTA's Buses and Bus 
Facilities Program or the Low or No Emission Vehicle Program, the law 
requires applicants to develop a fleet transition plan examining 
elements including: strategies for how the applicant intends to use the 
current request for resources and future acquisition; addressing the 
availability of current and future resources to meet costs for the 
transition and implementation; consideration of policy and legislation 
impacting relevant technologies; evaluation of existing and future 
facilities and their relationship to the transition; a description of 
the partnership with the utility or alternative fuel provider; and an 
examination of the impact of the transition on the applicant's current 
workforce. These plans help ensure the future proofing of the 
investments provided by these programs. In addition, FTA is providing 
significant resources through the Transit Workforce Center to assist 
agencies in the development and examination of workforce needs included 
in such plans.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
      Department of Transportation, from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.

    Question 1. When it comes to public transit, MTA is not the only 
system that services and is responsible for getting commuters to and 
from the proposed congestion pricing area in midtown and lower 
Manhattan. NJ TRANSIT and PATH provide critical service across the 
Hudson River for residents of New Jersey who commute into New York City 
daily.
    Some of my constituents may now be forced to pay an additional 
$6,000 annually to commute into the city thanks to this congestion 
pricing tax on drivers into the city. They may choose to use transit 
instead.
    Mr. Secretary, do you believe it makes sense for trans-Hudson 
transit options not to receive any of the funding generated by this 
program?
    Answer. The decision on the use of highway tolling revenue is 
generally a decision of the respective state, as it is with this 
project. The New York State legislature passed the MTA Reform and 
Traffic Mobility Act (the Traffic Mobility Act) in April 2019 with the 
goal of reducing traffic congestion within the Manhattan Central 
Business District (CBD) and creating a dedicated revenue stream to fund 
transit capital projects in New York: 80% to New York City Transit, 10% 
to Long Island Railroad, 10% to Metro North Railroad.

    Question 2. According to FRA safety data, there have been more than 
500 rail accidents since the Norfolk Southern derailment in East 
Palestine.
    Could you share the breakdown of train accidents by Class I 
railroad, other than grade crossing incidents?
    Answer:

 Class One Train Accidents (Feb 2023 Thru March 2024) Excl. Highway-Rail
                           Crossing Incidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Rate
            RAILROAD              Accidents     Total Miles      (PMM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF............................     432.00    175,601,776.00      2.460
CN..............................      58.00     22,843,464.00      2.539
CP..............................       1.00      2,825,120.00      0.354
CPKC............................      15.00     17,921,570.00      0.837
CSX.............................     262.00     74,712,943.00      3.507
KCS.............................       1.00      3,503,447.00      0.285
NS..............................     353.00     92,176,486.00      3.830
UP..............................     585.00    133,001,133.00      4.398
Class Ones \\...........   1,640.00    514,720,575.00      3.186
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ NOTE: Class One totals don't sum to total because some
  accidents involve more than one railroad. This prevents double-
  counting. Rate Calculated per million train miles.


    Question 3. In the hearing, it was suggested that there have been 
double the average number of train derailments in 2023 compared to 
2022. You indicated this was false during your testimony but were not 
given a chance to provide the full data.
    How many derailments have there been this year? Is this double the 
average from last year?
    Answer. FRA uses derailment rate, defined as derailments per 
million train miles (on mainline and other track, e.g., sidings) or 
derailments per million yard switching miles (within rail yards), to 
capture the idea of an average in a precise manner. The following graph 
shows derailment rate for the last decade.


                   Data for 2024 is through March 31.

    The rate has not doubled since 2022. The rate increased slightly in 
2023 and has been slightly lower thus far in 2024. Over the last 
decade, the derailment rate has been relatively stable.



    Over the last decade, derailment rates have been rising in rail 
yards but holding steady or decreasing on mainline track. The yard 
derailment rate is lower in the first three months of 2024 than in 
2022.

