[Senate Hearing 118-722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-722
OVERSIGHT AND BUDGET OF THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-835 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 5, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 14
WITNESS
Bhatt, Hon. Shailen, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
OVERSIGHT AND BUDGET OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Merkley, Kelly, Padilla, Fetterman, Cramer, Lummis, Ricketts,
Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. I am pleased to
call this hearing to order.
I want to begin today by welcoming our witness here,
Shailen Bhatt, the Administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration, previously the Secretary of Transportation for
Colorado and, as I recall, for a small State on the east coast,
Delaware. It is nice to see you again.
This is Administrator Bhatt's third time, I think it is the
third time, appearing before this committee since he was
nominated by President Biden for this job. We are grateful both
for his willingness to serve as our Federal Highway
Administrator and also for his joining us today.
The Federal Highway Administration, as we know, and the
work that it does to strengthen our world-class highway system
is essential to ensuring that both people and goods can get
where they need to go when they need to get there.
As we all know, today's hearing is an opportunity for our
committee to conduct oversight, as well, of the Federal Highway
Administration's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request, as well as
the Administration's implementation of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, which was created, in large part, in this
room, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Together, these laws have enabled the Federal Highway
Administration to make once-in-a-generation investments in our
Nation's roads, our Nation's highways, and our Nation's
bridges.
I want to begin today with a few words about the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. As I have said before, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law represents the single largest investment in
our Nation's roads and bridges since the construction of the
interState highway system, and its enactment was due in large
part to the hard-working members of this committee, many of
whom are going to be here in this room throughout the morning.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is already having a
transformative impact across our Country. According to the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association, since
the enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, more than
$128 billion, with a B, $128 billion in highway and bridge
formula funds from this law have been used to support more than
70,000 new projects across America, 70,000 new projects across
America.
For example, in Delaware, we are using Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law funds to address congestion and safety at
the I-95 and 895 interchange in northern Delaware, New Castle
County. In Arkansas, the city of West Memphis is restoring
hundreds of acres of floodplain along the Mississippi River's
banks to protect major transportation routes. In Arizona, the
other end of our Country, that State is installing new
protections to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions while
increasing habitat connectivity for local species.
These projects are not just rebuilding our roads and our
bridges, they are creating, literally, tens of thousands of
good-paying jobs across our Country. For example, according to
the White House, the highway, the street, and bridge
construction industry added an average of 2,800 jobs per month
in 2023, which is four times the amount of jobs the industry
was adding per month between 2011 and 2019.
To date, over 15 and a half million jobs have been created
in our Country since President Biden took office. That sounds
like a lot of jobs, but to put it in context, that is more than
the combined populations of Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, New
Mexico, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and West Virginia combined.
Seems like a lot of jobs; it is a lot of jobs.
As our colleagues will recall, in addition to the
investments that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is making to
the Federal Highway Administration, the Inflation Reduction Act
created three new programs at that agency. These new programs
are helping to reconnect communities and neighborhoods while
promoting use of lower-carbon construction materials, as well
as providing resources to help expedite the environmental
review process for transportation projects.
While we have made progress toward rebuilding our Nation's
infrastructure over the last several years, there is no
shortage of challenges ahead for the Federal Highway
Administration.
The collapse of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge on
March 26th was a terrible, terrible tragedy. As we all know,
six people lost their lives, and thousands more have had their
daily lives upended by the loss of a critical highway link
across the Baltimore Harbor.
President Biden is committed to helping the people of
Baltimore rebuild the bridge, and the Federal Highway
Administration already has been and will continue to be a key
leader in the recovery efforts.
As the recovery efforts continue, I hope that the Federal
Highway Administration will continue to work closely with us in
the Congress and the other relevant Federal agencies, as well
as State and local leaders to rebuild the bridge. This is a
shared responsibility.
As climate change continues to impact our communities
across America and our infrastructure, the Federal Highway
Administration has an important role to play in reducing
emissions from our transportation sector while improving the
resilience of our transportation systems. Fortunately, through
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction
Act, Congress has given the agency additional tools to address
climate change.
I am proud that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included
the first-ever climate title of any surface transportation law
and that the Fiscal Year 2025 budget builds on this effort. As
part of the climate title, Congress created the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI), a program which
provides $7.5 billion to States for electric vehicle charging
infrastructure.
Creating the NEVI program was just the first step.
Accelerating the pace of installing EV chargers will require a
close partnership between the Federal Highway Administration
and the State departments of transportation throughout our
Country.
In the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress created the Low-
Carbon Transportation Materials Grants Program to incentivize
the use of lower-emitting construction materials on highway
projects. Through this grant program, States can obtain funding
to support cleaner construction materials that will reduce our
Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.
It is also crucial that the Federal Highway Administration
uses all of the tools and the resources provided by us, by the
Congress, in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to address the
challenges of highway congestion and resulting supply chain
bottlenecks. In addition to impacting the commutes of many
Americans, bottlenecks can add up to a higher cost of doing
business and result in significant environmental costs, as
well.
Last, making our roads safer for all Americans is an
ongoing challenge for the Federal Highway Administration.
Thankfully, since the enactment of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, we have started to see the number of
roadway fatalities begin to decline after increasing for years.
I am going to say that again, some good news here. We have not
had this good news for a while on this front, but thankfully,
since the enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we
have started to see the number of highway fatalities begin to
decline after increasing for years. I think we all agree that
is a very good thing.
To continue this progress, the agency must continue to work
with States and communities to plan roadway designs that are
safe for all users.
The Federal Highway Administration's Fiscal Year 2025
budget will help ensure the agency has the resources it needs
to tackle challenges like these as it continues to modernize
our Nation's roads, our Nation's highways, and our Nation's
bridges.
As we approach the third anniversary of the enactment of
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the second anniversary of
the Inflation Reduction Act later this year, it is important
for us to take stock of the progress that has been made and the
work that lies ahead. Today's hearing will provide us with an
opportunity to do just that.
Ranking Member Senator Capito will be joining us later in
the hearing and will not be making an opening statement at this
time. She is well-represented by the folks over on my right
shoulder, who are a great part of our EPW team.
Anyway, we are now going to hear from Administration Bhatt.
I already mentioned a couple of aspects of your resume and your
vitae. A number of major roles. I do not know a lot of people
who have been Secretary of Transportation for two States, in
this case, Colorado and Delaware, but you have also been, in
addition to being the head of the Federal Highway
Administration, you have also had some other major roles.
Mention a couple of those for us before we get into your
hearing and testimony, just a couple of other major roles that
you have played in the last 10, 15 years. Go ahead.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman. I was also the Deputy
Executive Director with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; I
was the President and CEO of the Intelligent Transportation
Society of America, (ITS). I also was in the private sector
with AECOM as a global senior vice president for
Transportation, Innovation, and Alternative Project Delivery.
Senator Carper. Delaware is a little State, and you tend to
get to know people pretty well. I have had the opportunity to
meet Shailen's wife and family. I just ask you to convey to her
our thanks for sharing you with all of us.
With that, you may proceed with your testimony. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHAILEN BHATT, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member
Capito, I know she is going to join, members of the committee.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
I believe that a transportation agency exists for two
reasons: to save lives, and to make people's lives better. The
historic funding provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
and Inflation Reduction Act is enabling projects that will do
just that.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has continued to make
significant progress in advancing new programs and funding
projects to improve safety, reduce bottlenecks, and make our
infrastructure more resilient. The President's budget request
for FHWA builds on this and will enable continued progress.
One example that is emblematic of FHWA's progress is the
Brent Spence Bridge. When I was a college student, I used to
drive across that bridge, and I remember thinking it was very
old. While serving at Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC),
funding for the bridge seemed decades away. During the Obama
administration, I served at FHWA, and I remember the Ohio
delegation highlighting the funding needs, but we were unable
to move it forward. We announced a grant award for the
rehabilitation and reconstruction of that bridge in 2023 and
completed the environmental review last month. This bridge is
no longer a decades-away dream, but it is a reality.
Senator Caper. Tell us, this bridge connects what point to
what point?
Mr. Bhatt. It is from Covington, Kentucky into Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Senator Carper. Okay, great. Thanks. I think I have been on
that bridge.
Mr. Bhatt. Many people have, about 3 percent of the
Nation's GDP is carried on it. These projects are becoming a
reality thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The backdrop to all project delivery remains safety. I have
spent my career working to make our roadway safer. Although we
have seen some signs for cautious optimism, based on recent
data, roadway fatalities, particularly among vulnerable road
users, remains stubbornly high. The investments we are making
will be critical to saving lives, and we need to build on--I
just want to ask, do you want me to yield or continue? Okay.
Senator Carper. Please go ahead.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, and harness technology to get to our
goal of zero deaths not decades from now, but much, much
sooner.
I have always believed in our ability to achieve
transformation through transportation. I was pleased to witness
this in action recently in Delaware at the renaming of the
Newark Regional Transportation Center as the Thomas R. Carper
Train Station. This train station was transformed from a former
automotive plant into a multi-modal passenger rail station.
Although not a highway project, there are countless
examples of similar transformation happening with
infrastructure across the Country. Thank you, Senator Carper,
for being a transformational leader and true champion for
transportation.
