[Senate Hearing 119-274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-274
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT
IMPLEMENTATION AND CASE STUDIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2025
__________
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
62-668 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 26, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
McMurry, Russell R., P.E., Vice President, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Commissioner,
Georgia Department of Transportation........................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse.... 27
Johnson, Gary, Vice President, Granite Construction, on behalf of
the Transportation Construction Coalition...................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Carroll, Michael, P.E., Deputy Managing Director, Office of
Transportation and Infrastructure Systems, the City of
Philadelphia................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to additional questions from Senator Blunt
Rochester.................................................. 53
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety.......................... 80
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA)................. 86
National Work Zone Safety Coalition.......................... 88
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC).................... 91
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)............ 93
ASCE, Statement for the Record from The American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE): Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act Implementation and Case Studies........................ 97
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT
IMPLEMENTATION AND CASE STUDIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Ricketts, Husted,
Merkley, Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Schiff, Blunt Rochester,
Alsobrooks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Well, I want to welcome everybody to what I
think will be a nice journey for this committee, and that is
the Highway Bill, it is a massive bill that we have the
pleasure of working on in this committee.
Before I begin, I would like to express all of our thoughts
and prayers for our colleague, Senator Cramer, who had an
accident just several days ago. I will sure miss him over here
right next to me, because he is a wonderful member of the
conference, but hopefully he will be back soon.
Everybody keep, he had a fall on ice, and we know how cold
it has been. Let's hope he gets a quick recovery.
Thank you for joining us this morning to continue oversight
of the implementation of the IIJA. Today our focus is on the
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, one of the
foundational components of the IIJA, which was developed in a
bipartisan manner by this committee.
This hearing comes at a critical time, I think, as we
approach the expiration of these provisions at the end of 2026
in September. We want to continue what is working, but
discontinue what is not working.
Since the law's enactment on November 15th, 2021,
transportation stakeholders have been delivering on its promise
but at time experiencing some challenges.
We have some of those stakeholders with us today. I
appreciate them coming to provide us with an on the ground
update of their efforts to deliver transportation projects in
rural and urban communities.
On the positive side, the Federal Highway formula programs
received approximately 90 percent of the funding in the IIJA,
which was something that I strongly supported. This funding has
provided States with the certainty and with the flexible
project eligibilities to address the transportation needs of
Americans across the Country.
In my home State of West Virginia, that formula funding is
upgrading and modernizing our roads and bridges, which will
connect our communities to job and economic opportunities. I
also championed commonsense provisions aimed at accelerating
projects so that communities are not stuck waiting to realize
the safety and reliability benefits that they will bring.
As an example, the IIJA codified the One Federal Decision
policy which expedites, or should expedite, the environmental
review process for certain projects by setting a 2-year goal
for those reviews and allowing the use of a single coordinated
process to develop an environmental document.
I am curious to hear from our witnesses today if these
provisions are being used and whether they have been having the
desired impact. Despite the many benefits, I am aware that we
have some challenges with the implementation of the IIJA.
Inflation is certainly the contributing factor. It has eaten
into the overall funding increase provided by the IIJA, and
increased project costs.
I look forward to our witnesses sharing the real-world
impacts of this inflation on the work that they are doing.
Another challenge is that many of the new discretionary
grant programs established by the IIJA have been very slow in
achieving their congressional intent. These programs require
significant time and money from eligible applicants. Once a
grant has been awarded, the project grant agreement was often
taking more than a year to be negotiated and signed by the
prior administration, which delays the benefits of each
project.
This slow-down has contributed to a ballooning amount of
unused obligation authority that must be sent back to the
States as part of a process known as the August redistribution.
In 2024, that amount was $8.7 billion. This results in an end
of the Fiscal Year scramble as States seek to put that amount
of funding to use, often putting it toward lower priority
projects.
We advanced a bipartisan fix to help with this issue last
year. The challenge remains, and is growing.
I am sure we will learn more about our witnesses'
experience with applying for and managing a discretionary grant
award today.
In addition, the implementation of the IIJA was sometimes
clouded by executive overreach of the prior administration. My
colleagues on this committee have often heard me talk about two
examples of overreach: the December 16th policy memorandum that
was issued, and the Greenhouse Gas Performance Measure Final
Rule.
The goal of this overreach was simply advancing the
priorities of the prior administration even when those
priorities were often specifically considered by this committee
and excluded from the IIJA.
Ultimately, it took more of a year for the prior
administration to correct their misstep with the December 16th
memo, and it required litigation from 22 States and action by
the Trump administration to finally end the unauthorized
Greenhouse Gas Performance Measure final rule.
With the opportunities and challenges of the IIJA
implementation in mind, I look forward to receiving testimony
from our panel of witnesses. This review of the real-world
impacts of the IIJA and the feedback on what is working and
what is not working will inform this committee's bipartisan on
the upcoming Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill.
Thanks to the witnesses and members for participating
today. I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to our
witnesses for joining us.
Infrastructure Week had become something of a long-running
joke until 4 years ago when Democrats and Republicans joined
together and passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It made
long overdue investments in our roads, bridges, transit, ports,
drinking water, wastewater, and other systems of service, the
backbone of our Nation's economy.
It was a monumental first step. About a third of American's
620,000 bridges need repair and nearly 42,000 of those bridges
are considered structurally deficient and need replacing. Our
Country needs more infrastructure investments.
I am eager to join with my Republican colleagues to take
stock of our Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, craft policies to
fix our aging roads and bridges, and pass a package before the
current law expires in September 2026.
This is an obviously reasonable cause of action, and in
ordinary times we would simply go forward with it.
Unfortunately, we have a President who claims powers to himself
outside the Constitutional order, even when the law says
plainly otherwise. For example, when the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law said that $5 billion ``shall be spent'' on
building out a national network of electric vehicle charging
infrastructure, this administration canceled State approvals
and froze funding way after the time for executive veto was
passed.
The Trump regime asks us to believe that they are simply
taking time to review it. This is the law that members of both
parties in this body passed. It is not subject to the whims of
polluter mega-donors. The ongoing violation is not only
illegal, it is costing jobs around the Country, harming our
economic and industrial competitiveness, and accelerating
climate change, which is already costing families thousands of
dollars in increased insurance and grocery bills.
In my home State of Rhode Island, we have urgent work to do
to replace or repair bridges. The Washington Bridge, a vital
economic artery for our region, served 90,000 vehicles every
day before it experienced structural concerns. It has been more
than a year since the bridge was shut down and Rhode Islanders
are spending more time in traffic with disrupted commutes. Many
live on the other side of the bridge from essential services
like hospitals. The project to replace the bridge was awarded
grants from the Mega and Infra programs, and it is waiting on
both.
We have other major bridges that need urgent attention.
Fifteen bridges on the I-95 corridor through Rhode Island carry
185,000 vehicles daily and billions of dollars' worth of
freight.
The project to repair those bridges was awarded funding
from the Bridge Investment Program under the IIJA. This
administration refuses to sign the grant agreement to allow
access to those funds.
Our historic Mount Hope Bridge, which is a gorgeous bridge,
if you can say bridges are gorgeous, requires repairs and
upgrades to address corrosion in cables due to higher humidity
driven by climate change. This project could achieve hundreds
of millions of dollars' worth of cost savings if implemented by
extending the life of the bridge by 50 to 75 years.
The project was awarded a grant from the PROTECT program,
but this administration refuses to sign the grant agreement to
allow access to those funds.
Before Trump took office, the Federal Government was a
committed partner in the effort to rebuild. Now, we have an
administration that is canceling or delaying infrastructure
funding nationwide, putting our bridges, our safety and even
lives at risk. Communities across the Country are now left
questioning whether the funding authorized by Congress will
ever be delivered to the projects that they scoped, planned,
and started building.