    Question 4. We all have seen the chaos that results from freight 
railroad service disruptions, both because of external factors and 
their own decisions regarding scheduling service. Where there is 
vagueness concerning service standard requirements, freight railroads, 
especially the Class I carriers, are incentivized to make decisions 
based on financial considerations, rather than what will provide the 
best service to rail shippers and their clients.
    Proposals have been made by me and my colleagues in the Senate that 
would statutorily clarify the service standards, known as common 
carrier obligations and establish specific criteria for the Surface 
Transportation Board to consider when weighing whether a rail carrier 
has violated that requirement. If a bill like this was to be enacted, 
the STB would be empowered to qualitatively analyze whether a rail 
carrier has violated their obligation to provide minimum service 
standards and rectify the situation.
    Mr. Secretary, I understand that the STB isn't a modal agency of 
the Department of Transportation. However, I would like to get your 
thoughts on this issue. Do you believe legislation that clarifies 
common carrier obligations and empowers the STB to conduct analysis of 
possible service standard violations would enhance the level of freight 
rail service provided to shippers and clients across the country?
    Answer. DOT recognizes there have been supply-chain challenges. To 
improve rail service and safety, DOT, with funding provided by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has invested in training programs and 
workforce development, and in projects across the country to improve 
rail access.
    With respect to proposed legislation to clarify service standards 
and the common carrier obligation, DOT defers to the STB as to the 
effect this legislation will have on its ability to provide oversight. 
DOT would like to commend and highlight the STB's recent efforts to 
address inadequate rail service issues, including the STB's Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in Reciprocal Switching for Inadequate 
Service, Docket No. EP 711 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Sept. 7, 2023). The 
NPRM presents an opportunity to address critical rail service issues 
through reciprocal switching reform, and the Board's proposed 
performance standards are intended to reflect a minimum level of rail 
service below which regulatory intervention may be warranted. DOT 
remains ready to assist the STB, where appropriate, as this effort 
proceeds. DOT also appreciates the STB's continuous efforts to address 
significant service problems in Urgent Issues in Freight Rail Service--
Railroad Reporting, Docket No. EP 770 (Sub-No. 1), including service 
recovery reporting requirements for Class I carriers. Reporting metrics 
collected under Docket No. EP 770 have provided DOT with invaluable 
insight into factors that affect the safety, reliability, and 
efficiency of railroad operations.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
        Department of Transportation, from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier

    Question 1. I have been a long time proponent of transit and have 
been working to make all forms of transportation more effective and 
accessible in the district I represent and the greater San Francisco 
Bay Area. There, we have 27 different transit agencies, from bus, to 
rail, to commuter train, that serve a 9 county metropolitan megaregion 
that consists of almost 7.5 million people, all of which have had 
varying degrees of `returning to normal' following massive decreases in 
ridership during the pandemic. How can we help support transit agencies 
in large metropolitan areas work more cohesively and incentivize 
coordination and improved performance of transit to serve riders?
    Answer. Transit agencies are key partners in the federal 
transportation planning and programming process. We want to make sure 
that all 27 agencies in the Bay Area have a seat at the table and are 
proactively involved in identifying transportation solutions that 
improve mobility for all. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission or MTC directly distributes more than $1 
billion a year to local public transit agencies and other recipients. 
This means that collaboration among these agencies is critical, 
particularly to ensure public transportation patrons have a seamless 
experience among the various transit providers that serve the region. 
As MTC makes updates to the long-range transportation plan for the 
area, establishing performance measures on transit access and mobility 
will help ensure accountability for ongoing service improvements.
    Another consideration for improving transit performance is for 
large transit agencies to direct more of their federal dollars to 
conduct up-to-date on-board transit rider surveys. These surveys 
identify how the traveling public utilizes the regional transit system 
at various points in time. This information is essential to fully 
understand the new normal of travel patterns following the pandemic. 
The MTC has been one of the leaders in collecting on-board transit 
rider surveys. However, due to their costs, MTC has historically 
collected these surveys on a rolling five-year basis. Having a more 
frequent assessment of post-pandemic transit rider patterns would allow 
transit providers in large metropolitan areas to identify the most 
effective, customer-focused transit solutions.
    Additionally, supporting Transit Oriented Development (TOD) around 
transit stations to increase ridership and generate economic activity 
is a key component. Since 2015, DOT has awarded the Bay Area Rapid 
Transit and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority over $6 
million combined in TOD Planning grants to improve transit access and 
performance in the region. There are also other discretionary grant 
opportunities at the Department that support coordinated regional 
transportation planning efforts, such as Rebuilding American 
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), and Reconnecting 
Communities and Neighborhoods. When communities in the region work 
collectively to support or jointly apply for these opportunities, it 
has the potential for the application(s) to be more competitive.

    Question 2. How can we ensure that IRA and BIL funding is being 
used effectively? How can we support the DOT in working to provide 
proper oversight of program funding disbursement and use?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) make historic investments in the transportation 
sector: improving public safety and climate resilience, creating jobs 
across the country, speeding the transition to green transportation 
options, and delivering a more equitable future. The Department takes 
its oversight role in the implementation of these laws seriously, and 
is working expeditiously to get projects underway that will deliver on 
the Administration's commitments. DOT has worked since the enactment of 
these two laws to stand up a robust BIL and IRA coordination function 
between the Department's Operating Administrations, and has established 
a Project Delivery Center of Excellence to accelerate the completion of 
local transportation infrastructure investments. The Department is also 
providing unprecedented levels of technical assistance to program 
applicants and recipients, particularly those in rural and 
disadvantaged communities that may not be familiar with the federal 
grantmaking process. Finally, the Department has prioritized internal 
controls and monitoring of payment accuracy to help avoid waste, fraud 
and abuse, and has set a goal of 99% accuracy in the Agency's Annual 
Performance Plan.