One area of transformation is our progress toward a
National EV charging network. Since the President took office,
the number of publicly available charging ports has grown by
over 90 percent, with over 183,000 publicly available EV
charging ports across the Country. Our programs are
accelerating private sector investment that puts us on track to
deploy 500,000 charging ports ahead of schedule. EV charging
stations funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have
opened in several States, with more States expected to come
online soon.
I want to recognize this committee for helping enact the
first surface transportation bill to include a climate title.
In April, FHWA announced nearly $830 million in grants from the
discretionary program known as Promoting Resilient Operations
for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation
Program (PROTECT) to help communities strengthen transportation
infrastructure.
Last month, I was in Philadelphia to celebrate a $14
million PROTECT award. I met a potential future FHWA
Administrator, an 8-year-old boy who came to visit the project
with his mom on his bicycle. He and I had an opportunity to sit
down and discuss it. His enthusiasm not only filled me with
great hope for the future, but our conversation was a reminder
that projects that are occurring today will have positive
effects for generations.
Our transportation system was primarily designed and built
in the 20th century. It was not designed to handle the climate
impacts we are seeing today. Since January 2021, FHWA has made
available over $3.5 billion in Emergency Relief Program funding
for climate-related events. I have witnessed this first hand,
holding leadership positions in three States during my
transportation career, the increased frequency with which these
impacts are occurring highlight the significance of the ER
Program and the financial strain that it is currently under.
While not climate related, the most visible recent ER event
is the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. I want to
highlight the efforts of FHWA staff, Maryland DOT, the city of
Baltimore, Army Corps, Coast Guard, and private sector
companies who are supporting the response. I also want to thank
the emergency responders who acted quickly to save lives and
not lose sight of the families of the six people who lost their
lives working on the bridge that night.
I have dealt with a number of bridge-related incidents
during my career. I have never seen something at that scale.
While it is a monumental task to clean up the site and rebuilt
the bridge, the coordinated response by government and industry
gives me great optimism.
During my remaining tenure as Administrator, I will
continue to endeavor to ensure that FHWA serves as a positive
example to the American people.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I am
happy to answer any question.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you very much for that testimony. We
have been joined by Senator Capito, who has come from another
important engagement. A huge welcome to share with us a little
bit about that, if you would. Go ahead.
Senator Capito. Well, I told the Administrator I would be a
little late, and the Chairman, but as a proud grandmother of
eight, my oldest grandchild had her little eighth-grade
graduation this morning, and she gave a two-and-a-half-minute
tribute to one of the teachers. You met a future administrator;
I saw a future Senator today, so thank you for that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. She surely picked the right family to be a
part of. As a West Virginia native, I know the Capito family
has a great history.
Let me just start off, if I could, with a question to
Administrator Bhatt regarding the Francis Scott Key Bridge. I
want to, you know, it is anticipated that the Federal funds to
rebuild the bridge will come out of the Federal Highway
Administration's Emergency Relief Program. It is also
anticipated that State insurance proceeds and other potential
legal judgments or settlements against the responsible parties
will be used to reimburse the Federal Government for the use of
emergency relief funds.
Could you just take a minute or two and speak a bit more
about the role that insurance proceeds and other claims will
play in paying for the bridge replacement?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. Yes,
we have been working since the early hours of the tragic
incident with Maryland DOT both on the disaster recovery and
then turning increasingly to the rebuilding of the bridge. I
know this issue has been important for this committee. I spoke
about it at another hearing last month.
The President is also very engaged, Secretary Buttigieg as
well, specifically around the $350 million insurance payment.
ER, as it is written, the Emergency Relief Program does require
the Federal Highway Administration to make sure that States are
making every effort to recover insurance funds and others to
reimburse the program.
We are working closely, particularly our lawyers, are
looking closely at the insurance policy, what is written, just
as if you had a home insurance policy. They do not just hand
you a check; there are things that are required. We are
grateful that they will make that funding available. We just
want to make sure that we are not skipping any steps as we
analyze what is in there.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you. According to the most
recent information shared with my office, with our office, the
Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief (ER) backing
currently stands at, I think, about $3.5 billion.
My question is: how does the current Emergency Relief
Program backlog affect the ability of the program to help
States deliver projects that are currently in the pipeline?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. I am
going to use round numbers because it is easier for my math.
There is about $4.4 billion in ER requests that are out
there now. We have about $850 million in available ER funding,
so just for ease, I am going to say there is about $3.5 billion
in unmet needs for the ER Program; $1.5 billion of that is what
we have tagged right now for the FSK Bridge rebuild. The other
$2 billion are from States across the Country from various
fires and floods and other events that have impacted States,
from California to Tennessee.
Senator Carper. You may have already answered this
question, but if you have, maybe you can expand on it. Do you
anticipate that additional funding will be needed to address
the backlog for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, absolutely. I think it
is about $100 million a year that comes through the
appropriation process to top up the ER funds. Obviously, that
is not consistent with what the unmet need is now.
Senator Carper. Good. There was a front page article
yesterday on the New York Times that some of you may have read
reporting that electric vehicles with a range of more than 300
miles are now becoming more affordable for American consumers.
That is, I think, welcome news that we should all be excited
about.
However, I remain concerned about the pace by which EV
charging infrastructure is being installed across America. As
the market for affordable EVs grows, it is critical that
drivers have convenient and accessible places to charge them.
Some States are doing a good job of using the Federal moneys in
getting this work underway; some are not. I am going to explore
with Senator Capito later, maybe later this week, the idea of
having a hearing inviting folks from States that are doing a
good job about leveraging the funds that we have provided
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and maybe some
States that could do a lot better to see what they can learn.
My question, here is my question. I am interested in
hearing more about what the Federal Highway Administration is
doing to work with States to accelerate the installation of EV
charging infrastructure. What are the current challenges, and
what more could be done to move more quickly?
Bless you. Bless you twice. All right. How often do you
hear the chair of a committee bless a member of the committee
when they sneeze? Not every day, but in this committee, we are
very bipartisan. Go right ahead.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman. When I went to school in
Kentucky, people said, ``bless my heart'' to me a lot, and so
as long as you do not say that to her, then you are in good
shape.
Specifically on the EV chargers, I am a project delivery
person. Since I became the Administrator 18 months ago, I have
taken a project delivery approach to this. We work closely with
the joint Office of Energy and Transportation that has been set
up. We are working with every single State. The President's
goal is 500,000 charging ports by the end of the decade. We
believe we are on track to hit that goal. I would prefer that
there were thousands of chargers.
Senator Carper. Say that number again, the goal is?
Mr. Bhatt. Five hundred thousand charging ports is the goal
that the President has set by the end of the decade. There are
about 183,000 out there available now. The vast majority of
those are private sector. There are six States that have NEVI
chargers that are out the door now. Again, people say, that is
only six chargers. It is actually dozens of charging ports.
I would say that we are on track. Every State has submitted
their plan. There are several States that already had NEVI
funding chargers out there. We are on track for thousands more
charging ports to become available this year, and we will hit
that target.
Just like it is going to take about 4 years to rebuild the
bridge, we anticipate the bulk of chargers coming online in
2024, 2025, 2026. If you look at the delivery schedule that is
out there now for virtually every State, we are on target to
hit that place.
I am not happy about the fact that we are about, I would
say months behind where we were, but with the amount of work
that was needed to get that program stood up, we want to
continue to work with every single State to accelerate their
delivery.
Senator Carper. Good. All right, thanks so much for your
responses.
Senator Capito, welcome, and congratulations to your
granddaughter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman
Carper. I have an opening statement that I will allude to, but
in the interest of time and other members' time, I will not
give that, and go straight to questioning. Thank you for being
here.
I want to ask you a specific West Virginia question to
begin. This is on Corridor H, which is the State of West
Virginia's highest priority highway project. A section of
construction was delayed another year when FHWA declared the
section from Wardensville to the Virginia State line as a major
project requiring additional documentation.
Given the $500 million statutory threshold for a major
project, why did the FHWA declare this project, estimated at
$475 million, a major project? Why did you go beyond what the
scope of the $500 million threshold?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Ranking Member. I fully understand
your urgency on getting this project delivered. I look forward
to visiting with you, hopefully in the next month or so.
I specifically asked our division, why was this
redesignated as a major project? The answer was, given that the
construction cost estimate had gone to $475 million, with all
the preconstruction activities, design, right of way, and
others, they felt that it would go over the $500 million
threshold. It is not the first time that we have used proximity
to $500 million as a reason for redesignation. Illinois had
another project that that did happen on.
Senator Capito. Okay, so then, you used a discretion there,
because this does impact additional documentation and review,
and it slows the project, which is already a project that, by
the way, has been on the books for probably 50 years.
What factors does the agency use to determine when to
designate these $500 million? You mentioned other costs that
you thought, but you could not quite quantify that to push it
up over the $500 million. What other aspects do you use when
you do this, when you push our project and the Illinois project
up to the major project listing?
Mr. Bhatt. My understanding, Ranking Member, and I am happy
to followup on this on specifics, but the $500 million
threshold is all costs of the projects. There is construction
costs; there is design, utility relocation, right of way, that
you would acquire as part of that. That is where the $500
million is, and then there is also, it is a particularly
complex or complicated project is another threshold that they
can apply.
What I would also say, I do not know about adding another
year, but what it does also allow us to do is provide cost and
schedule assistance for West Virginia. I have directed our
division staff to make sure that they are providing every
possible piece of assistance to West Virginia on this project.