To those questions, they presently get no answers, just
what I call the fog bank of evasion, uncertainty, and
unanswered calls and emails.
There are some new ideas out there, too, the Department of
Transportation says you now need a high marriage rate and a
high birth rate to qualify for funding for transportation
projects. Republican colleagues on the committee from Ohio,
West Virginia, and Wyoming will not do well under this
directive.
The Department of Transportation also plans to unilaterally
amend the general terms and conditions of existing grant
agreements to impose ideological preferences. Well, when a
State or local government signs a contract with the Federal
Government for an infrastructure project, they expect and they
rely on the Federal Government to honor its contractual
obligations. They do not expect to receive a notice telling
them that the signed contract has been unilaterally canceled or
paused or abrogated or changed by the Federal Government. This
kind of uncertainty keeps shovels from ever touching the
ground.
The historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is the law. We
have a lot of good, serious bipartisan work to do to write the
next Surface Transportation reauthorization. I speak for all of
us on our side when I say we are ready to roll up our sleeves,
get to it and pass the next authorization together.
Senator Capito. Together.
Senator Whitehouse. It will be pointless unless and until
this administration respects Article I of the Constitution and
its own obligation under Article II to faithfully execute the
law.
It is Article I for a reason. Our founders did not want to
recreate a monarchy. We were to have co-equal branches of
government with checks and balances, not rubber stamps. First
among those co-equal branches is the legislative branch,
Congress, us. Until our existing laws are respected, the work
that we as a committee and as a Congress put into writing the
laws will cease to matter.
It is time to stand up for the American people and for our
democracy, and end this nonsense.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
I will now turn to our witnesses for their opening
statements. Our first witness is Russell McMurry, Commissioner
at the Georgia Department of Transportation. Mr. McMurry is
testifying this morning on behalf of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, known as AASHTO.
As Commissioner of Georgia DOT, Mr. McMurry leads a staff of
over 5,000, and has an operating budget above $5 billion.
I now recognize Mr. McMurry, and thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL R. McMURRY, P.E., VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS;
COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. McMurry. Thank you, Chair Capito, and Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and committee members for this opportunity. As
stated, I am Russell McMurry, the Commissioner of the Georgia
Department of Transportation representing AASHTO, which
consists of the 50 State DOTs, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia.
The video playing today highlights many successes resulting
from the IIJA in Georgia, from maintenance to large capital
projects. At Georgia DOT, we recognize that mobility of people
and freight safely and efficiently is more than just about
projects. It is about our quality of life and it is about our
economy.
The IIJA's Federal Surface Transportation funding has
absolutely been vital to every State DOT to safely move people
and goods. GDOT relies on the core Federal programs to deliver
projects from across a very diverse State, from our coast to
our mountains, and from rural Georgia, where agribusiness is
our No. 1 economy, to metro Atlanta, with over 6 million people
and growing. The core IIJA formula programs give States funding
certainty to properly plan and deliver for the future.
Federal funding is a foundational investment, vital to
every State for State of good repair of our Nation's highways
and bridges. In Georgia, about 80 percent of our capital
maintenance program is from the IIJA formula programs, and 90
percent Federal investment for bridge rehabilitation and bridge
replacements.
In addition to the foundational investments, IIJA has
supported major capital projects like shown on this video. Two
of those projects are on the top 100 freight bottlenecks in the
Nation list, and have a combined cost of $3.2 billion. Funding
was made possible in a large part by the IIJA funding and also
using a design-build finance contracting method. Just two
bottleneck projects in Georgia consumed 2 years of our total
Federal funding.
I am sure your State has a freight bottleneck somewhere
that needs some work.
It is great to see these large projects in the video, but I
like to remind people that a rural bridge may have a
significant economic impact as well. If a farmer can not get
crops to market efficiently due to a load restricted or closed
bridge, that is an impact on the farmer's bottom line. Every
State has needs when it comes to bridges and structures, and a
core program like the Surface Transportation Block Grant
Program and the Bridge Formula Program added by the IIJA has
been especially helpful in replacing rural bridges.
Continued Federal investment in the Nation's bridges is
very important, because bridges are just like us, they are
getting older every day, and the older I get, the more ailments
I have.
IIJA increased funding levels for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program by 30 percent. This critical investment is
helping States to reduce fatalities on our Nation's roadways
and provide flexibility we have taken advantage of in Georgia,
especially for safety education programs. We partner with
private organizations like We Are Teachers to develop age
appropriate K-12 curriculum that is approved by the Department
of Education in Georgia, and Lutzie 43, a non-profit based on
eliminating drivers crash in high school students through safe
driving summits.
In my written testimony, I have shared additional examples
of the many IIJA successes, and I have shared some challenges
as well, like cost increases. When it comes to funding from the
IIJA, I love to quote the Charles Dickens classic, it is the
best of times, it is the worst of times. Best of times for
funding, the worst of times due to cost increases.
Georgia, like most every State, has experienced significant
cost increases that have eroded the buying power of what was
intended from the IIJA. In Georgia, we have seen a 60 percent
increase in bridge costs, 66 percent increase in resurfacing
costs and over 115 percent increase in widening five projects.
Other challenges result from so many discretionary programs
with 29 of them just at Federal Highway alone. AASHTO supports
using discretionary grants to close the funding gap for most
expensive projects, and we need to make sure they are projects
of national or regional interest. The IIJA discretionary funds
have been slow to deploy and both State DOTs and local
governments have been challenged.
One local grant in Georgia took 31 months from the notice
of funding opportunity to the grant award execution. One
Federal Decision being included in the IIJA was a very
important step in the right direction. However, I believe there
is still progress to be made, and look forward to your
continued support for improving the IIJA.
Georgia has made progress in delivery of environmental
permitting by State funding Federal environmental resource
positions and co-locating them in a central office to do the
work as a team.
We thank you for your leadership and focus on improving
transportation for the Nation. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McMurry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Our next witness is Mr. Gary Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the
Vice President of Granite Construction and is testifying on
behalf of the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) this
morning.
The TCC is a partnership of 34 national trade organizations
and labor unions representing hundreds of thousands of
individuals working to build, modernize and maintain the
Nation's transportation systems.
I now recognize Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes for his
testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GARY JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, GRANITE
CONSTRUCTION, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSPORTATION
CONSTRUCTION COALITION
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, Ranking
Member Whitehouse. Thank you today for convening the hearing.
I am Gary Johnson, Vice President of Granite Construction.
Granite is America's infrastructure company, specializing in
complex infrastructure projects, while also building many of
the standard day-to-day roads across America that we all drive
on.
Today, I am representing the Transportation Construction
Coalition, or TCC, a partnership of 34 national trade
associations and labor unions. Thanks to the bipartisan
leadership of this committee in passing the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act in 2021, my company and many others are
experiencing record opportunities allowing us to enhance safety
and mobility throughout the U.S.
To date, States have committed $183 billion in IIJA highway
and bridge formula funds to support over 91,000 new projects,
at least one in nearly every U.S. county. This includes 2,300
projects in West Virginia and almost 500 projects in Rhode
Island.
Projects across the U.S. are driving an increase in heavy
equipment sales, asphalt and concrete production, and record
employment levels for highway and bridge construction. Outcomes
like these are proof the law is working as intended.
While undeniable progress is underway, I would like to
highlight three areas for further improvement. First, we must
continue to invest and ensure the highest return on those
resources. While IIJA was a much-needed course correction after
years of status quo Federal investment, delivering the surface
transportation network our Nation deserves and needs is not
just a 5-year endeavor.
Accordingly, the next multi-year bill should preserve and
grow current highway and public transportation investment
levels, using a user fee revenue source that captures every
vehicle on the road. The impact of these investments is clear.