    Question 3. Given the historic grant opportunities that the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law offers local agencies, how will you 
commit to continue working with local agencies, like the Contra Costa 
Transportation Authority in the district I represent, that have a 
strong history of federal partnership delivering innovative projects 
that provide safer, equitable, and accessible transportation 
infrastructure?
    Answer. The Department will continue partnering across federal, 
state, and local agencies to deliver transformational infrastructure 
projects. The National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance 
Bureau, known as the Build America Bureau (Bureau), draws on expertise 
and resources throughout the Department to serve as the point of 
coordination for states, municipalities, and project sponsors. The 
Bureau advances investment by lending federal funds to qualified 
borrowers; clearing roadblocks for creditworthy projects; encouraging 
best practices in project planning, funding, financing, and delivery; 
and fully using available lending capacity while protecting taxpayer 
resources. The Bureau develops DOT-wide policies to improve 
transportation infrastructure financing and project delivery, develops 
new initiatives to facilitate public and private financing mechanisms, 
and analyzes the cost-effectiveness of new and alternative approaches 
across transportation modes and asset types.
    In addition, the Bureau offers technical assistance and grant 
programs to support project planning, development, and funding and 
financing strategies to deliver transformative infrastructure. The 
Bureau helps local, regional, and state governments develop their 
capacity and remove barriers to funding, financing, and delivering 
these projects.
    Bureau programs include:
      Technical assistance grants to advance expertise and 
capacity in innovative funding, finance, and project delivery.
      +  We announced selections for the third round of Regional 
Infrastructure Accelerators,\1\ now totaling 24 entities and $34 
million. Regional Infrastructure Accelerators help communities develop 
infrastructure priorities and financing strategies to accelerate 
project development. DOT anticipates releasing the Notice of Funding 
Opportunity for $10 million appropriated in FY 2024 in calendar year 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-
transportation-advances-americas-infrastructure-expanded-regional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      +  The Thriving Communities Program funds Capacity Builders who 
provide technical assistance to help state, local, Tribal and 
territorial governments better access historic levels of federal 
funding for projects in their communities. For FY 2022, DOT selected 64 
urban, rural, and Tribal communities for support, including the Anaheim 
Transportation Network, Nebraska's Metropolitan Planning Agency, and 
Texas' VIA Metropolitan Transit Agency. In April 2024, DOT announced 
$23.6 million in cooperative agreements with three national Capacity 
Builders and six regional Capacity Builders through the second round of 
funding for the Thriving Communities Program. A total of 112 
communities will receive support through the second round of the 
program, bringing the total number of communities supported to 176 
across the two program years.
      +  The Rural and Tribal Assistance Pilot Program will provide $10 
million over five years to communities seeking early-stage support in 
developing projects in rural and Tribal communities. DOT received over 
400 applications requesting more than $127 million in response to the 
first Notice of Funding Opportunity. Tribal applicants submitted 70 of 
those applications for $19 million. In fall 2023, the Bureau selected 
13 entities (7 of which are Tribes) to receive a combined $3.4 million, 
including Contra Costa Transportation Authority. In 2024, the Bureau 
anticipates releasing the next Notice of Funding Opportunity for $27 
million ($2 million from BIL and $25 million from FY 2024 
appropriations).
      +  The Bureau released the first Innovative Finance and Asset 
Concessions Grant Program \2\ Notice of Funding Opportunity in March 
2024 for up to $40 million to help localities evaluate public-private 
partnerships and exploring opportunities for innovative project 
financing and delivery. The Bureau received over 50 submissions and 
plans to announce recipients later this calendar year. BIL provided 
this program another $20 million in FY 2025 and $20 million in FY 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/
innovativefinancegrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Financing programs that provide lower interest loans for 
transportation infrastructure projects, including highway, transit, 
passenger rail, certain freight facilities and port projects, rural 
infrastructure, airports, and transit-oriented development. Since Q2 of 
calendar year 2021, the Bureau has executed 34 loan agreements (10 of 
which were refinancings) for $12.1 billion. Of the 24 net new loans, 25 
percent were for transit projects. Currently, the Bureau's project 
pipeline includes $19.5 billion, half of which is for transit projects.
      +  The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(TIFIA) program provides loans up to 49 percent of project cost for 
public transportation, transit-oriented development, and rural 
projects, and loans up to 33 percent of project cost for surface 
transportation projects.
      +  The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 
program provides loans up to 100 percent of project cost for passenger, 
freight, and commuter rail and transit-oriented development.
      Other services to advance infrastructure include:
      +  The Bureau conducts one- or two-day technical workshops with 
local and state entities on topics, such as alternative delivery models 
to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and 
identifying transformative projects, including transit projects. Recent 
workshops include Otay Mesa East Inter-Agencies, Austin, Kansas City, 
and Los Angeles Metro.
      +  The Bureau has signed three emerging project agreements for 
enhanced cooperation between the Bureau and project sponsors to advance 
major programs of transportation projects. The Austin, Texas, agreement 
covers 18 projects totaling $22 million. The Kansas City, Missouri, 
agreement covers 7 projects totaling $15 billion. The California 
agreement includes over 30 projects totaling billions of dollars.
      +  The Bureau compiles and disseminates best practices in 
innovative project delivery and financing. For example, the Bureau-FHWA 
co-managed, $5 million Build America Center, led by the University of 
Maryland and four other universities, provides research, seminars, and 
analysis of best practices to share with localities.