Senator Capito. Thank you. I mean, it is a very complicated
piece of highway through a beautiful part of our State. It is
very expensive to build where it is. We get to the Virginia
line, we are hoping that the Virginians then will take it over
to 81 so we can have a full shot into the center of the State.
Let me ask you about One Federal Decision. I touted it when
we passed the bills, being such a great aspect in terms of
permitting. When you were here, we were provided with
information in March regarding the use of One Federal Decision
provision for major projects, and you had eight that were using
that provision at the time.
Have there been any other projects added to that number, to
that list?
Mr. Bhatt. Ranking Member, thank you for that question. I
will need to come back and followup on have any more been
added.
Senator Capito. Okay, and then most of these original eight
projects have either been delayed or had their timeline
extended. We are trying to shorten the time here, and it seems
like we are not really achieving the goal.
What kind of accountability, because you are supposed to be
the coordinator for all the other agencies, Fish and Wildlife
and others, that are involved in this permitting for major
projects, what kind of accountability do the other agencies
have to you when you are trying to achieve this One Federal
Decision? What is your opinion of whether One Federal decision
actually works, because as a State administrator, you would
have welcomed this news to say, this is going to be great. I am
sure you think it is great, but is it really working?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Ranking Member Capito. Yes, when I
sat on the State DOT side, I welcomed any and all opportunities
to accelerate project delivery. I just want to be careful how I
phrase this. When you say that we have the authority, I think
we work with our sister agencies who issue the permits. We do
not issue permits. We are the coordinating agency trying to get
across the finish line.
Senator Capito. Yes, but there are mandated timelines
within this. Do you oversee those with the other agencies? Go
ahead.
Mr. Bhatt. Sorry. Yes, clearly, we are often in meetings
with our permitting agencies around the various and several
issues, whether it is the FSK bridge, the Cape Cod bridges, all
of the thornier projects that require permitting. I will get a
specific answer as to how we hold them to account, or if that
is the proper terminology.
Senator Capito. Are you finding that it is shortening the
timeline? Is it achieving its goal?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I would say that I feel that we are
making progress on trying to hit timelines. The reason these
projects take a long time, there are issues around Fish and
Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife, as part of their mandate, they do
need to make sure that wildlife is protected, that the Army
Corps of Engineers is looking at issues like the right whale
that uses the Cape Cod Canal is not impacted by the
construction around that project.
I would say, yes, they share a desire to move them
properly, but we do not want to be in a position where they are
shortcutting what they need to get done.
Senator Capito. I would say, more directly, the answer is
no, it is really not working quite the way we envisioned it,
not that we do not have goals to see that work. Whatever we can
do to help with that process, because we use this as a template
for other permitting legislation, and if it is not working
here, like we had in the IIJA two or 3 years ago, aspirations
are great, but you are talking time and money here and
significant impacts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You bet; thank you.
Senator Cardin, welcome.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
Administrator Bhatt, I want to talk about what happened 72
days ago, when the Dali struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge. It
is now predicted to be, by Lloyd's of London, the largest
maritime liability claim in history. The Port of Baltimore was
closed. Six lives were lost. A major artery on the east coast
of the United States was closed.
I want to thank you for your immediate help, the
coordinated campaign, the unified command. You were a part of
that and were instrumental in mitigating the damage and loss of
life and saving costs and helping businesses deal with the
challenges by the Key Bridge being destroyed.
The port has now opened, thanks to the work of the unified
command. We thank the Federal partners that made that possible.
The bridge handled 34,000 vehicles a day. As a result of it
being closed, we have seen an 18 percent increase in the tunnel
traffic, which has added to the delays of going through the two
tunnels that go through the harbor. For those that have
hazardous material, those truckers have to travel an additional
25 miles at a heavy cost to commerce in our community.
There is an urgency in getting the bridge replaced. The
Emergency Relief funds have been extremely helpful, and we
thank the Administration for releasing those funds, to deal
with emergency repairs at 100 percent, which we appreciate.
The challenge is that the replacement bridge, we need to
have legislation passed in order for the 100 percent Federal
share to be provided. We are on day 72. It took only a matter
of days after the Minnesota Bridge was destroyed for Congress
to act and make it clear that they would be there with 100
percent Federal funds.
My first question to you is, does the Administration
support the urgency of passing legislation making it clear that
the replacement bridge will be at 100 percent Federal funds?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
leadership in this matter. I would say that yes, the President
has been very clear that he wants 100 percent funding for the
bridge.
Senator Cardin. I just point out about the urgency here. On
May 31st, the Maryland Department of Transportation requested
proposals for the replacement bridge. They are expecting that,
by the late summer, early fall, to be able to announce the
project team for the project, which means we are going to need
Federal funds for the replacement bridge this year.
I just really want to underscore the urgency of getting the
legislation passed. We do not have that many vehicles that make
it to the finish line. We did not, we were unsuccessful in
getting in the Federal FAA reauthorization, which was
transportation related. We have to look for an opportunity to
get this done.
I want to make one other point clear, if I might, and that
is what Title 23 provides. I am quoting from it: ``Any
compensation for damages or insurance proceeds, including
interest recovered by the State or political subdivision, or by
a toll authority, for repair of the highway facilities must be
used upon receipt to reduce the ER fund liability on that
project.''
In your conversations with the State of Maryland, did they
fully understand that all recoveries related to the destruction
of the bridge needs to go to the ER fund?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, yes, I would say they are crystal clear
that any of the funds that are recovered through their legal
efforts, that, and again, I defer to DOJ on the legal
settlements, but any funds that they recover would first have
to cut back to the ER fund.
Senator Cardin. In fact, when we have had similar
circumstances like this, there was one case in the State of
Washington, a substantial amount of the cost was reimbursed to
the ER funds as a result of third party recoveries, either
insurance or liability claims.
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, sir. The Skagit Bridge was a $20 million
repair cost; $17 million was recovered through insurance and
went back to ER.
Senator Cardin. The last point I want to bring up deals
with the use of toll facilities. Title 23 provides for the use
of toll facilities on roads that use the ER funds, provided
that none of the toll dollars are being used in regards to the
costs paid for by the Federal Government. Is that, it is
similar, you can not use the toll, it can only be used for
expenses unrelated to the replacement of the bridge. In your
conversations with the State of Maryland, are you confident
that they will comply with Title 23?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, just to clarify, I believe what you are
saying is what is consistent, which is now that the bridge has
been Federalized through the use of ER funds, any tolls that
are used in the future will have to be used for Title 23
purposes, and Maryland has committed to doing that.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
The next person in line to ask questions is Senator Cramer.
Senator Cramer?
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing.
Senator Carper. Thank you for joining us.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being
here. I am going to start with, it might not surprise you, I
have repeatedly raised concerns over the legality and
impracticality of the, and the nature of the FHWA's greenhouse
gas emissions rule.
Over this past couple of years and since the last time you
were before us, not one, but two Federal courts have agreed and
said that this was an unlawful rule. Following those two
rulings, the U.S. Senate passed my congressional Review Act
resolution with 53 votes, which means it was bipartisan, a
resolution supporting that position.
Yet, I see that you all have appealed the decision of the
courts and are continuing to pursue this unlawful rule as
though you have a license to do something that Congress has not
given you. What is the point of wasting taxpayers' dollars and
time and resources on a rule that is so clearly illegal?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. You have been very
consistent in your statements on this. I would say that I would
like to share that consistency on my side.
I have always said that we will comply with the law. When
the courts reached their decision, we told States that we would
not be requiring them to meet the schedule because of the legal
decisions that have been made. I am going to defer to DOJ. They
are the ones who are in charge of appeals and other things. We
will just continue to follow the law.
Senator Cramer. Since you brought that up, defer to the
DOJ, which I know you have to do, that is another whole
frustration of mine, is that the client of the Department of
Justice no longer has any authority of the Department of
Justice's decisions on your own behalf. Congress did that back
in the, I think, 1960's, and it was one of the great mistakes
that we should correct someday, because I have found it very
frustrating.
I can not wait for the Chevron doctrine to be overturned,
along with, and I am grateful to the court in West Virginia
versus Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using the Major
Questions doctrine, which I believe this is a violation of, by
the way. In fact, anyway, so the idea that you are now the
client of this law firm called the Department of Justice, but
have nothing to say about the appeal is disgusting to me. We
should break that up.
At any rate, given the fact that the Supreme Court has
issued rulings previously that are not dissimilar to this,
using the Major Questions doctrine, at what point does an
agency just follow all of that precedent rather than trying to
make it up as it goes in violation of what is so clear, I
think, to most people?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I am not trying to be evasive.
Senator Cramer. Yes, I know.
Mr. Bhatt. I am trying to understand.
Senator Cramer. Yes, it is a tough one for you to answer. I
get it.
I am just saying, you do not get to make stuff up and issue
the rule, and then wait for the Supreme Court of the United
States or some other appeal process to finish off before you
say, okay, well, we will go by the law again now. The law is,
to me, was crystal clear, as is, by the way, the intent of
Congress in the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
Anyway, all of that said, I want to move on to my other
favorite topic, the united banking system, and that is, of
course, formula funding and the importance of it. It was my
highest priority in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that I
was grateful for the 90-10 formula funding formula.