At Granite we have seen first-hand the benefits of proper
funding and smart project planning.
On California's U.S. Highway 101 improvement project,
Granite worked with CalTrans and local agencies using
collaborative contracting methods to phase a project into
manageable sections and leverage State and Federal funding to
deliver critical infrastructure years ahead of schedule and
under budget.
As a key first step toward achieving the goal of continued
investments, we urge all committee members to cosponsor
legislation from Senators Fisher, Lummis, and Ricketts that
would ensure drivers of electric vehicles join their fellow
motorists in contributing to the investment and improvement of
our Nation's roads and bridges.
Second, Congress must address ways to ensure that Buy
America does not impede progress. The TCC fully supports Buy
America's objective of strengthening U.S. manufacturing, and we
offer two ways to further improve that.
First, prevent disruption in pavement product markets. The
TCC encourages Congress to preserve the exemption for
aggregates and paving materials that was included in the IIJA.
All areas of the Country do not have local access to all the
aggregate, cement, and asphalt binder needed for the paving
jobs. It must be imported from outside the U.S.
The TCC urges transparency and certainty in the waiver
process. Federal agencies should develop a publicly accessible
data base of available Buy America-compliant materials and
products to provide stakeholders with procurement options up
front.
The FHA recently announced a rollback of its general waiver
for manufactured products, making this recommendation extremely
timely. As an example, one State department of transportation
took 14 months to receive a waiver for a submersible pump, when
two other States received approval for the exact same product
in a much shorter period of time. There needs to be
consistency.
Finally, our employees are our greatest asset, and they
need support through additional legislation to go home safely
every day. In 2022, there were 96,000 work zone crashes, 37,000
injuries, and almost 1,000 fatalities. The IIJA made important
investments in work zone safety like enhancing the Highway
Safety Improvement Program, and supporting the use of
intelligent transportation systems. The next highway bill
should incentivize States to go further in implementing
stricter enforcement measures.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
I encourage each of you and your staff to talk to a contractor
in your State or trade association and go visit a job in your
State. Talk to the men and women who are actually doing the
work on the grade and get their input.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I have done that,
and I will do it again.
Mr. Johnson. Good.
Senator Capito. It is always a very great visit.
Our final witness this morning is Michael Carroll,
President of the National Association of City Transportation
Officials and Deputy Managing Director of the Office of
Transportation and Infrastructure Systems for the city of
Philadelphia. How in the world do you say all that?
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. In this role, he coordinates and sets the
policy direction for critical functions, including the city's
department of streets. His oversight includes infrastructure
systems that are made up of more than 2,575 miles of street and
320 bridge structures.
I now recognize Mr. Carroll for 5 minutes for his opening
statement. Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CARROLL, P.E., DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS, THE CITY
OF PHILADELPHIA
Mr. Carroll. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Capito,
Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. I am
Mike Carroll, and I serve as president of the National
Association of City Transportation Officials, and am Deputy
Managing Director of the Office of Transportation and
Infrastructure in the city of Philadelphia. We oversee the
delivery of capital infrastructure projects in coordination
with our streets department and the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation. We call it PennDOT.
The Federal funding support for the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act is a lifeline to overcome decades of
neglect in infrastructure, safety, and economic opportunity for
communities with real needs. Philadelphia's Chinatown Stitch
Planning grant, for example, under the Reconnecting Communities
Pilot Program, reconnects a working-class Philadelphia
community that was split in half by construction of I-676,
known locally as the Vine Street Expressway.
The Safe Streets and Roads for All awards, another example,
improves transportation infrastructure along the roads that
contribute disproportionately to deaths and serious injuries
and deliver essential pedestrian and bicycle safety education
in 40 Philadelphia schools.
Our partnership with PennDOT is a good model for the rest
of the Country. Our State and Federal partners acknowledge the
city is closer to the people we all serve and that we are all
committed to in giving effective public service and faithfully
implementing the laws and policies regardless of who enacted
them.
IIJA discretionary programs enable local government
partners to extend the capacity of State DOTs. Our PennDOT
partners have then argued for direct funding to the city
because they can take the burden off of PennDOT. Any future
transportation bills should consider new paths for direct
funding to keep decisionmaking as close to the people as
possible.
People who live and work in Philadelphia see IIJA's
results. We have completed paving and safety upgrades to our
city-wide arterial network. We have completed repairs and
reopened the Montgomery Avenue Bridge over the northeast
corridor rail lines. We expect our MLK Bridge serving the
central business district to open later this year.
We see improvements in our port infrastructure and our
airport terminal. We have begun work reducing pollution due to
stormwater and contamination in our drinking water.
Our contracting community has risen to the challenge as
well. We have attracted new contractors to business in
Philadelphia, and the work has also attracted young Americans
to the construction industry and helped us retain seasoned
tradesmen. This has reversed the death spiral in lost talent
and knowledge that could otherwise impair all infrastructure
nationwide.
The Federal Government should ensure current funding awards
move toward project completion and help us to avoid the added
cost that inevitably comes with new uncertainties and delays.
The march toward obligation is intensive and means expending
local dollars and ramping up contractors and other businesses
to seek opportunities.
Everyone involved takes on the risks that are mitigated by
trust that the Federal Government is a committed partner. Even
where there is disagreement over program purposes, honoring
these commitments should be the priority.
Where the PROTECT program is targeted for the use of
certain words, awards like the projects for the Bells Mill
Bridge and the Green Valley Bridge over the Wissahickon Creek
become at risk. These historic bridges serve over 13,000
vehicles a day and urgently need repairs due to extreme weather
events.
Like other residents in other cities, Philadelphians want
effective government that produces results. No one wants my
opinions about what carbon dioxide does in the atmosphere, or
why streets that once were never under water are now under
water every spring rain.
Local residents expect that if we follow the rules that
were given to us at the time and the Federal Government awards
us funding that they will honor these commitments regardless of
who is in charge. The best defense you can all provide to
combat risk and uncertainty is to take a bipartisan stance in
favor of stability, continuity, and results.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
I am going to start with a very general question for all of
you, and you have touched on this, all of you have, in your
statements. Just concisely, what part of the IIJA had the
greatest benefit for your experience, and which one has
presented the greatest challenge?
Mr. McMurry?
Mr. McMurry. Thank you. The greatest benefit comes from
when we consider the core formula programs, that being national
highway priority programs, the Surface Transportation Block
Grant program, which is truly the most flexible to use for the
States and NPOs.
Again, I remind everybody there are sub-allocation by
population from under 5,000, from 5 to 50, 2 to 200, and
greater. There is, again, flexibility that we can use.
The other programs certainly are the safety program that I
mentioned in my testimony. The increased funding in the Highway
Safety Improvement Program is absolutely vital as we take on
the Nation's 40,000 fatalities on our roadways, which is just
not acceptable.
Then I add the Bridge Formula Program, that again, was
added by the IIJA, which again gives funding that can be used
especially for local governments. Bridges are everywhere. In
fact, in Georgia, there are more local bridges than there are
State-owned bridges, and we invest in every bridge in Georgia,
federally and with State dollars, because all bridges are vital
for safe and secure travel.
Those core formula programs have been customary and
necessary, not only for utilization but for the planning
process. We each do a State transportation improvement program,
either four or 6 years, and long range transportation planning
out to 20 years, counting on reliable funding, reliability from
year to year, in those core formula programs, because it takes
too long to deliver these projects.
We need that funding certainty in those core programs to
know that we can deliver through the planning process, through
the design, environmental, right-of-way construction process,
to get the infrastructure delivered.