    Transit agencies such as the Contra Costa Transportation Authority 
(CCTA) are key partners in the transportation planning and programming 
process. DOT will ensure CCTA has a seat at the table with respect to 
regional transportation decision making and has opportunities for 
proactive involvement in the identification of solutions that improve 
mobility for all. Through technical assistance opportunities and 
engaging on discretionary grants for transportation planning 
activities, DOT will help ensure CCTA is well positioned to incorporate 
strategies that improve transit access and mobility in the metropolitan 
planning process. These efforts will help the agency and the region 
continue achieving its goals related to delivering innovative projects 
that focus on safety, equity, and accessibility.
    Within the Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, 
the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success 
(ROUTES) Initiative prioritizes the needs of rural America by 
supporting rural transportation policy and equitable access for rural 
and Tribal communities that face challenges relating to transportation 
safety, mobility, and economic development. ROUTES develops user-
friendly tools and information, aggregates DOT resources, and provides 
technical assistance to better connect rural project sponsors with the 
funding, financing, and outreach resources available. For instance, the 
new Rural Grant Applicant Toolkit for Competitive Federal 
Transportation Funding helps rural applicants understand the federal 
grant process and the opportunities that are available to support rural 
transportation projects. The ROUTES Initiative also partners with 
USDA's Rural Partners Network and DOE's Interagency Working Group on 
Coal & Power Plant Communities & Economic Revitalization to support 
rural communities in need of targeted technical assistance.

    Question 4. Aviation reporting requirements for airlines and 
manufacturers are critical to enhancing aviation safety, improving 
transparency and accountability, and allowing the FAA to conduct proper 
oversight of aircraft in the national airspace system. However, not all 
airlines employ the same reporting regimes or standards, resulting in 
varying frequencies and quantities of data. After the two fatal Boeing 
737 MAX accidents, the FAA took action to ensure the safety of the 
aircraft upon its return to service--in part increasing the scrutiny of 
reported issues. Lately, we've seen large discrepancies in the number 
of reports in the Service Difficulty Reporting system for Boeing 737MAX 
aircraft coming from various airlines.
    Question 4.a. Can you clarify whether this is a result of issues 
with the aircraft, or differences in reporting systems? If the latter, 
can you explain how the difference in reporting systems contributes to 
these discrepancies?
    Answer. The regulatory reporting requirements are the same for all 
airlines (air carriers conducting operations under 14 CFR 121). 
Differences in reporting may be driven by various factors, including 
fleet size, fleet age, operating hours, and environments. Additionally, 
the FAA regulations require that each certificate holder shall report 
any other failure, malfunction, or defect in an aircraft that occurs or 
is detected at any time if, in its opinion, that failure, malfunction, 
or defect has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of an 
aircraft used by it. This requirement is intended to capture data that 
may not otherwise meet the specific reportable criteria. The FAA has 
instituted enhanced monitoring of the 737 MAX fleet safety and 
reliability as it returned to service, comparing data from multiple 
sources using advanced analytic tools to inform our continued 
operational safety process. As part of continued operational safety, 
the FAA regularly reviews and makes safety determinations for potential 
safety issues.

    Question 4.b. How is FAA and DOT working with airlines to resolve 
any reported issues?
    Answer. Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) are a critical component 
of safety management for an operational fleet. The FAA reviews SDRs 
submitted by operators to assess safety trends or the need for 
additional corrective action. The SDR program allows for an exchange of 
information and provides an additional method of communication between 
the FAA and operators concerning in-service problems. The FAA also 
conducts regular oversight of U.S. operators.
    Airlines (i.e., air carriers operating under 14 CFR Part 121) must 
provide SDRs, Mechanical Interruption Summary Reports, and on occasion 
as applicable, Voluntary Disclosure Reports and Safety Management 
System hazard/risk information to their respective Certificate 
Management Offices (CMO). The CMOs review the reported issues to assess 
if the issues are systemic or isolated incidents, if safety trends are 
identified, and/or if corrective actions prevent recurrence. Airlines 
often voluntarily exchange information with the CMOs during their 
corrective action phases. When additional corrective action is needed 
from outside the airline's authority, and that can be facilitated by 
the CMO, the CMOs may reach out to the FAA's Aircraft Evaluation 
Division (AED) and/or the Aircraft Certification Organization (AIR) to 
create a collaborative environment with the airlines, CMO, AEG, AIR and 
potentially with the manufacturer, to collectively address the reported 
issue and design appropriate corrective action(s).