I have been hearing, and I am going to ask you to verify
whether this is true or not, but I have been hearing that on
the grant side, the discretionary side, money has not been
going out very fast. In fact, it could be even manipulated or
confusing the formula a little bit.
I want to you either verify or deny that that is the case.
Just maybe advocate for moving more money out of discretionary
into formula if, in fact, there is a problem, because one thing
about the States, they get their money out really, really fast,
as you know. You have done it a couple of times yourself.
Anyway, first of all, is that a correct assumption that I
am making about the grant funding or is my information not
accurate, and second of all, what do you think about putting
more of it in formula?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, thank you for that question. I believe
the States have done a great job of getting formula dollars
obligated and out the door, and the Chairman talked about all
the great projects that are out there.
Project delivery, and I am less interested in giving out
money. I am more interested in delivering projects. We have
about 2,250 discretionary grant agreements that we are working
on from money that we have awarded, and about 50 percent of
those now, which is greatly up from when I started, have now
signed grant agreements. We want to turn all of these projects
into successful ribbon cuttings. I commit to continuing to do
that.
Senator Cramer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
We have been joined by Senator Padilla. Good morning, and
welcome.
Senator Padilla. Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. Go right ahead. It is good to see you.
Senator Padilla. All is well, all is well.
Senator Carper. Good.
Senator Padilla. Well, thank you for holding this hearing.
Thank you for the opportunity to highlight one of the elements
of the Fiscal Year 2024 spending package that included a bill
that I put forward on a bipartisan basis known as the Emergency
Vehicle and Community (EVAC) Planning Act, which directs the
Department of Transportation and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to develop best practices around emergency
evacuation routes for States, territories, tribal governments,
and local governments to utilize when conducting transportation
infrastructure planning. Even in the planning phase, we have to
be mindful of evacuation routes, and it comes from experience,
tragic experience.
In California, we have seen people literally die in their
cars trying to escape wildfires, for example, because there was
simply not sufficient or adequate evacuation routes or capacity
along evacuation routes. This planning work can literally mean
the difference between life and death.
Administrator Bhatt, will you commit to working with the
Department of Transportation and FEMA to develop and publish
the guidance as expeditiously as possible?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator, and yes, I have seen many of
the tragic stories, particularly in the wildfires, of people
perishing. California is experiencing a number of these
tragedies. We are working with FEMA already. The planning is
incredibly important, and I appreciate your support in this
area.
Senator Padilla. Absolutely. Thank you for that commitment.
While these recommendations will help communities improve
disaster preparedness and evacuation capacity, dedicated
funding to implement them at the local level still remains
critical. Currently, one of the only dedicated Federal funding
sources available for evacuation route projects is to do a
small set-aside under the Highway Administration's PROTECT
grant program.
Unfortunately, this program had its funding cut in Fiscal
Year 2024, which is why I have been leading a number of our
colleagues to urge appropriators to restore funding in the
Fiscal Year 2025 plan and to increase the evacuation route set-
aside.
Followup question for you, Mr. Administrator: how can the
Highway Administration expand its involvement in this area, and
what additional resources would be helpful as Congress begins
to negotiate the spending plan for the next Fiscal Year?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. Again, I think we just
released the $830 million in PROTECT discretionary, and there
are some evacuation routes that are in there. We work closely
with State DOTs.
Obviously, safety is our No. 1 priority, and making sure,
whether it is evacuation routes for fires, for floods, for
hurricanes, this is going to be a key priority, and we welcome
any additional resources that are made available.
Senator Padilla. All right, thank you. While we are on the
topic, any initial ideas or suggestions, as we are also looking
ahead to the next surface transportation reauthorization bill?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. I always believe in making
data-driven decisions. It would be great for us to begin
collecting data around what are primary evacuation routes, how
are they performing in these situations, how resilient are
they, are there any culverts, for example, that might wash out
due to heavy rain, and we need to prioritize those.
We actually started that in Colorado when I was there
around, sort of a risk-based prioritization practice, but those
are just some initial thoughts. I am happy to work with your
staff.
Senator Padilla. I know one example that still sticks in my
mind is the image of one fallen tree in the wrong place on the
rim of Lake Tahoe can really cause a lot of havoc as a ripple
effect, to give just one example of many.
In my time remaining, I also wanted to thank you for the
significant investments that your agency has made in heavy duty
vehicle infrastructure under the first round of the Charging
and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program. I also wanted to
thank you for your efforts to better coordinate with the
Department of Energy through the Joint Office on Vehicles to
build out the necessary heavy duty charging infrastructure
along high priority corridors.
I am concerned that the recent NOFO only makes heavy duty
infrastructure eligible that is fully open to the public
without also including infrastructure that is open to operators
for more than one company. I think the latter eligibility
supports projects that provides fleet operators of all sizes
with the assurances that there will be reliable infrastructure
access, especially in the early years of this transition to
zero emission technologies.
Will you consider an amendment to the definition in this
NOFO to ensure that heavy duty commercial charging depot
projects or projects that include elements that are for shared
fleet charging can be eligible under this round?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to take any of
that feedback.
This is one of the challenges. Title 23 requires full
public access, but for commercial operators, that presents
different challenges. We are going to work with the joint
office to incorporate all of that feedback.
Senator Padilla. I just think, and we have seen it with
other technologies before, that these fleets provide great
opportunity in earlier stages for that scaling up and reaching
the cost efficiencies that we are striving for. We will
continue to work with you on that.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. You are welcome. Thank you so much for your
questions and for your presence.
Earlier this morning, we were talking about some
encouraging data with respect to safety, accidents, deaths,
injuries, and so forth. For the first time after seeing them
just continue to climb and climb, the numbers are looking
better.
This morning, in California, there is a bicycle charity
event that is taking place with hundreds, maybe thousands, of
people riding their bicycles from San Francisco down to Los
Angeles, one of whom is our oldest son. This idea of safety
including not just cars, trucks, vans, but also bicycles is on
my mind. I wish him well, along with all the others. Thank you
so much.
With that, Senator Ricketts, you are recognized.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper and
Ranking Member Capito, for having this hearing.
Administrator Bhatt, great to see you again. Thank you for
your and your team's coordination and responsiveness to the
Nebraska Department of Transportation and my staff as we have
been working together. I very much appreciate that.
It has been more than 2 years now since the IIJA
implementation, and inflation, we were talking about this
earlier, I think, with Senator Capito, you used the inflation,
labor costs, and all that to justify part of the reason to make
that a major project over the $500 million, so that is
something we continue to see rise, material costs and so forth.
The purchasing power of the bill is diminishing every day that
goes by.
I encourage the Administration, instead of pushing
progressive policies that did not make it into law, to really
work on getting the IIJA grant agreements done and signed for
critical infrastructure projects that we do not want to have
delayed any more. I continue to encourage you to work to
implement these programs the way that Congress intended and to
have them carried out to meet our pressing infrastructure
needs.
Administrator Bhatt, we talked last time about the August
redistribution last year. Last year, the August redistribution
was $7.9 billion. This year, we anticipate that amount to climb
to $8.7 billion. The Nebraska Department of Transportation
continues to be concerned about how they can effectively and
efficiently obligate infrastructure dollars in such an
impossibly tight timeframe.
Without the action from Congress, do you expect this number
to rise again in the next Fiscal Year?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. I actually have been working
closely with Director Kramer on a lot of response to the storms
that have affected your State, so I appreciate your leadership
in this space.
Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you.
Mr. Bhatt. Yes. August redistribution last year, I had just
come on, learned of the $7.9 billion August redistribution.
States and cities and others made a heroic effort to get that
across the finish line. This year, at $8.7 billion, yes, it is
a feature now of August redistribution that it continues to
climb.
We are trying to work even earlier each year, but it would
be great to know that our budget proposal was a solution for
that. I know there are other solutions out there, and it would
be great to get this resolved.
Senator Ricketts. Is there any way, though, to make a dent
in this? You are saying, for Fiscal Year 2025, you think that
number, $8.7 billion that we expect this year, is going to go
even higher next year? Is that accurate?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, if it does not go higher, it is still
going to stay in the same vicinity, and that is just a huge
number to try to move around at the end of the year. It is not
a great way to deliver the program.
Senator Ricketts. Right. Well, we agree on that. Again,
frankly, $7.9 billion last year, $8.7 billion this year, if you
can keep it from going higher next year, that is still a win,
right? The more that you can do with regard to streamlining the
permitting process, I know, obviously, again, we talked about
you do not actually issue those, but working with the other
agencies or grantee training, anything you can do to make sure
we get those dollars out. It just really creates a huge problem
when we have that many dollars in such a short timeframe.
Are you, because the number is so big, are you planning on
any additional flexibility for States to help deal with the
August redistribution so that State departments of
transportation can better optimize their programming of these
Federal dollars throughout the year?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. Yes, we have, again, we have
begun earlier than ever reaching out to States, asking them to
identify.
One of the problems for States is they have, because of all
the resources in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, they have
pushed forward a lot of projects. Normally, every year, you
would find one that was on the shelf, but did not have funding,
and there are not that many that are sitting on the shelves
now.
States are doing, I think, heroic efforts here. We are
going to continue to work with them, give them every
flexibility they need, so that we do not lapse any of that
obligation.
Senator Ricketts. Great. I am going to switch gears on you
a little bit. The Nebraska Department of Transportation has
been dealing with issues regarding contractor sites with
Federal and State agencies. They deemed that contractor sites
are a part of the project, the Nebraska Department of
Transportation (NDOT) and the Federal Highway may need to
account for the impacts or mitigation on those contractor
sites.