Some of those challenges out of the IIJA in Georgia have
been, with some of the new programs, again, to Mr. Carroll's
testimony, things are happening and we need to be able to be
responsive to be able to use the PROTECT dollars, which again,
I have to say thank you in the IIJA, because we never had the
ability to use Federal dollars to work on things such as slides
or flooding and using Federal dollars. It has been hard to
deploy, because they are new programs.
One of the challenges, too, has been in the TAP program,
the Transportation Alternatives Program, to try to deliver
Federal projects local through a competitive process to very
rural areas. It is hard to ask a population under 5,000 to
deliver a Federal aid project due to the complexity of the
funding, the NEPA.
Often in Georgia, we have had cities and communities say
no, thank you after they were awarded a grant, or excuse me,
through the competitive grant process that the State DOTs have
to administer, because they realize how much more cost it takes
to actually administer the program. It is simply easier for
them just to deliver the project themselves with no Federal
dollars.
Those couple of programs, obviously NEVI was a new program,
it has already been mentioned today, States have been moving
forward with those programs. Obviously it is taking a while to
stand up those programs.
From an AASHTO perspective, every State has different
procurement rules and methodologies. In Georgia, we believe
strongly that we should not put State dollars with the NEVI
dollars. We are using a public-private partnership to use the
Federal dollars and private sector dollars to deliver the NEVI
program.
States have struggled----
Senator Capito. How many have you built under the NEVI
program?
Mr. McMurry. We have five under contract, but they are not
built.
Senator Capito. Okay.
Mr. McMurry. It is a very--the NEVI program was a very much
surface transportation program to a technology solution. It is
very different. No State DOT has built C-Stores or gas
stations.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. McMurry. How to do this on private property is taking a
long time to navigate.
We are fortunate because we have a public-private
partnership, laws that allow us to advance. Other States were
really boxed in, that they could not even deliver, because they
didn't have a method that they could deliver on.
Senator Capito. That is a real problem, yes.
Mr. Johnson, quickly, the greatest benefit and greatest
challenge.
Mr. Johnson. Chairman, I think obviously the greatest
benefit is the amount of money coming out in the formula aid
funding. It took a while to get started. It was delayed a
little bit from authorization to appropriation in 2021 and
2022.
Since then, we have seen a lot of money coming into the
States that we work in. We have good backlog, we have hired
more people, and all of that is good.
Something else that has been very good about IIJA was the
exemptions for the construction materials. It is hard to
imagine but 20 to 30 percent of aggregate oil, asphalt binder,
cement binder for concrete comes in from outside the U.S. Not
because we want it to. We have to. We have roughly 60 asphalt
plants, most of them in the west. Ten or fifteen in Mississippi
and Tennessee, and a lot of those asphalt plants use binder
from Canada. Some even use binder from South Korea.
If we were to shut that off, or put tariffs on it, it would
cause inflation or it would cause problems with getting jobs
done on time.
Some of the things that I think the next bill should look
at, that it did not, is using recycled materials in the paving.
The technology is there to use up to 40 percent reclaimed
asphalt pavement in new asphalt. That has the benefit of
lowering the cost, reducing truck trips, increasing safety on
the roads because you are reducing truck trips, less air
emissions, and you are using material that is U.S. material, so
you are not having to import from outside the Country.
Senator Capito. I am going to stop you there, because I
want to give Mr. Carroll a chance to answer quickly, plus and
minus.
Mr. Carroll. Well, there is a lot of agreement, I think. I
would focus on the safety investments as one of the biggest
pluses for us. I will make another plug for discretionary
programs and direct funding for cities and other local
governments. I think we hear directly when there are issues,
and are often in a position to react.
More in alignment with what constituents are talking about,
I feel like there is certainly a lot of work we need to do to
focus on product delivery, and I think you have heard that in
the other comments as well. Anything we can do to improve that,
to streamline that, I am certainly going to be in favor for.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman.
The Chairman did a very good thing by keeping our record
open from our permitting reform hearing for 30 days. We are
still in that 30-day period. I would invite each of you to
contribute to that record what you see by way of permitting
reforms that could help move things forward without
compromising the purposes of the permitting requirements.
In particular, in the grant making process, there are what
you consider to be excessive or duplicative or unreasonable
conditions that attach to various grant making processes. I
invite you to do that.
Mr. Carroll, climate change causes very significant effects
for coastal infrastructure. We are seeing it all the time in
Rhode Island. We already have nearly a foot of sea level rise.
We have roads near the coast that flood constantly. We are also
seeing riparian flooding from rain bursts that is dramatically
changing the way that communities have to respond in their
infrastructure planning.
What are the dangers where engineers, planners, designers,
and construction firms are forbidden to discuss and predict
climate effects?
Mr. Carroll. Well, we need to plan so that we can build
things effectively. I would say anything that feels like a
restriction in pursuing the work of understanding the impacts
on our infrastructure and our communities is going to be a
danger not just to good infrastructure, but to the people who
live and work in communities themselves.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. You mentioned high injury
corridors. What would you like to see in a new surface
transportation bill to provide additional resources for
addressing the safety concerns in high injury corridors?
Mr. Carroll. Well, I think more is always going to be the
first thing I answer with. We talked a little bit about reform
that would help.
If we are making improvements which are focused on
pedestrian movements, in particular, I think it should be
pretty straightforward to get environmental clearance.
Sometimes it is not as straightforward as it should be. A lot
of work could go into making a straight path for a categorical
exclusion, something that is more like a checklist, which takes
maybe months to process instead of a process that can drag on
for years.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you see data gaps in identifying
high injury corridors?
Mr. Carroll. Data gaps, you said?
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Mr. Carroll. Yes, I do. I think we have done a decent job;
we have been focused on this for a while.
Senator Whitehouse. We, meaning your Philadelphia area?
Mr. Carroll. I am sorry, I meant the city of Philadelphia
has. This is a subject I will go so far as to say many of the
cities that are part of NACTO have been focused on for a while
as well.
There is a big differential, if you look at any
metropolitan region, between smaller communities. I am sure,
rural communities have issues getting the data together to make
the case for what they should get. If there is some work that
happened at the Federal level or a way to promote work at the
State level to make that data more available, that is going to
go a long way.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks.
Mr. McMurry, I mentioned in my opening remarks that we have
PROTECT grant funding that is not coming through at this point.
I understand that Georgia has about $240 million in PROTECT
grant funding. What is the status of that as far as you know
today?
Mr. McMurry. Out of the total discretionary money that may
be coming to Georgia, I am not sure I can answer off the top of
my head of how much is being utilized. I can tell you, though,
in the formula PROTECT it has been a slow start to get projects
through the pipeline.
As you understand, the new projects----
Senator Whitehouse. Would you take that as a question for
the record? I am just interested in the status today of the
Georgia PROTECT grant funding and whether it is cleared to go,
whether you still need grant agreements signed, what its status
is, its process status is on the way toward being able to
embark on those projects. If you would do that for the record,
I would appreciate it.
Mr. McMurry. Will do.
Senator Whitehouse. The reason I ask that question, Madam
Chair, is because what I believe I am seeing in the wake of the
court order that has instructed the Trump administration to end
frozen funds in certain areas and to come into compliance with
the court's decision about illegal freezes is what I call the
fog bank technique, where the official will not say no, we are
not going to do that, I will make myself a target for violation
of the court order, instead they retreat into the fog bank and
you either get e-mails not answered, phones not answered, vague
responses, we do not know, we are still looking into it, stand
by. Even assurances that it is fine, but then the money never
comes, or the grant agreement never gets filed.
I think that is actually strategy at this point from the
Trump administration. I think we are going to have to press our
way through that because slow-mo contempt of court orders is
still contempt of court orders. I really think we need to get
to the bottom of this.