    Question 4.c. Can you explain what DOT and FAA has done to monitor 
and improve the safety of the 737MAX since its return to service?
    Answer. The FAA has instituted enhanced monitoring of the 737 MAX 
fleet safety and reliability as it returned to service, comparing data 
from multiple sources using advanced analytic tools to inform our 
continued operational safety process. As part of continued operational 
safety, the FAA regularly reviews and make safety determinations for 
potential safety issues.
    The FAA has completed the special qualification review required by 
the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act (ACSAA) to 
evaluate all Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) unit 
members (UM). The FAA continues to work with Boeing to implement 
changes in their procedures manual and conduct oversight related to UM 
interference. The FAA is also approving all new unit members for 
Boeing's ODA and has appointed FAA Safety advisors for engineering unit 
members at Boeing. Finally, the FAA continues to work closely with 
Boeing to mature its voluntary Safety Management System.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Greg Stanton

    Question 1. Included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) was 
bipartisan legislation, the ROCKS Act, I led that establishes a working 
group at DOT to examine and draft policies to ensure we have 
sustainable access to construction materials. My home state of Arizona 
has led the way in enacting such policies that keep prices low and 
ensure more sustainable options are available as we work to build the 
infrastructure funded by the BIL. It is my understanding the Federal 
Highway Administration is working to implement this important provision 
and establish the federal working group created by the ROCKS Act, but 
it has still not moved to the Federal Register and is awaiting sign off 
by your office. Would you be willing to investigate this issue and work 
with your team to implement the working group on covered resources?
    Answer. The Working Group on Covered Resources was established in 
accordance with Section 11526 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (chapter 10 of title 5, United 
States Code), on October 5, 2023. The committee and its charter are now 
posted to GSA's FACA database. FHWA published a notice in the Federal 
Register soliciting membership to the Working Group on January 9, 2024. 
The deadline for nominations was March 11, 2024. We are currently 
reviewing the nominations.

    Question 2. Most of us are aware of the shortage of construction 
workers to complete the important projects funded by the BIL. However, 
less prominent, but equally as important, is the shortage of service 
technicians to repair and maintain the heavy equipment and machinery 
essential to building our nation's infrastructure, and ensuring the 
full benefits of the law are realized. According to a report 
commissioned by the AED Foundation, the educational arm of Associated 
Equipment Distributors, the trade association representing dealers of 
heavy equipment, AED members on average are looking to fill nearly 
3,000 service technician positions. Factoring in attrition, and growth, 
this number is expected to increase by at least 30 percent over the 
next 3 years, costing the industry more than $1.1 billion in lost 
economic output, a number expected to double over the next three years. 
What steps is the Administration taking to address these workforce 
shortages for businesses that sell, rent and service the equipment 
needed to rebuild America's infrastructure?
    Answer. To help address growing workforce needs, FHWA is 
implementing the Strategic Workforce Development initiative which is 
focused on assisting those in the infrastructure and transportation 
industries with identifying, training, and placing workers in good-
paying careers. This initiative can be used to assist the 
infrastructure and transportation industries with workforce development 
challenges, including the businesses that sell, rent and service heavy 
equipment. FHWA is also delivering the Transportation Education and 
Training Development and Deployment Program (TETDDP), which provides 
grants to develop, test, and review new curricula and education 
programs to train individuals at all levels of the transportation 
workforce. The program can also be used to implement the new curricula 
and education programs to provide for hands-on career opportunities to 
meet current and future workforce needs.

    Question 3. What is the Department doing to continue the momentum 
undertaken by local agencies to begin transitioning their municipal 
fleets to cleaner-burning propulsion systems? By way of example, the 
FTA's Low-No and Bus & Bus Facilities grant programs have begun 
providing seed money for transit agencies looking to transition their 
overall fleets long-term. What can the Department do to ensure those 
agencies can count on continued, and possibly additional, funding 
opportunities to plan for the higher costs anticipated with these 
newer-technology vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support 
them?
    Answer. Funding provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) 
guarantees more than $1.1 billion per year through fiscal year 2026 to 
assist the industry in transitioning their fleets to low or no emission 
vehicles.

    Question 4. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is making significant 
improvements to transportation systems that will last for generations, 
and while the result can meaningfully transform these communities, it 
often comes at a great expense to small businesses along the 
construction corridor. The City of Phoenix provides localized 
assistance programs to help these businesses; unfortunately, some see 
irrevocable revenue losses and local programs are not enough to make up 
for those losses. Reducing the loss of revenue by issuing grants to 
help these businesses during construction may not only keep the small 
business community afloat, but it can also maintain the unique 
characteristics of these communities. Would the Department consider 
providing direct financial assistance to these businesses affected by 
construction of Capital Investment Grant projects to be an eligible 
project expenditure within the Capital Investment Grant program?
    Answer. A change to the law would be required to allow Capital 
Investment Grants funding to be provided directly to local businesses 
impacted by the transit project construction. Currently only public 
entities are eligible grant recipients.

    Question 5. Are there opportunities for the Department to provide 
additional assistance to already awarded grant funded projects to 
account for inflationary costs?
    Answer. The Department has historically provided flexibility to 
grantees that have experienced hardships due to inflation, national 
disaster, supply chain challenges, and COVID-19 impacts. The Department 
has worked with grantees to amend the scope, schedule, and budget of 
specific grant agreements while still maintaining the statutory 
requirements and competitive award justifications.