NDOT's understanding from Federal Highway has been that
there was no Federal nexus to contractor sites, and that
Federal Highway had an internal memo indicating this. However,
recent nationwide programmatic agreements that Federal Highway
is negotiating and signing suggests otherwise.
Can you provide some clarity on the Federal Highway
Administration's opinion regarding contractor sites and Federal
nexus? Does Federal Highway recognize the issues and burden
that were put on State departments of transportation on
delivering their programs if there was a nexus there? Can you
clarify this please?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I am happy to reach out to NDOT or
others to just get more information, and would be happy to get
back to you on that.
Senator Ricketts. Okay, so you are not familiar with this
internal memo, and which way it goes on contractor sites?
Mr. Bhatt. I am not, Senator, but I am happy to get up to
speed and get back to you quickly.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Very well, then we will followup
with you on that. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions. I am going to
ask a couple of more questions, and then yield to Senator
Capito, who is welcome, if she would like, to give the rest of
her opening statement. That would be fine.
Let us talk a little bit about wildlife crossings. In the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as we will recall, Congress
directed the Federal Highway Administration to work with
Federal natural resource agencies to construct wildlife
crossings to enable fish passage and to enhance pollinator
habitat along our roads. This is because we have heard time and
time again, in this committee, that conserving the wildlife
proactively and collaboratively amongst Federal agencies with
States and with other stakeholders has both environmental and
economic benefits.
The Federal Highway Administration, in particular, should
play an active role in this effort since habitat fragmentation
often caused by the development of our roads is a leading cause
of the decline of many species.
Here is my question: how is the Federal Highway
Administration working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to implement these provisions in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law? Second, how does the President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget
continue to support these partnerships with other agencies?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman, for that question,
specifically on the wildlife crossing initiative. When we
installed one when I was Colorado Department of Transportation
(DOT) director, we saw a 90 percent reduction in wildlife
related crashes on State Highway 9 the year after we opened it,
so it is clear that they make a difference. We actually had one
in Arizona that we went to the groundbreaking here for
recently.
We do rely on Fish and Wildlife for their expertise on some
of the different animals. It is obviously different around the
Country, specifically on the pollinator program. I know that
that is certainly something that is a $3 million dollar program
within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that we are looking
at, I believe, in winter of this year to award those grants,
and that is something that we are going to continue to
coordinate with Fish and Wildlife and other agencies on.
Senator Carper. Okay, thank you.
One more question, and then I will yield to Senator Kelly,
who has just joined us. This is a question regarding the MT
pilot program implementation.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as you will recall,
directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to create an
advisory board on funding alternatives for the Highway Trust
Fund in order to undertake a national study of vehicle miles
traveled user fees. The goal of that work is to produce
meaningful data that would provide timely input as Congress
considers future revenue sources for the Highway Trust Fund.
Nominations for the Federal Systems Funding Alternative
Advisory Board were due to the Department of Transportation by
October 3d of last year. It has now been 8 months since those
nominations were submitted, yet the Secretary has not named any
members to the advisory board.
What is the timeline for naming members to the advisory
board so that it can begin the work of the national study
underway?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman, and I know that this is a
very important issue for you. I am pleased to report that we
have pushed forward the committee recommendations up to the
office of the Secretary, and they are being evaluated now, and
hopefully in the very short term, we will be able to get that
pushed out.
Senator Carper. Yes. I am an old State treasurer. I became
State treasurer of Delaware when I was 29 years old. I could
barely spell ``cash management.'' We had the worst credit
rating in the Country. We were not very good at paying for
things.
When I was Governor, we achieved triple A credit ratings,
and still have that. I am a person who believes that if things
are worth having, they are worth paying for, and also that
those who use, in this case, our transportation systems, have
an obligation to help pay for them. This is, you are right,
this is something I care deeply about.
I do not get to stay here much longer in the U.S. Senate,
about another 7 months, but this is something that I will take
to the grave with me, that things that are worth having are
worth paying for.
All right, let's see, who will be next? Senator Whitehouse.
Sheldon, welcome, and then it looks like Senator Lummis, and
then Senator Kelly.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, but I am sharing
another hearing, so I will be dashing out pretty quickly.
But I did want to come down and thank Administrator Bhatt
for coming to Rhode Island to see the Washington Bridge problem
that we have. You came on your own, and I appreciate that, on a
cold and windy day. You came back again with Secretary
Buttigieg to take a second look with the Secretary.
This is a bridge that carries 90,000 vehicles a day. It is
a vitally important link from the east coast mainland, up
toward Boston, out to Cape Cod and to points west. It is where
95 and 195 converge, and it carries 195 across the Providence
River there.
Thanks to an alert inspector, who was actually operating
pursuant to a transportation grant, they were able to see that
this bridge, which is, as you know, a quite unusual
construction, had tension members that were holding it up that
had basically sheared away, and that the bridge was in fairly
immediate danger of collapse.
We have had to close it, and there has been substantial
effort to reroute the traffic onto safe parts of the bridge. It
is now flowing considerably better after a great deal of work,
but the bridge is going to need to be replaced, and it is
extremely important to us. We are a small State. This is a
bridge that is really important, it is an important piece of
our national infrastructure.
We will be pursuing energetically and ardently support from
the Highway Administration and from the Department of
Transportation the funds that we are going to need to get that
bridge repaired timely and right. I just look forward to
working with you on that, and would love to hear you express
some care and enthusiasm for helping us solve the Washington
Bridge problem.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your leadership
on this issue.
It was a very cold day the first time we were out there. I
actually went up to Boston and toured the Cape Cod bridges just
on Monday, and also a project, the Alston Project, but I
actually chose to travel in through Providence so I could check
on the bridge.
As you say, thankfully, the project, the efforts by Rhode
Island DOT to widen the lanes there to add some capacity have
had an impact, so it is not quite the traffic snarl that was
there initially. But I know that is a very important project
for you, and we commit to energetically and enthusiastically
continue to work to get that bridge replaced.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. We will need funding, and
the funding also, I think, needs to take into account the
extent to which traffic has been driven through neighborhoods
off the bridge, and that has been a significant air quality
inconvenience penalty paid by people living nearby in South
Providence and East Providence as essentially highway traffic
has been rerouted through neighborhoods.
Thank you for your attention to this. We look forward to
working with you and Secretary Buttigieg to a happy conclusion
that gets that bridge back in full operation as quickly as
possible.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thanks for joining us, especially with a
few of the other responsibilities you have this morning.
Senator Lummis?
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Good morning.
Senator Lummis. Welcome, Mr. Administrator.
I am going to spend most of my time on two subjects. The
first one is the Buy America Waiver. I think we all support the
Buy America provisions that were recently in legislation. The
problem is we do not yet have a reliable domestic source for
some products and components.
For example, a traffic signal system can include over 200
components. Some of them just are not manufactured in the U.S.
right now. I think all of us hope that they will be and that we
can find U.S. manufacturers for all of these component parts.
It does create kind of a short-term gap between the rules that
you are promulgating and the availability of the products to
meet the Buy America standards.
Can you offer assurances today that the FHWA will balance
implementation of Buy America requirements with the actual
near-term availability of domestic products?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think
this is something that the President has been very clear on,
that he wants projects delivered as quickly as possible, and he
wants to support American manufacturing.
There is, obviously, tension between those two goals, but
we have been directed to deliver projects and to make sure that
Buy America is upheld. My commitment to you is that we will
continue to listen, continue to accept feedback from American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Automatic Gain Control
(AGC), and others on finding those problematic areas that are
holding us up.
Senator Lummis. Well, and that is, the second part of this,
of course, is Wyoming DOT plus Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, have all asked for waivers and extensions of time
before waivers are disallowed. Before finalizing the rule,
would you please confer with State level officials to ensure
any requirements are practical and workable, rather than just
saying, we are going to buy America, dang it, whether we have
the supplies to implement it or not?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, thank you. We will follow the law when
it comes to following the rulemaking process. I have had
numerous conversations with a lot of organizations, State DOT
leaders. I believe we received 130 comments or so as we moved
through the rulemaking process. We will evaluate all of those
and take those into account before we make any decisions.
Senator Lummis. Okay, thank you.
Now, I want to shift to the cost allocation study. Some
time ago, Senator Kelly and I worked together to have a highway
cost allocation study, and it is in the 2021 Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), to complete a cost allocation
study for highways. We know how things are changing on our
highways, you know. Liquid fuel cars have higher gas mileage.
There is an increased use of hybrids and electric vehicles, and
it is changing their effect on our highway wear and tear. It is
also affecting the Highway Trust Fund. The CBO says, of course,
that the Highway Trust Fund will go into insolvency in about
2028, about 4 years from now.
Since we are coming up on a highway authorization next
year, I think, or at least sometime in the next Congress,
having this highway cost allocation study would be extremely
helpful information, both going into reauthorization and going
into the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
My question is this: what is the status now of the cost
allocation study?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I would need to check specifically. We
have a lot of reports to Congress that we are working on, but I
am happy to get back to you very quickly on that.