As you and I have both said, Chairman, there is really
important bipartisan work to do in this committee. It just is
not going to work when we have an administration that will not
faithfully execute the laws, despite the oath that was sworn to
faithfully execute the laws.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Agreed, and that is part of the
oversight that we are doing in this committee.
Senator Husted?
Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate
the witnesses spending some time with us today.
I come recently from State government, where we oversaw the
department of transportation and had a lot of variety of
transportation projects we were trying to get approved, and
would constantly fog over when they would talk with me about
the Federal review process and permitting process and
environmental review, and how long it was going to take to do
this project that was of urgent nature.
We sit here today, trying to figure out how we all get
better at this. I will start with you, Mr. McMurry. How do we
get better? How do we shorten that time period for review, when
we find situations where literally the permitting process takes
longer than the construction of these projects? How do we get
better?
Mr. McMurry. Thank you for that. One, States that have
taken on NEPA delegation or assignment, as it is called, have
seen marked improvements in their time to permit. Georgia has
not done that, but we have tried to do some other things.
In my testimony, I mentioned, we call it an office of
environmental quality, of where the State DOT pays for Federal
resource agency positions at the Corps of Engineers, National
Marine Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, to name a few. We
have co-located them in one office that we fund, so that they
can work as a team to work on our environmental reviews and
permitting.
We have seen great gains there. In my testimony, I
mentioned up to 80 percent time improvement on some of those
permitting reviews. Not on all, but on some.
I call it really an alignment, because most of the Federal
resource agencies outside of USDOT or Federal Highway or FTA,
their primary mission is not to advance infrastructure
projects. We really have to have an alignment. That is what we
have been able to do in Georgia to pull all these resource
agencies, including State resource agencies, together under one
roof and work as a team.
Now, that sounds very commonsensical. Why wouldn't
everybody work together to try to advance transportation
infrastructure projects? Again, it was very hard. We had to
work with each Federal agency to get buy-in and consensus that
they would release a person not to work under their roof, but
work in a different location to move projects forward.
That is one thing I think that is perfectly allowable under
the law. It can happen today. It should be really standard
across the Nation that there should be an alignment in Federal
resource regulatory agencies working together to deliver.
Senator Husted. I want to get to Mr. Johnson. Do you have a
thought on that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator. I understand there are seven or
eight States that have worked out authority with the U.S.
Government on handling NEPA, on transportation projects,
California being one. We have a lot of work in California,
Texas being another. I understand that Texas has reported that
since they have done that, they have reduced the time to get
through the NEPA process from 36 months to 16 months on
average.
Senator Husted. Great. That begs the question, why isn't
every State doing this? I am not sure what the answer is, but I
think that should be encouraged.
Just a thought here, we have often talked in recent weeks
in this committee about time is money. Time is also cost, it is
inflation, effects. The timeline of projects drives up the
cost. Time is also lives. On a lot of projects, if you delay,
where there are severe traffic issues, it leads to more
accidents and takes a toll on human life.
I am getting to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, I know that
the I-95 bridge collapse occurred, and in literally 12 days you
were able to fix it. It is possible to do these things, when we
have relief from regulations. I am just curious if anyone has a
thought on this. When we have traffic projects that are
literally holding up lives, instead of an emergency
declaration, or an emergency waiver, could we have an urgency
waiver? A thought to really give States the ability to short-
circuit some of these delays and go immediately into
construction when there is a need to save lives, we know there
is an issue.
Mr. Carroll, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Carroll. Yes, I would support something like that. It
has to be done carefully, and I think we should definitely
learn from States that have figured out how to do it, even if
they do not have the delegation for NEPA authority.
If we can all agree there is a process that works, we
should just certify that process and do it. We should get it
done. That speaks to even what I mentioned before, there are
certain types of projects which we can be pretty comfortable
are not going to create large environmental impacts. They are
small in scale, they have a big impact at the intersection or
the road segment that they take place, but they are not going
to create a situation where there is a cascade of environmental
impacts that justify a lot of delays.
I certainly support something like that.
Senator Husted. Great. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you all for bringing your expertise to the discussion
here in the Senate.
I am going to start, Mr. Carroll, with you. We have a long
list of the major infrastructure projects in Oregon that have
benefited from our infrastructure bill. A lot of them, as I
went through the list, the grant agreements were signed but
money had not been obligated or the grant agreements are still
under negotiation.
It is just a tremendous amount of concern that this current
administration's funding freeze is going to slow everything
down. Every time thing slow down, the costs go up. That is so
frustrating, because if the costs go up and now you have an
additional gap, how are you going to fill that in?
Also the uncertainty about really starting into a project
where the entire vision is now on shaky ground, given the
uncertainty. From your point of view, has this funding pause
created uncertainty or delays that will potentially increase
the cost of projects?
Mr. Carroll. Yes. I am very worried about that. I have
taken note of Senator Whitehouse's comments.
We have had a lot of experience in the last few weeks
trying to get our calls answered, trying to get our e-mails
answered. Everyone, I think, is doing the best they can to make
sure that we understand what is going on.
We just spoke about some of the risks of uncertainty just
coming from the normal permitting process. If we are determined
to fix that, I think it does not make a lot of sense to add to
risk and uncertainty by creating situations where we are not
really even clear what the rules are anymore.
Senator Merkley. Why does the administration think it is in
the Nation's interest to increase the cost of our
transportation projects?
Mr. Carroll. I can not speak for that. I would like for
these types of decisions to be based on some case that we can
all sort of process and understand.
Senator Merkley. A different piece of this puzzle is the
permitting process. You just mentioned it. Often, environmental
permits have to be processed. We are seeing a huge slashing of
the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency which will
have a fairly significant impact on the ability to process
those permits. Then at the Department of Transportation, there
is a lot of planning personnel who have been retired or laid
off.
Are not these personnel cuts going to also increase delays
for our transportation infrastructure?
Mr. Carroll. I am worried that they will.
Senator Merkley. We have two factors, delays in the grants,
delays in the contracts, delays in the environmental
permitting, delays in the transportation team. All of this
amounts to a tremendous mess. In what possible way does this
make America better?
Mr. Carroll. Again, I am not familiar with what the case is
for these decisions, so I can not really speak to that.
Senator Merkley. All right. Well, I can say that I can not
find anybody in Oregon who feels like there is a single thing
that is better about this. We have a bridge on the interState
that has been a drawbridge, actually it is a pivot bridge. We
have the last remaining bridge on a major north-south corridor
that goes for our transportation up and down the west coast.
Finally, we are going to get it fixed, or are we?
We have lots of concerns about preparing critical
infrastructure for the big earthquake that will come someday,
and we have a 100-year-old other bridge up the Columbia Gorge.
It is like, oh, we are finally really making strides in
addressing some of these things, and it all just seems to be
being messed up right now.
I am really struck that this was an area of bipartisan
cooperation. Somehow, we now have to have bipartisan
cooperation to say to the administration, you are making things
a lot worse.
Mr. Carroll. I would just say, Americans want results. They
want results. The more we emphasize delivering results, the
better we are going to be in their good stead.
Senator Merkley. Okay. I think this is something we are
going to continue to have a lot of concern about. I appreciate,
Madam Chairman, your holding this hearing, because Americans
want us to get the job done. There was a lot of challenge,
certainly, and a big influx of spending for infrastructure, the
biggest infrastructure effort since building the interState
highway system.
If we now screw this up, when we are halfway into it, it is
really damaging to the United States and a massive waste of
resources. It just irritates the hell out of me to hear Elon
Musk and President Trump talking about efficiency while they
are doing everything they can think of to drive up costs. This
Trump-flation is absolutely shocking and unacceptable.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Capito,
for holding this hearing, and Ranking Member Whitehouse. I
appreciate it. Thank you to the witnesses for traveling here to
share your experiences with regard to our transportation
infrastructure.