    Question 6. Many municipalities, consultants, and contractors that 
are working on grant funded projects are facing staffing challenges and 
other obstacles, which can delay the delivery of grant funded projects. 
Has the Department considered allowing an extension for delivery of 
projects funded by BIL programs?
    Answer. The Department has provided schedule flexibility to 
grantees up to the Congressional mandated deadlines to allow project 
sponsors additional time to complete pre-construction requirements and 
reach signed grant agreements. DOT does not have the authority to waive 
obligation deadlines or construction deadlines established by Congress. 
However, DOT will continue to provide technical assistance and maximum 
flexibility to grantees, as allowable, to ensure awarded projects reach 
completion.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
          Department of Transportation, from Hon. Seth Moulton

    Question 1. I expect that there will be some HSR funding in the 
competitive rail grant announcements coming in the next few months. 
Last year, you made a commitment to getting HSR done in ``2-3 
geographies.''
    What has happened since you made that commitment? Why is the 
administration moving so slowly? Why has it taken almost 3 years into 
this administration to fund high-speed rail?
    Answer. High speed rail projects are eligible for several programs 
funded under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, although there is no 
dedicated funding for high-speed rail. FRA's goal is to consider 
funding high-speed rail projects with available resources under the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and FRA has selected several projects 
for award with services planned to operate at speeds of up to 186 mph 
or greater, including:
      Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) Corridor Identification and 
Development (Corridor ID) Program: Amtrak Texas High-Speed Rail 
Corridor; Brightline West High-Speed Corridor; California High-Speed 
Rail Phase 1 Corridor; Cascadia High-Speed Ground Transportation; 
Charlotte, North Carolina, to Atlanta, Georgia, Corridor; Fort Worth to 
Houston High-Speed Rail Corridor; and High Desert Intercity High-Speed 
Rail Corridor (up to $500,000 each).

      FY22-23 Federal State Partnership for Intercity Passenger 
Rail (FSP-National) Program: California Inaugural High-Speed Rail 
Service Project (up to $3,073,600,000) and Brightline West High-Speed 
Intercity Passenger Rail System Project (up to $3,000,000,000).

      FY22 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 
Improvements (CRISI) Program: Six Grade Separations in the City of 
Shafter Project (up to $201,946,942 awarded to the California High-
Speed Rail Authority)

    Additionally, FRA has continued to work with potential project 
sponsors to maximize the use of domestic manufacturing while also 
ensuring that the safety and reliability of HSR systems is maintained. 
As such, FRA has developed a process, working with project sponsors of 
HSR systems, the Made in America Office within the Office of Management 
and Budget, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, to identify where HSR components 
are not manufactured domestically and develop both a short term and 
long-term strategy for increasing not only domestic manufacturing but 
also maximizing the opportunity to create good paying jobs.

    Question 2. Environmentally beneficial projects like transit 
buildouts go through the same environmental permitting process as 
highway expansions. We have too often seen NEPA being used to end 
environmentally beneficial projects.
    How is DOT thinking about pragmatic changes to NEPA that can help 
environmental outcomes by allowing more environmentally beneficial 
transit projects to be built? What do you need on the Congressional 
level to help in these efforts?
    Answer. Although the statutory requirements for the NEPA 
environmental review process are substantially the same for transit and 
highway projects, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. Sec.  4321 et seq. and 23 
U.S.C. Sec.  139, there are differences, some of which affect the 
ability of sponsors of transit projects to advance their projects as 
quickly as highway projects. The FY 2025 President's Budget includes a 
provision to allow early acquisition of property for transit projects 
similar to what is allowed for highway projects. Currently, transit 
agencies must wait to purchase certain properties until after a NEPA 
decision, which can introduce project risk and delays. The budget 
proposal would allow transit projects the same authority as highway 
projects (see page 888 of Department of Transportation budget appendix, 
available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/
dot_fy2025.pdf).
    Within the current regulatory framework, FTA regularly seeks 
opportunities to streamline the analysis required for transit projects. 
For example, FTA strongly encourages project sponsors to develop 
annotated outlines for environmental impact statements and 
environmental assessments, helping to focus those environmental 
documents on issues of greatest importance. In addition, FTA recently 
issued a Programmatic Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 
Transit Projects in a Federal Register notice. 89 FR 31796 (April 25, 
2024). That particular effort is an update of the previously issued 
programmatic assessment that creates efficiencies for the analysis of 
GHG emissions for transit projects. FTA also continues to process 99% 
of its grants as categorical exclusions, which tend to take from a few 
days to a few months to complete. FTA will continue to seek ways to 
expedite the environmental review process for transit projects and 
encourage more project sponsors to take advantage of existing 
categorical exclusions.