Senator Lummis. Okay, thank you. I hope you will get back
to me, because the bill granted up to 4 years for the study,
and it requires a lot of coordination and a lot of moving
parts, so I am curious about whether it will be completed in a
timely manner so we can utilize the information during the
reauthorization process, and certainly in planning for the
kinds of changes that we are going to have to make before 2028
to make the Highway Trust Fund solvent, given the dramatic
change in fuel taxes as the main source of the Highway Trust
Fund.
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I could not agree more with you. I will
get back to you very quickly on where we are on the status of
that report.
Senator Lummis. Okay, thank you. I think that I am about
out of time, so I appreciate your being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Carper. You bet, thanks for raising that last point
in your questioning, thank you.
Senator Lummis. Thank you.
Senator Carper. All right.
Senator Kelly, welcome.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You bet.
Senator Kelly. Administrator Bhatt, thank you for being
here. It is great to see you again.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which passed the Senate
nearly 3 years ago now, has allowed FHWA to make historic
investments in highway infrastructure across the Country, but I
continue to hear from small, rural, and disadvantaged
communities across Arizona about the barriers that they face to
access these new funding resources. These barriers can range
from finding the funding to contribute a local match, to
getting technical assistance and grant writing assistance when
they are actually applying for the grants.
As this committee starts to think about the next surface
transportation bill, I hope we can examine ways to support
small, rural, and disadvantaged communities and tribal
communities to ensure that the State DOTs, departments of
transportation, have the resources to help them take advantage
of funding opportunities.
Administrator, can you talk about what actions FHWA has
already taken to provide support and technical assistance to
help communities apply for discretionary grants, and what
guidance have you provided to the State departments of
transportation to help them provide support and technical
assistance, as well?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Yes, absolutely, we
want to make sure that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
resources do not just flow to traditional recipients, such as
States DOTs. I know Director Toth from her time both in the
city of Phoenix, and now as the director. I know she shares
your concern.
We, as Federal Highways, have division offices in every
single State. We are providing technical assistance to local
recipients. There is a wonderful lady name Maria Zimmerman at
USDOT whose job is to go out and to reach out to people.
Sometimes, it is even harder to reach out to people where they
are, but we are committed to going out, meeting small
communities, tribal entities, because we want to make sure that
they are successful recipients and deliverers of these
projects.
Senator Kelly. Does any of this stuff that you are doing,
this outreach, is it new, or is it something that has been in
place for a number of years?
Mr. Bhatt. Some of it we have always done, but obviously,
it is scaled because of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Particularly under the IRA, there is $100 million that was set
aside to one of the specific outcomes was this technical
assistance (TA). We are using those resources to add new
consultation and TA.
Senator Kelly. Any statutory limitations that you have run
into that might make it harder for you to help communities?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, not that I am aware of off the top of
my head, but I am happy to followup with your staff if there is
anything we can do to make that better.
Senator Kelly. In Arizona, our State department of
transportation established a program called the Arizona Smart
Fund, which provides some planning assistance and local match
support for cities, towns, and counties that are seeking
Federal funding. How can FHWA help State DOTs who establish
programs to help localities make grant applications more
competitive, like this Arizona Smart Fund?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator Kelly. I appreciate Arizona's
leadership in this space.
I actually am where I am in my career today because in
Kentucky, I helped a small town get $200,000 dollars for
sidewalks, which might as well have been $200 million, because
they never would have been able to afford it on their own. I
would love to reach out to your staff or to Director Toth to
figure out how we can scale Arizona's efforts.
Senator Kelly. Okay, and then, on a different subject, on
the ROCKS Act. This is a provision that I helped with that was
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It creates a working
group for aggregates, like sandstone, gravel, which are, as we
all know, literally the building blocks of infrastructure. This
working group would ensure that sufficient sources of
aggregates exist here in the United States to support increased
demand due to the infrastructure funding.
Can you provide an update on what steps have been taken in
recent months to stand up the working group to support the
ROCKS Act?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. As a project delivery
person, I appreciate your support for, obviously, these
building blocks. I believe we have identified the members of
the committee, and I will get you the specific steps that we
have taken in recent months.
Senator Kelly. All right, thank you. I yield back my 3
seconds.
Senator Carper. Three seconds, thank you for every one of
those. Thanks for joining us today.
Senator Fetterman, I think you are not in the on-deck
circle, you are up to bat. You are recognized at this time. Go
right ahead. Thanks for joining us.
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of people are not aware of this, in fact, I really
was not either, before I became a Senator and I was put on this
committee, but there really is a street safety crisis in our
Country. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, Senator, I would.
Senator Fetterman. There were more than 7,000 pedestrian
fatalities in 2022. Now, if you have a jet plane crashing every
20 days, that would be on the news, but the other thing really
does not seem to be covered as much. Now across Pennsylvania,
there are countless stories about the community members being
killed while walking or biking.
The Biden Administration has made a lot of progress on
addressing this issue, but there are ways that we can all
better reach all communities in expanding safer streets and
trails. My office is constantly hearing from midsize to smaller
cities and towns, like where I was mayor or I lived, for ideas
to revitalize and build trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes.
However, I am concerned that there is a gap in funding for
opportunities to support these kinds of one to three million
projects. Sir, do you believe that considering smaller
applications for programs like this in the neighborhood
accesses an equity or grant active transportation
infrastructure improvement program, or is at a designated set-
aside needed?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
concern for vulnerable road users. One of the things that I am
most proud of in my career is when I was a Secretary of
Transportation in Delaware. We went from 31st to 4th in
bicycle-friendly States in the Nation. Yes, I think small
communities getting small dollar grants can make a huge impact
for safety.
Senator Fetterman. Well then, did I get that right? You
went from 31st to 4th?
Mr. Bhatt. In bicycle-friendly States, under the leadership
of Governor Markell.
Senator Fetterman. Yes, that is amazing. Come to
Pennsylvania.
The FHWA has recommended a number of proven design features
that would help us build safer routes and connect people
walking through trail facilities and outdoor recreation jobs
and services. Are some of those features still subject to the
design exception process? What would an applicant need to do to
get an exception and implement these proven safety features?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. There are 20 proven safety
countermeasures that our Office of Safety pushes. One of those
is dedicated bike lanes, separated bike lane facilities, not
just striping. What I have instructed our staff is if there is
a safety issue that people want to try or experiment with, that
we should err on the side of safety, not of caution, and so we
are directing all of those people to reach directly out to us,
and we will work with our Office of Safety to expedite any
exceptions that might be warranted.
Senator Fetterman. Thank you. I think we can continue to
work on getting resources to small communities and reducing red
tape, which is why I introduced the Building Safer Streets
Acts, a we evaluate the IIJA implementation and what is needed
is reauthorization. I hope to keep working with the FHWA and
this committee on these needed reforms.
I have also raised finalizing the public right-of-way
accessibility guidelines for the FHWA and the DOT. We passed
the Americans with Disabilities Act 34 years ago, and we still
have not finalized the standards that will ensure people with
disabilities can safely walk and roll on sidewalks and
crosswalks.
The Access Board finalized the Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) on August 20, 2021. When will
the DOT adopt these accessibility standards and make sure
PROWAG is enforceable? What is causing the delay at the DOT?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I appreciate your leadership in this
effort. Let me check with my staff and get the latest update.
It is at interagency coordination, so I just want to make sure
I am getting you the right information.
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, sir, for doing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions, and thanks for
joining us.
We have been joined by Senator Sullivan. Welcome. Good to
see you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, good to see you again. I want to begin,
actually, where Senator Fetterman was going. I think it is a
really bipartisan issue. It relates to permitting reform. It is
so important, right, and unfortunately, my State is often kind
of a ground zero for groups that want to delay projects on
infrastructure and sue, sue, sue, just so they stop it.
I always like to say, Alaska is resource rich, but
infrastructure poor. We have fewer road miles than Connecticut,
and we are almost 120 times bigger than Connecticut, so we like
infrastructure. Then, when we have the opportunity to build it,
we want to make sure it is built on time, on budget.
As you know, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
we worked hard to codify the core elements of a One Federal
Decision policy for transportation projects, including
establishing a 2-year goal for completing EISs. Two years, in
my view, is still too long, but relative to some of our other
EISs, I think at your confirmation hearing, I highlighted the
Cooper Landing Bypass project in Alaska. It took 40 years to
complete that EIS, 40 years. Just crazy.
Are you on track to meet this 2-year requirement for the
EIS? I am looking at the Chairman and Ranking Member, that is
the correct number, isn't it, 2 years? Yes. It is really
important, and it is now in the law.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator, and the Ranking Member
obviously shares your passion on this issue.
Senator Sullivan. If she already asked the question, I am
sorry, but we care deeply about this. By the way, America
cares. Democrats care. Republicans care. The only groups, in my
view, that do not care are radical far-left environmental
groups who do not want to build anything, and so they sue, game
the system, you know. You and I have talked about this.
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I am a project delivery person.
Senator Sullivan. I know you are.
Mr. Bhatt. We obviously want to follow the law. The Central
70 project in Denver, which is held up as a model, took us 12
years to get through NEPA.
Senator Sullivan. Crazy. Well, Cooper Landing Bypass
triples that time: 40 years.
Mr. Bhatt. What I did share with the Ranking Member, we are
going to continue to work with our resource agencies. I will
come back and get the exact accountability that we are asking
for. I would love for all of them to hit that 2-year mark. I
know we have examples of projects that are being more
expeditiously moved through the process, but I share your
passion on this issue.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. Let me turn to, we had, literally,
a flap over the American flag over Memorial Day weekend in
Denali National Park. Are you tracking any of that issue?