This hearing is timely, as the new U.S. Transportation
Secretary Sean Duffy settles into his new role, recently
confirmed by Congress, and as Congress prepares to reauthorize
the Federal Highway Administration coming up this year.
Transportation infrastructure, we have all said it, is
incredibly important in my home State of Nebraska, just like it
is from where you all come from. It is important for our
competitiveness, for our industrial opportunity, and for really
just our quality of life. It is something that we want to make
sure we are doing the best job possible.
As we are looking to reauthorize the highway authorization,
States need to be playing a more active role in the
programming. I am biased, because I was a former Governor, and
I believe that we ought to allow States, and Mr. Carroll, you
even mentioned this, that people locally are going to be able
to have a better connection with what it needed locally.
That is why I think one of the things we need to be doing
is going through, the Department of Transportation should be
doing something where we have empowering States through the
formula funding to be able to let them make the decisions and
not cherry-pick green projects that are discretionary grants.
I will just give you an example, with the ones that we were
talking about, or we have mentioned a little bit earlier, with
regard to electric vehicles. There has been grants for electric
vehicle charging stations and so forth. In Nebraska, electric
vehicles do not work so well. Electric vehicles on the east
coast, high urban areas, they work pretty good.
In big rural States where last week the temperature in my
State was in the teens and the single digits, you lose about 40
percent of your charge on a batter. I have communities like
Bloomfield and Alliance, Valentine, they are 45 minutes from
the nearest charging station. It is not very practical to be
pushing that solution.
We ought to allow American innovation and consumers to
decide how we address these issues of reducing impact on the
environment. In the meantime, and Mr. Johnson, you mentioned
this, EVs are heavier so they degrade our roads faster and then
do not pass the gas tax. We do not have a way for them to
contribute to the road system. That just doesn't make any
sense.
Mr. McMurry, as the tenth largest transportation system in
the Country, I would like to hear your thoughts on what the
Department of Transportation can do with regard to formula-
based funding efficiencies. At the Nebraska Department of
Transportation, we try to stretch every dollar. I am sure you
try to do the same thing to make sure our infrastructure
projects get done. When you have unpredictable funding schemes,
that obviously creates havoc with that.
In particular, would you talk about the flexibilities that
would be important to States, and Chairman Capito mentioned
this, on the August redistribution? Those funds come late. It
makes it difficult for departments of transportation to plan.
What can we do better with regard to that? Our department of
transportation cites flexibilities in the PROTECT Act. I would
like to hear what you think about how can we address this?
Mr. McMurry. Thank you, Senator. As far as flexibility,
AASHTO would encourage more flexibility among our programs.
There are some programs, especially core programs, that have
flexibilities, you can flex up to half from one program to
another. That is only in what is called the NE areas, not
necessarily sub-allocation by population.
The other flexibility I think we would suggest in
reauthorization is looking at the PROTECT program, the NEVI
program, carbon reduction, and put those under one umbrella to
gives States more flexibility. Where NEVI may not work as well
for your State but it might work better for another State, to
give States, again, sort of that, again, home rule
decisionmaking, to have portability and flexibility across
programs.
The other important part about flexibility of programs is
actually in the delivery of projects. If there is an impediment
for delivering in one Federal program bucket, you do not want
to forfeit that money or let that money lapse. It would be
better if you could flex it and deliver another project while
still meeting the legislative intent of programs over the life
of a bill.
If we could look at sort of the top line of funding by
Federal program over the life of the transportation bill, make
sure that States are spending the money in those categories
over the life of the bill, but give us portability year to year
to deliver, so we can deliver the right project at the right
time.
As it relates to the August redistribution, a very
complicated process, and we thank you for the WRDA bill that
started to address this large number that has arisen because of
not using the allocated funding, predominantly from
discretionary programs. It is a very hard thing for States to
do to pull down this high level August redistribution. You have
to have enough carryover balanced from prior years to pull it
down.
We have to solve this. We appreciate Section 120 and the
Transportation HUD in Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations that
could be a big solution to this to give those allocated
programs basically 4 years to obligate the money, instead of
having this huge rollover balance. It makes poor planning. We
have to deploy those dollars within 5 days, which means you
have to have projects ready to go very quickly to use those
dollars.
Senator Ricketts. Chair, may I just real quickly, with Mr.
Johnson, you mentioned NEPA and other States doing, Nebraska is
one of those States that has started this process. One of the
things our department of transportation says is that waiving
sovereign immunity to implement NEPA compliance at the State
level is a very heavy lift.
Just quickly, in your opinion, what amendments to Federal
laws are required to quickly construct infrastructure while
maintaining high environmental standards, specifically around
taking on the NEPA requirement?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, I am sorry, I am not sure I
understand the question.
Senator Ricketts. What kind of reforms, if a State wants to
take over NEPA, one of the things we have encountered is you
have to waive sovereign immunity. That is a roadblock for us in
Nebraska, it is a heavy lift. Are there other things you think
that are roadblocks or things we can do in Federal law that
would help States be able to take over the NEPA
responsibilities?
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, that is outside my jurisdiction on
what laws have to be. I just know it works in California. It
works in Texas. I would hope that other States would do the
same thing.
Talking about getting the formulaic funding out, I agree,
more flexibility in moving it from bucket to bucket is key.
Something else I think the Federal Government should look at in
the next bill is interState highway systems are very, very
important for moving freight. Freight gets bottled up in areas.
There are areas where we need to increase capacity and not just
maintain roads.
Thirty years ago, 50 percent of the formulaic funding went
to new capacity. Now only 20 percent does. The American
Trucking Association has predicted that truck freight is going
to increase 30 percent in the next 25 years. That means we need
more capacity on the U.S. highways and the Federal highways to
move freight by truck from the ports, into the ports and out of
the ports.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman, for indulging me
there.
Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
convening this hearing today.
I am happy to report, colleagues, that the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law has delivered more than $54 billion in truly
transformative projects in California alone. The funding has
helped us rebuild roads, expand public transit and make our
transportation safer, all while creating 180,000 good-paying
jobs. Again, that is just in California alone.
We are not done. We fully expect that additional funding
and more jobs are on the way as investments continue to come,
unless Elon Musk and his DOGE cohorts block our progress. As
they slash support staff, engineers and critical safety
personnel, there is real concern and it already impacts folks
that I am hearing from in my State.
I will just share one example. I will not name the city
because they are fearful of retribution, but it is a Bay Area
city that was literally on the verge of finalizing a long-
sought grant agreement for a critical infrastructure project,
one they spent years working, trying to secure.
A couple of Fridays ago they were working closely with
their contact at the Department of Transportation. By the
following Monday, that DOT staff member was gone and the
Department has been completely unresponsive since. They are
wondering back home what is next? Are we ever going to see this
money? When? The more we wait, as we all know, time is money.
Another program I am especially proud of, the Clean School
Bus program, is also in jeopardy. As the Chairwoman knows, this
initiative not only benefits school districts across the
Country but also fuels domestic manufacturing, including a
major facility in West Virginia. The chaos is having real
consequences for cities, for school districts, and for
manufacturers alike.
Now, on top of the challenges I just went through, last
month the Department of Transportation published an order that
prioritizes funding for communities with high marriage and
birth rates. Senator Whitehouse touched on this earlier. It
demands cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement. That
is new for DOT.
It also calls on DOT staff to unilaterally amend existing
grant agreements that have already been negotiated and signed,
entered into, what we consider legally binding, right? That has
been our practice when it comes to infrastructure funding.
My first question is this, for Mr. Carroll. What
infrastructure projects or programs would be affected if your
city and State were to suddenly lose Federal transportation
funds that have been committed, even if the loss is temporary?