    Question 3. Boston's South Station Expansion listed as one of the 
priorities on the Northeast Corridor Project Inventory. There is a one 
mile gap in the entire Northeast Corridor from Maine to Virginia, which 
exists between North and South Station in Boston. Currently, South 
Station in Boston is the end point of the NEC. This means you are 
cutting off half the city plus the northern half of New England from 
the NEC. At a cost of over $3.5 billion, SSX would be obsolete in 10 
years, while NSRL is a solution for the next century. By expanding 
South Station without building the NSRL, it implies that the North 
Shore of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire don't deserve 
to be connected to the rest of the NEC, and South Station should 
continue to be the terminus of the Northeast Corridor.
    Why is South Station Expansion still a DOT priority ahead of a 
North-South Rail Link? Why would it be a priority to spend $3.3 billion 
to expand South Station, when we could spend $6 billion to connect 
North and South Station and eliminate system redundancies with the 
North-South Rail Link?
    Answer. In its Notice of Proposed Approach to the Northeast 
Corridor Project Inventory, 87 37905 (June 24, 2022), FRA indicated its 
emphasis on the work of the NEC Commission, of which the Massachusetts 
Department of Transportation is a member, as a key input to the NEC 
Project Inventory. Consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Sec.  
24911(e), in developing the first NEC Project Inventory, FRA relied on 
the best available information provided by project sponsors to the NEC 
Commission and published in the NEC Commission's collaborative planning 
documents. This included ensuring the NEC Project Inventory was 
consistent with the projects and project information provided by 
project sponsors as of August 2022 and published in the NEC 
Commission's CONNECT NEC 2035 plan and FY23-FY27 Capital Investment 
Plan.
    As the identified project sponsor, the Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority (MBTA) submitted the Boston South Station 
Expansion project for inclusion in those plans, and accordingly FRA 
included the project in its NEC Project Inventory. The project was 
shown as ``Not Started by 2024'' on the NEC Project Inventory, 
consistent with MBTA's submitted project schedule. The Boston South 
Station Expansion project did not receive a proposed funding allocation 
or anticipated obligation.
    The North South Rail Link project was not submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of Transportation or MBTA to the NEC 
Commission for inclusion in its collaborative planning documents. FRA 
therefore did not include it in the NEC Project Inventory. FRA will be 
updating the NEC Project Inventory every two years at a minimum and 
will continue to rely in large part on NEC Commission work products in 
future updates.

    Question 4. I am happy that the Gateway Project is underway. 
However, it is my worry that building the Hudson Tunnels will leave us 
with the same problem of not having adequate infrastructure to 
accommodate capacity needs.
    Question 4.a. What is the capacity of the planned Gateway tunnel? 
Is this adequate to meet current and future demands on the corridor?
    Answer. Through the NEC FUTURE program (https://www.fra.dot.gov/
necfuture), FRA evaluated the appropriate level of capacity 
improvements on the Northeast Corridor in the context of current and 
future transportation demands; in the NEC FUTURE Record of Decision, 
FRA found that additional infrastructure between Washington, D.C., and 
New Haven, CT, and between Providence, RI, and Boston, MA, was needed 
to achieve service and performance objectives necessary to improve rail 
service. FRA understands the purpose of the Gateway Program of 
projects, of which the Hudson Tunnel Project is one, is to increase 
track, tunnel, bridge and station capacity (https://
www.gatewayprogram.org/) to allow the doubling of passenger trains in 
this section of the Northeast Corridor. As stated in the Record of 
Decision for the Hudson Tunnel Project (https://
www.hudsontunnelproject.com/library), the Project is consistent with 
the NEC FUTURE vision (which included new trans-Hudson tunnel 
investments) and supports the goals of the Gateway Program 
(construction of the new Hudson Tunnel would indeed double track 
capacity between Secaucus Junction Station in New Jersey and Penn 
Station New York in Manhattan). However, a number of other substantial 
infrastructure capacity expansion projects must be completed along this 
stretch of the Northeast Corridor before Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT can 
increase capacity and peak-period train frequency.

    Question 4.b. What is an ideal usage of the NEC given optimal 
speeds and demands? How does this compare to other high-frequency 
corridors abroad?
    Answer. FRA launched the NEC FUTURE program (https://
www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture) to consider the role of rail passenger 
service and evaluate the appropriate level of capacity improvements on 
the Northeast Corridor in the context of current and future 
transportation demands. In the NEC FUTURE Record of Decision found at 
the link provided above, FRA identified corridor-wide service and 
performance objectives for frequencies of up to 10 intercity trains per 
hour between Washington, D.C. and New York City, travel time targets 
such as five hours Boston to Washington, D.C., design speed targets of 
160 MPH on the existing NEC and 220 MPH on new segments, and passenger 
convenience initiatives from integrated commuter and intercity 
operations and ticketing. These objectives will inform planning for 
projects on the NEC over the next decade and beyond. FRA is currently 
engaged with Amtrak to identify service improvement opportunities--with 
a focus on trip time improvement--that can be prioritized for 
accelerated planning and funding.
    Other high-frequency rail corridors abroad offer a similar mix of 
service types but have additional track infrastructure to separate 
frequent stop commuter and intercity trains including express services. 
International high-frequency corridors are also typically part of more 
extensive national rail networks with greater overall mode share and 
utilization.