Mr. Bhatt. I am tracking it, Senator, yes.
Senator Sullivan. Look, this is the Park Service, in my
view, telling fibs to Alaskans. They say, we had nothing to do
with this, and then 5 days later, they came out and essentially
said, oh, actually, we did have everything to do with it. I
will not go into the details. It really, really made hundreds,
if not thousands of Alaskans really upset that a Federal Agency
was essentially telling an American, a patriotic American, you
can not fly an American flag in a national park on your truck.
Is there anything remotely in any Federal contracts that
you guys have that would require the removal of an American
flag on a job site in a national park?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator----
Senator Sullivan. I hope the answer is no. I hope the
answer is, hell no.
Mr. Bhatt. The answer is no. I support----
Senator Sullivan. Hell no, then, maybe, from you?
Mr. Bhatt. Heck, no.
Senator Carper. Remember, be careful, this is a PG
audience.
Senator Sullivan. I am sorry. Heck no, that suffices.
Mr. Bhatt. That is fiery language.
Senator Sullivan. Heck no.
Mr. Bhatt. I would just say this: I support wearing the
American flag or flying the American flag at our work sites,
and there is an American flag that has been at this work site
ever since. Through my investigation into it, what I learned is
there was a complaint about the flapping of the flag disturbing
the wildlife.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, whatever, I mean, come on. That
complaint should be, no offense, who cares, right?
Mr. Bhatt. I was just getting into the details.
Senator Sullivan. It is an American flag in a park by a
patriotic worker. The complaint should have just been
dismissed. Sorry, you does not like a flag flapping in the
national park? Does not visit the park, right? Take your
sensitivities elsewhere. That should have been the answer. It
was not the answer by the National Park Service, but we are
getting into that.
Can you just assure me, Administrator, look, I am a fan of
yours. I think you are doing a good job, but the National Park
Service Director said to me, hey, it may have been in the
contract with the contractor, either with the National Park
Service or, more likely, with the contractor with you guys. My
answer is, I can not imagine you guys putting something in the
contract that is a clear violation of the first amendment, and
let alone, as unpatriotic as it gets.
Can you just do a little scrub to make sure you guys are
not submitting contracts with American contractors that could
be remotely be read to tell them they can not fly the American
flag?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I commit to you that there is no effort
through the Federal Highway Administration to prevent the
flying of American flags at worksites.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Senator Merkley, good morning and welcome.
Senator Merkley. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator. Good to have you.
I want to get a better understanding, and I apologize, I
had other hearings going on, so you may have answered this
question. Back when we passed the infrastructure bill, the
discussion was about building out 500,000 chargers, fast
chargers, across America. How many of those chargers have
actually been deployed?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator, for that question. The
President has a goal of 500,000 charging ports by the end of
the decade. There are 183,000 that are available today. The
vast majority of those are from private sector deployments.
That number is up 90 percent since the President took office
and of those, six States have begun deploying their NEVI funds.
Then, we have CFI and EV reliability accessibility charger
funds that are also putting out chargers.
Senator Merkley. All right, so I don not think you answered
the question.
Mr. Bhatt. No? I would be happy to.
Senator Merkley. The question was, the infrastructure bill
funded 500,000, as you put it, charging ports. How many of
those charging ports have been deployed?
Mr. Bhatt. Of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds?
Senator Merkley. Yes.
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, so six States have deployed NEVI funds. I
will say it is dozens of ports, so under a hundred, of those
six NEVI sites that are out there, it is dozens of charging
ports. I can get you the specific number.
Senator Merkley. Okay, yes, if you could, because I have
heard of only seven, seven out of 500,000.
Mr. Bhatt. Seven sites, and then, yes.
Senator Merkley. That is pathetic. We are now 3 years into
this. If you come out to my State, and you are looking to drive
an electric vehicle around the State, even utilizing just those
that are near the major highways, not a single one has been
built. Not one, 3 years in. Not one. What is the problem?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. I share your frustration
around the speed of the deployment here.
I have been the Administrator for 18 months. We have worked
with every single State to develop their plans, both for NEVI,
which is the charger every 50 miles along the NHS, and then
also on CFI, which is more of the charging and fueling
infrastructure deployments in cities.
What is the problem? There are a number of problems. States
have huge amounts of other programs that they are working with.
We have stood up the regulations. There are Title 23 concerns.
We are working through them on a State-by-State basis.
What I said in my opening statement is true, there are
thousands of chargers that are going to come online this year,
and we are on track to hit the President's goal of 500,000
charging ports before the end of the decade. I share your
frustration on where we are today, but I am confident that we
are going to hit the goal.
Senator Merkley. Yes. It is a big deal because you can not
really depend upon an electric car if there is not a charging
capability, and the fact that we passed this bill years ago,
and not one charging station has been built in my State, and
only seven, as you put it, sites around the Country, that is a
vast administrative failure.
One of the points that was made previously was, while all
of this has been delayed by trying to work out a common
standard for the charging stations to be deployed, is it going
to be a Tesla derivative common standard? Is that the reason
that it has all been delayed so long?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, we work closely with the Joint Office
of Energy and Transportation, who is the primary lead on this.
That is one example of a challenge. When we came out, there
were like, six or seven different charging adapters that were
out there. When you go spend billions of dollars on chargers,
which one are you putting out there? That was a significant
question.
Due to the public investment, all of the manufacturers
coalesced around the NACS charging standard. Now, that is the
one that is going forward. That is both on the charging side,
on the vehicle manufacturing side, so it is not just the public
sector side that needs to weigh in. That is why we are working
with the Joint Office on these.
Senator Merkley. All right, well, I am just trying to light
a fire under this. This is an important part of the transition.
What it says to the public when you pass a bill that is going
to fund 500,000 chargers and there are only seven sites done 3
years later, is something is terribly wrong. It needs to be
fixed, and it needs your intense attention.
One piece of this is, folks are like, well, at least we
should have gotten charging stations done at the rest stops. I
do not think you have advocated for changing Federal law that
would allow that to happen. Can you expand on that?
Mr. Bhatt. Senator, I was in Colorado last week for an I-25
expansion event. One of the things they have done is they have
their park-and-ride wired for chargers, but they are prohibited
from charging at the rest area. That is obviously an issue that
States are facing.
Senator Merkley. Have you proposed a solution?
Mr. Bhatt. I am not aware that we have proposed a solution.
I think we have just identified this as an issue.
Senator Merkley. Okay, so you have identified a problem,
but you have not proposed a solution. I suggest you actually
get from identifying a problem to proposing a solution that
Congress can take a look at.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Merkley. I think it would involve, quite simply, an
exception for charging stations from the general law that says
you can not have commercial activity at a rest stop. Isn't it
that simple?
Mr. Bhatt. That would be one way to solve that problem.
Senator Merkley. Well, if you have another way, bring it
forward, or if that is the way to do it. Again, I am trying to
say that people become very cynical when a vision is laid out,
a vision is finally passed by Congress, and then nothing gets
done. Let's move more quickly.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, sir. The fire is lit.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I am going to say to Senator Merkley, the
issue that we are talking about, you are raising here, has been
discussed a good deal already today. In terms of, with
apologies to The Doors and Jose Feliciano, the idea of ``Light
My Fire'' comes to mind. Senator Capito and I have already had
some preliminary conversations about a hearing that focuses
just on this, and we would have, that is not entirely,
certainly not entirely Shailen Bhatt's responsibility. It is a
shared responsibility, as you know. The States, I say this as a
recovering Governor, States have a responsibility here, and I
want to make sure that they are a part of this solution.
Senator Merkley. Absolutely. Let's bring other key players
in to solve this problem and try to knock down the obstacles
that have slowed everything down.
Senator Carper. Amen. Thank you.
Senator Capito? Senator Capito, how about giving your
opening statement?
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you. Quickly, let me just
followup on this, because I am a little confused. When you say
a site, a site can have more than one port. Is that correct?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Capito. The 500,000, is that ports, or sites?
Mr. Bhatt. Ports.
Senator Capito. Ports. Okay, so that is not going to
500,000 sites. I would just say, you said 178,000, I think,
were already built, and they were mostly private sector. What
does that tell you? Public sector, private sector, the private
sector gets it done.
I think that is the direction that, I believe that was the
direction we should have gone in the beginning. We did not win
on that because the private sector knows the answer is here.
That is just a statement, because I do have something very
happy, and you are going to love this.
I have three interns here with me today, and I want to take
an opportunity, so you all wave when your name gets called. I
have Sidney Megna from Fairmont, West Virginia. I have Kelsey
Rees from Morgantown, West Virginia, and I have Ford Sutton
from Charleston, West Virginia. Thank you all for helping out
today and for coming to this hearing.
They travel West Virginia roads all the time. They love
Corridor H; they want to see it completed, so if I could get
them right up here, they would be. You are going to come see me
on Corridor H, and we are going to show you our bridges. I
wanted to give just some of the highlights of my opening
statement, just to get it on the record.