What is the impact?
Mr. Carroll. As far as I can tell, it is the whole spectrum
that could be impacted. We focus quite a bit on improvements to
safety and State of good repair. We are an old city, we have a
lot of old infrastructure, and I think we have all talked about
that so far today, that we can not wait, these things are not
going to fix themselves. They need to be fixed and they need to
be planned for so that those repairs take place.
A lot of work has gone into getting where we are right now.
We need to maintain progress. What is worrisome is that when we
have to bring in the services of folks who look at these
agreements and give the sign-offs from our own law department
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's attorneys and then
again from attorneys at the Federal level, that could take
years. Sometimes it does take many months to get anything that
even looks like a hint of where we are going.
When you get to the finish line and you have communicated
with constituents, you have communicated with contractors, you
have communicated with people who are seeking employment, that
there is something coming, and just wait, we are going to get
going, we are going to see some real on the ground things you
can touch and feel, and then it stops and there is no
explanation for it, it is nerve-wracking.
Senator Padilla. It sounds like it has been disruptive.
Mr. Carroll. Yes.
Senator Padilla. Forget frustrating, it is becoming costly
for taxpayers, right?
Another program I wanted to touch on, the Infrastructure
and Jobs Act created the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Grant program, which has awarded $1.8 billion to recipients in
nearly every State to support the increasingly popular zero
emission vehicles. This funding was appropriated by Congress
and mandated in statute.
Yet the Trump Administration has blatantly ignored the law,
freezing funding for the program, again, leaving grant awardees
in the dark.
Mr. Carroll, the city of Philadelphia has been awarded $20
million for these particular grants, this category of grants.
Will you talk about the importance of getting these grant
agreements finalized and what the funding would mean for your
city?
Mr. Carroll. Yes, again, we have started training
electricians. We badly need electricians, and this is something
that really is the wind at the back of bringing new people into
the industry. We expect that we would have thousands of jobs
across the region involved in this work and installing
infrastructure, maintaining the infrastructure, promoting small
businesses in terms of convenience stores that are going to be
great locations.
It supports developing commercial corridors. It is aligned
with PennDOT's policy. They had a very good reception to their
NEVI plan.
All of that work is something we want to see keep moving.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Blunt Rochester?
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito and
Ranking Member Whitehouse.
I am proud to have worked on the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, something that we have talked about in our Country for a
very long time. As you have heard from others, I too am deeply
concerned about the Trump administration's freezing of Federal
funding and mass firings, and the real life impact that will
have on these critical projects for our communities and States
and across the Country.
In my State of Delaware, I even did a bridge tour,
literally while we were streaming live, I took folks from
DelDOT. The engineers took me to different bridges, we looked
under the bridges. One was 80 years old. Really just to show
people what the real life impact is on their everyday life.
For me, we can not afford to go backward. Programs like
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity Grant program, also known as the RAISE program, or the
Reconnecting Communities program, which I helped co-author,
will help communities be safer, have more accessibility and
ensure that we have a strong economy.
My first question is for you, Mr. McMurry. In January of
this year, my State was awarded $13 million in RAISE grant
funding that will go toward modernizing a 58-year old bridge on
State Route 9. It will make it safer. Then we were also awarded
$12 million to help save lives, to make our roads and our
streets more safe for our cyclists and pedestrians.
Following up on Senator Merkley's question, with your
experience as commissioner of the Georgia Department of
Transportation, what are the effects of the uncertainty, this
uncertainty that we are seeing with funding freezes and firings
of Federal employees as we are trying to accomplish these
projects?
Mr. McMurry. Thank you, and you have a great DOT at DelDOT,
by the way.
Senator Blunt Rochester. We sure do.
Mr. McMurry. Listen, AASHTO totally supports that we need
to move forward where everything, if there is a grant agreement
in place, AASHTO believes that is a contract. Same in Georgia,
if we have a grant agreement in place, we are counting on
moving forward.
I hate to use this analogy, but I believe we can fly that
airplane while we are still building it and working on it or
tweaking it. Let's keep things moving. It is just that
important to our Nation's economy not to pause.
I use this example as, we as DOTs have been playing by the
rules. The rules may need changing, but let's keep playing the
game. Another bad analogy. We need to move those forward.
I have a rural bridge that we received a grant for, a rural
grant to grade separate over a railroad. The train blocks the
town. We are over a year from the grant award and we still do
not have a grant executed, while we are designing and buying
the property. That is important, because we are counting on
that grant to get this community so they are not cutoff when
the train blocks the town.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Yes, one of the bridges I was on
connects to the Dover Air Force Base. These are really vital.
Can you talk also about the impact on employment of these
funding freezes? How does that affect employment?
Mr. McMurry. I personally can not speak or on behalf of
AASHTO speak of what that may or may not mean. I have not seen
that play out just yet. It is a little early for us to tell in
Georgia what that impact may or may not be.
Senator Blunt Rochester. I can tell you as former secretary
of labor, it means that you stop putting shovels on the ground,
it means people are not working. That also is a connection to
our economy.
I am going to shift to you, Mr. Carroll. The Reconnecting
Communities grant program through DOT focuses on righting
communities harmed by past transportation decisions, and also
about eliminating barriers to ability and economic development.
Some of these policies started in the 1950's.
I had the opportunity to ride with Representative Dwight
Evans on Amtrak from Delaware to Philadelphia to meet with
residents and community members who have been trying to tackle
this. Can you talk about, from your experience, some of the
benefits of these projects on communities, and what impacts the
freezes would have, real terms, real-life terms.
Mr. Carroll. In my testimony, I talked about our Chinatown
Stitch project, which is right in the middle of our center
city. That project, I think, it is going to repair a community
that was literally split in half by the Vine Street Expressway.
From a regional transportation perspective, that expressway is
essential to making the city work, making the nine counties,
both in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, accessible to each other.
It is definitely something that needed to happen.
The way it happened really created a lot of harm in that
community. We have a chance not just to fix that because want
to be good, but because we can really start to generate a lot
of energy, a lot of economic activity. We see people really
getting interested in investing in that community.
This is a chance to get the benefit that we are here to do
to make America strong, to make our communities strong, to get
people to work and make things that stand up to the test of
time.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Senator Capito. Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, all of
you, for being here today for this very important hearing. I am
glad we are getting to discuss how to best implement the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Before that, though, I want to ask a rather simple
question, just to make me feel better. Mr. Carroll, did Russia
invade Ukraine?
Mr. Carroll. Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. I appreciate that. I did not get
that answer yesterday in a hearing in another committee. I just
want to make sure this is not contagious.
One of the flagship programs we created in the law was the
Bridge Improvement program. It did some really rather simple,
non-controversial things, which is funding the repairs to
failing bridges. Mr. McMurry, I am going to ask you the same
question here.
That program was created following all of the best
practices that our witnesses here mentioned, that you guys
mentioned in your testimony. The majority of the funding is
allocated to the States through a formula program to focus on
pressing needs.
Then for the projects that fall through the cracks, there
is a discretionary grant program that is available. The program
was successful. In December, the Department of Transportation
announced that more than 11,400 bridges are being repaired,
thanks to that program. When bridges are not repaired, they can
fail, and people can die.
One of these projects is in northern Arizona on InterState
40. It repairs four bridges that were built back in 1963 that
do not meet current safety standards. These bridges provide
access to the capital of the Navajo nation. They also form the
backbone of the trade corridor that leads to the ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach.
Yet, for the last 36 days now this project has been halted
due to the Trump administration's funding freeze. This is
exactly the type of project which those of us who negotiated
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law had in mind. Yet, by
needlessly politicizing basic investments in infrastructure,
communities in Arizona and across the Country are facing
needless uncertainty.