    Question 4.c. Is a completed Gateway Program sufficient to meet 
demand on what should one day be one of the most heavily trafficked 
rail corridors in the world?
    Answer. The Gateway Program lists as one of its objectives a 
doubling of rail capacity between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn 
Station. FRA does not determine the scope or timing of the Gateway 
Program of projects, and as such, cannot speculate on what service 
levels the full buildout of the Gateway Program will ultimately be 
designed to accommodate. However, FRA did, through the NEC FUTURE 
program (https://www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture), evaluate the appropriate 
level of capacity improvements on the Northeast Corridor to meet 
current and future transportation demands. In the NEC FUTURE Record of 
Decision at the link provided above, FRA found that additional 
infrastructure, such as that envisioned by the Gateway Program, between 
Washington, D.C., and New Haven, CT, and between Providence, RI, and 
Boston, MA, was needed to achieve service and performance objectives 
necessary to improve rail service.

  Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. 
      Department of Transportation, from Hon. Mary Sattler Peltola

    Question 1. Given the safety benefits of ADS-B, what additional 
measures can DOT and FAA take to incentivize further ADS-B equipage? 
The FAA previously ran an ADS-B Rebate program. Would you consider 
restarting the ADS-B Out Rebate program--with greater incentives--to 
assist with improved equipage rates and further enhancing the safety of 
the National Airspace System?
    Answer. In the years prior to the FAA's final rule mandating ADS-B 
going into effect (January 1, 2020), the FAA identified General 
Aviation equipage levels as a barrier to the successful implementation 
of the mandate. Accordingly, the FAA instituted an equipage incentive 
program that provided rebates of up to $500 for the equipage of ADS-B 
Out in eligible aircraft. This program was successful in generating 
incremental equipage while staying under its total program budget ($10 
million). The FAA notes that within the last year, the monthly increase 
in ADS-B Out equipage averaged just over 500 aircraft per month.

    Question 2. Other technologies exist, such as TABS (or Traffic 
Awareness Beacon System), that can also bring about enhanced safety 
through improved traffic awareness. These technologies provide 
important alternatives to ADS-B for gliders, balloons and aircraft 
without electrical systems. Would you consider taking measures to make 
these technologies more widely available in order to enhance the safety 
of the National Airspace System?
    Answer. The FAA is committed to ensuring the safety of the National 
Airspace System (NAS) and ensuring safe separation between all users, 
including gliders, balloons, and aircraft without electrical systems, 
in addition to new users like unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The FAA 
developed a standard order (TSO-C199) that allows manufacturers to 
certify equipment with the desired functionality. As with many 
technologies, market need drives investment. To date, the FAA is not 
aware of any TSO-C199 transmitter solution used on gliders and 
balloons. The FAA ADS-B Out mandate drove down prices and sizes for 
Mode S transponders in general aviation (GA) aircraft, such that the 
differentiation between a modern GA Mode S transponder and a TABS 
device is insignificant. These factors have reduced demand for 
manufacturers to develop TABS avionics, limiting the FAA's influence on 
TABS utilization.
    Additionally, the FAA is exploring options including TABS and 
portable ADS-B to provide additional low-cost options for pilots to 
improve their conspicuity to other users of the NAS, while also 
ensuring those systems can reliably, accurately, and consistently 
provide position and identification information. While these systems do 
not meet the regulatory standard for ADS-B Out, the FAA recognizes the 
safety benefit that such novel devices may provide.

    Question 3. In 2021, the FAA issued the FAA Alaska Aviation Safety 
Initiative (FAASI) final report. Done in response to an NTSB report 
recommendation, FAASI is designed to ensure the FAA is engaging with 
Alaskan stakeholders and ultimately addressing the State's safety 
needs. It is imperative that the FAA not only continue to address the 
FAASI recommendations but also work with the State of Alaska long-term 
to increase aviation safety. Do I have your commitment to ensuring the 
FAA follows through on this?
    Answer. Yes. The FAA continues to work to reduce the fatal and 
serious injury accident rate in Alaska by following the FAA Alaska 
Safety Initiative (FAASI) FY 2023 roadmap and using stakeholder 
feedback to prioritize actions. In FY 2023, the FAASI accomplished all 
goals in accordance with the FY 2023 roadmap and has commenced work on 
all 11 FAASI recommendations. To date, the FAA has completed 3 
recommendations, made significant progress on 4 recommendations, and 
made action plans for the remaining recommendations. The 3 completed 
recommendations are T-Route development, Mountain Pass Working Group, 
and Aeronautical Charting Meetings. Work on the remaining 8 
recommendations will continue through FY 2024 and beyond. The FAASI 
process has been integrated into the regular work cycle of the FAA and 
will continue as such with annual end-of-year reports, stakeholder 
engagement, and roadmaps.