I am certainly proud of the bipartisanship that we had at
the IIJA. It showed that we can work together and really, I
think, achieve good results. Some of the implementations come
into focus, and we have had some testimony to that. We have
seen how the formula funding really is benefiting, certainly,
my State of West Virginia, and that is why I was so adamant
that 90 percent of the funding provided by this committee
through the IIJA needed to be that formula funding. I know you
understand that probably better than all of us sitting up here,
having been the implementer.
We have already discussed that discretionary grants are a
universal point of concern for our stakeholders. There are too
many strings; it is taking too long to get these out the door,
and these timeline delays, we have talked about inflationary
costs of construction, and obviously, this is going to be
impacted.
Then, that is when we get to this August redistribution
thing. My understanding is the large driver of those increases
is the TIFIA program. Given that, let me just stop here and ask
you to confirm this, that the discretionary grants, this August
redistribution, is caused by not getting the discretionary
grants out on time, and also the TIFIA, those are the major
drivers of the August redistribution?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, Ranking Member, primarily.
Senator Capito. Primarily. Those are the two things I am
concerned about. I am concerned by the proposal, including in
this 2025 budget that would transfer $800 million of Highway
Trust Fund contract authority from TIFIA to two discretionary
grant programs when we are having trouble already getting the
discretionary dollars out.
I look forward to the efforts to speed this up. This
discretionary grant process time is definitely ticking, and I
am concerned about that. I think you know my feelings on
joining with Senator Cramer on the congressional Review Act on
the greenhouse gas. I said repeatedly, we talked to Secretary
Buttigieg about this, we debated this vigorously as we were
writing this bill.
It was not included in our bill intentionally because we
negotiated it out, and sometimes you win, you lose in
negotiations. That one lost. I do think that the Senate spoke
here, and I do not think that the FHWA has that authority. We
are now in the courts to figure out exactly how far the
department has gone in that.
I think we are cooking along here pretty well. Obviously, I
think we have highlighted some problems that you are aware of
that we want to have congressional, because the intent in the
bill was to have One Federal Decision working properly and
expeditiously to have the dollars going out. We are going to
be, we would have these EV charging stations. These are just
some of the things I think that my fellow members have brought.
You are coming this summer, hopefully, and we will get
together and show you wild and wonderful West Virginia, and we
will also show you, have our stakeholders in to talk about more
deeply some of the issues that we see as we try to tackle the
difficult challenges of building infrastructure in these
inflationary times. I thank your office as always, and you
personally, very open, very transparent, very much appreciated
by this Senator from West Virginia. Thank you.
Senator Carper. As a native West Virginian, this Senator
approves that message.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito, for everything.
I have one more question, Shailen, to ask, and then we will
wrap it up, I think. A question on low-carbon construction
materials. In the Inflation Reduction Act, this committee
established, as you may recall, the Low-Carbon Transportation
Materials grant program to incentivize the use of lower
emitting construction materials on highway projects. Reducing
the emissions associated with the construction of our highways,
of our bridges, is an important part of reducing the industrial
emissions that are a major driver of climate change, as you
know.
I was pleased to see the Federal Highway Administration
release a request for applications for the program in March. My
question is this: how is the Federal Highway Administration
working with States and the private sector to help them take
advantage of this grant opportunity?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have actually been
very pleased with the amount of interest, both from States and
from private sector partners. Obviously, we had to work with
EPA to figure out what are the actual materials that would
qualify. It is obviously incremental costs that are supported.
Due to some of those challenges, we thought, we were not
sure what the interest would be. A lot of interest that is out
there, and we are very excited about the potential to reduce
carbon on the construction side.
Senator Carper. What are the next steps for this program
now that the request for applications has been publicly
released?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman. The next steps would be for
us to finalize those applications that qualify, and then to
work to get those dollars flowing.
Senator Carper. All right, good, thank you. Before I thank
you for appearing before us today, I want to again thank the
folks that serve with you in the Federal Highway Administration
for the work that they do, and express our thanks to your
family for sharing you with the people of Delaware, Colorado,
Kentucky, and now the Country. As Senator Capito has
acknowledged, you are really doing a very, very good job in
this role. It is not an easy role, and we are grateful for the
way you attack it every day.
I want to just come back to a couple of issues that bear
following up. I like to use the term ``shared responsibility''
a lot, and some of the issues that we talked about here, in
fact, a lot of them, they are shared responsibilities.
We have a responsibility in this legislative branch of
Congress. The Administration has a responsibility; State and
local governments have a responsibility. The private sector has
a responsibility. It is a shared responsibility.
I remember, I used to go to the Detroit Auto Show.
Delaware, as you will recall, used to have a Chrysler plant, a
big Chrysler plant in Newark, Delaware. I think we had 3,000 or
4,000 people working there. They had about another 3,000 people
working at the General Motors plant in Newport, Delaware.
Today, we have neither of those. They all closed in the
Great Recession, and we lost all of those jobs.
I used to go to the Detroit Auto Show. One of the people I
met at the Detroit Auto Show about 10 years ago was a woman
name Mary Barra who went on to become, and is, the CEO, as you
may recall, of General Motors.
I remember the year the Chevrolet Volt was recognized and
won the award as the car of the year. It was a hybrid. It got
38 miles on a charge. The electric vehicle I have gets 300
miles on a charge, and the ones that are coming off the
assembly line, trucks and cars, are going to do a whole lot
more than that going forward.
Senator Capito and I had just some very preliminary
conversations this morning about the hearing that actually
looks beyond what we are talking and discussing today, but we
are interested in the deployment of charging stations. We want
to make sure that the Federal money that we have allocated is
getting to be used for the right purposes, and that State and
local governments and others are doing their fair share, too.
I want to come back to ``pay for''. I mentioned earlier
that things that are worth having are worth paying for. One of
the nice things about electric vehicles is they do not pollute.
That is a good thing. The other thing is, the folks who use
electric vehicles, like mine, we do not pay for the money going
to the Federal Highway Trust Fund or the State highway trust
funds, which are mostly driven by taxes on gasoline and fuel,
as you know.
That is just not right. We have an obligation in terms of a
shared responsibility to help pay for this infrastructure and,
in many instances, we are not doing that. Some States have
figured out how to address that, but it is a problem, and it
needs to be addressed.
Let me see if I have anything else. I do not think so.
Anything else?
Senator Capito. I am good.
Senator Carper. Okay. I want to give you the last word. Go
ahead, just the last couple comments that you would like to
say. You have been badgered here for a couple of hours. You
take very seriously your responsibilities, but just give us a
couple closing thoughts, please.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member. Senator
Capito, thank you for introducing the interns. I was not sure
who these three high-powered people were sitting over here, and
I was concerned that they might be, you know, someone I needed
to recognize.
Whether it is the 8-year-old boy that I met at one of those
projects, or your granddaughter and her leadership, I think
that one of the things that I am just so hopeful about for our
Country is that, particularly on areas where we can find
bipartisan compromise and not get too out to the fringes and
extremes that seem to be consuming a lot of our conversations,
I am just really grateful for this space. You call it
badgering; I call it energetic and enthusiastic followup for
things people care about. I feel like there is some positive,
hopefully, that we can share with others in the Country to
bring us back together.
Thank you for recognizing the almost 3,000 members of
Federal Highways. Lots of people work nights, weekends, and the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has been both a blessing and a
curse for some people. It is a massive amount of work. I am
sure your staffs understand that.
There are projects in this Country, despite the inflation,
that are going to be moved forward that never would have been
possible. Yes, I mean, it is a hard job. These are hard jobs,
but we are helping to build a better Country, and what else
could be better than that?
Thank you for your leadership, and I look forward to
continuing to work together.
Senator Carper. Thank you for those comments.
One of the things that I most enjoyed in my service as
State Treasurer, Congressman, Governor, Senator, and before
that, in the Navy, one of the things I have really gotten a lot
of pleasure from is we do not create jobs in government at the
State level, local level, Federal level. We do not create jobs;
we help create nurturing environment for job creation and job
preservation.
That is what we focused on in the legislation that we have
been talking about here today that is in large part to create
that nurturing environment for job creation and job
preservation, and hopefully, to provide for an environment
where we can be safe and live a lot longer and healthy lives
for our children and grandchildren.
That is all something that is on my mind, and it continues
to be on my mind for as long as I have the privilege of sitting
here.
Yes, please?
Mr. Bhatt. Sir, I do not know how many more times I will
come before this committee before your time as Chairman ends.
As I said at the train station in Delaware, there are roads,
bridges, rail, dams, infrastructure across the Nation that is
just thanks to your hard work. As a native son of West
Virginia, you have done the Nation proud. I just want to
express all of our gratitude from the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration for all
of your leadership.
Senator Carper. Thank you for your kindness. The day that
President Biden signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law into
law on the White House lawn, Senator Capito and I, and Senator
Manchin, three kids from West Virginia that somehow ended up in
the U.S. Senate and had a chance to collaborate on this
legislation. What a thrill that was, and what a source of joy
for all of us.
Again, thanks for your testimony. Thanks very much for your
diligence and your leadership that you provide at the Federal
Highway Administration.
With that, a couple things I want to do on the housekeeping
side before we close our hearing. Senators will be allowed to
submit questions for the record through the close of business
on Thursday, June 20th, 2024. We will compile those questions
and send them to our witness, and we ask our witness to reply
by Wednesday, July 3d.
Anything else, Senator Capito? No.
With that, our thanks to our staffs who work so hard and
collaborate and work very well together. I am grateful to all
of you. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so
much.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]