Mr. Carroll, first for you, I imagine your department has
received a number of competitive grants over the years.
Mr. Carroll. Yes.
Senator Kelly. Can you speak to how halting the
disbursement of awarded funds disrupts a local recipient's
ability to plan and execute projects?
Mr. Carroll. I think it is clear that we need to engage
with the contracting community as quickly as we can to make
sure that we get these projects under construction to make sure
that we meet the construction deadlines, which are statutory.
Senator Kelly. How can you meet the deadlines without the
funding?
Mr. Carroll. This is the problem. We need to at least get
clarity so that we can plan. Many of our projects are funded
through Federal funds, they are not all. We want to prioritize
the ones that have these deadlines, so that may mean that
engineers and contractors are going to need to rearrange what
they are doing.
Even to get phone calls answered, even if the answer is you
have to wait to know how long you have to wait or what you have
to do in order to get the work going, that is some certainty.
We would take that. We are not getting that kind of
information.
It is nerve-wracking.
Senator Kelly. Mr. McMurry, can you weigh in as well? How
does this affect long-term planning? Do you become hesitant to
apply for future discretionary grants because of the actions of
the administration?
Mr. McMurry. First, I go back to the grant agreements, and
thank you for this leadership from this committee on the Bridge
Investment program for both large and small. These kinds of
programs are very necessary for big, large bridges often
crossing State lines to have the ability for States to compete
to be able to pull down dollars where it would be such a budget
impact on one State or the other to try to do a bi-State
crossing.
Going back again, AASHTO supports and Georgia supports any
grant agreement that has been executed, we feel that it needs
to move forward now. The Bridge Investment program is a great
example of foundational investment for infrastructure.
Senator Kelly. Do you have any of these projects that you
know of that have been cutoff?
Mr. McMurry. I do not. South Carolina and Georgia jointly
have a bridge investment grant for planning, again, for
crossing State line on InterState 95. We are in the planning
stages of that, so we have not got to the construction phase.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Markey, are you ready?
Senator Markey. Ready to go, thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Whitehouse. When has he not been ready to go?
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. He is jumping in that seat.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law unlocked the historic
funding to rebuild America's infrastructure. In Massachusetts
we are using the funds to replace the aging Cape Cod bridges.
We are expanding passenger rail, and we are modernizing our
transit systems like the MBTA.
By providing fives years of funds, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law gave State and localities a feeling of
certainty, that the Federal resources needed to deliver
critical infrastructure investments would come through.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration smashed that surety,
and sold out our cities and towns.
When Trump's Department of Transportation announced it was
freezing unobligated funds with the intent to cutoff funds for
projects related to climate or working on behalf of
disadvantaged communities, it unleashed uncertainty on our
communities.
Communities in my State are telling me that grant
applications for typically dependable formula funds have slowed
to a crawl. They tell me they can not find contractors for
basic work like repairing a transit facility's roof, because
the contractors fear that they will not be paid. That makes a
lot of sense, uncertainty.
They tell me they are worried about receiving funds for
critical road safety projects because the project will help
disadvantaged communities that Trump wants to leave behind.
Mr. Carroll, we have heard that uncertainty can raise costs
and cause delays. Do you agree the Trump administration's
decisions to increase costs and delay is immediately
jeopardizing projects that make transportation systems safer
and more effective for communities all across Massachusetts and
the Country?
Mr. Carroll. As I have said, I have a lot of concern that
those risks are out there. It will raise costs for our
projects.
Senator Markey. I thank you for that. I agree.
Unfortunately, where Congress and the Biden administration
provided funding, the Trump administration can offer only
uncertainty.
Mr. Carroll, under the Trump administration the Department
of Transportation has slowed and even stopped the flow of funds
to supposedly root out and rescind any project that addresses
the climate crisis or helps communities that have been left
behind by Federal investments. Let's unpack what a ``climate
project'' or a ``equity project'' actually looks like.
Mr. Carroll, please answer yes or no. Would a project to
repair a bridge providing better connectivity between
communities provide equity benefits?
Mr. Carroll. I believe it would, yes.
Senator Markey. Could a project to improve signaling for
subways, enhancing their on-time performance, and making the
transit system more reliable for their residents simultaneously
provide climate benefits?
Mr. Carroll. I believe it would, yes.
Senator Markey. Could a project that makes a busy roadway
safer for pedestrians provide equity benefits?
Mr. Carroll. Yes.
Senator Markey. Well, thank you. It is clear to me that
these projects are not only reasonable but are also much needed
in Red and Blue States alike. DOT's decision to undermine these
projects is not only unnecessary and unlawful, it is also going
to be very, very unpopular, especially if they tie it to DEI as
the rationale for stopping or slowing vital transportation
projects that benefit the entire community.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided historic funding
for passenger rail. In Massachusetts, we are receiving critical
funds to finally fulfill our dream of regular passenger rail
between western and eastern parts of the State.
Mr. McMurry, Georgia has also received several Federal
grants to expand passenger rail in your State. Mr. McMurry, do
you agree that we must continue to provide robust funding to
expand passenger rail?
Mr. McMurry. Thank you, Senator. Yes, AASHTO's position is
that under reauthorization, we need to continue the same levels
at what was previously authorized.
Senator Markey. Thank you. That is why last Congress, I
introduced the All Aboard Act, which would revolutionize
America's rail system. The bill would double down on the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's historic funding for passenger
rail and ensure that the States, which have undertaken
ambitious rail projects, like Georgia and Massachusetts, have
the funds that they need in order to deliver these projects
right on time.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to
ensure that projects in Red and Blue States, north, south, east
and west, get the funding which they were promised.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Alsobrooks?
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
The EPW committee has a long tradition of negotiating and
passing bipartisan infrastructure legislation, which is one of
the reasons that I was so interested in joining this committee.
I am looking forward to working with all of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle as the ranking member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee to honor this
bipartisan tradition and pass legislation that works for each
or our States.
Unfortunately, as some of my colleagues have already
mentioned, this administration is making this very difficult.
It is hard to have a conversation about developing the next
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law when we discover that the current
law, that it is refusing to implement the current existing law.
Due to this administration's funding pause, Maryland's
Department of Transportation has around $330 million in Federal
funding that is currently on hold. These are grants that have
already been awarded and dollars that Congress has
appropriated.
With all that in mind, I have just a few questions for our
witnesses. I want to thank each of you for being here this
morning.
Last week, the Department of Transportation changed the
statewide transportation improvement program, STIP, in a
project amendment approval process. The department is now
requiring projects that were previously approved by the Federal
Highway Administration division offices in each State to
instead be approved by the general counsel in the Secretary's
office.
We have heard a lot in this committee about this need to
cut red tape and streamline processes to expedite project
delivery and lower costs. With that, I would ask Mr. McMurry
and Mr. Carroll, do you believe that sending STIP approvals to
the office of the Secretary will lower your project costs and
help deliver projects faster?
Mr. McMurry. Thank you, Senator. We certainly, from AASHTO,
and from a Georgia point of view, we certainly want to see STIP
modifications and amendments to move forward very quickly. I
think that is important, again, is that these are a process,
this is a Federal process that is longstanding that we have all
worked through to properly plan, working with NPOs, like with
Philadelphia, city of Atlanta, all of our 15 other NPOs we have
around the State.
This was a process for TIP amendments, for STIP amendments,
and we think it should move forward as it traditionally has.
Mr. Carroll. I concur further with Mr. McMurry.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
If this new process creates a bottleneck and slows projects
down, how will these delays affect project outcomes?
Mr. McMurry. In Georgia, we actually have a TIP amendment
for the Atlanta NPO that is moving forward now. We are going to
see how, if there is a true slowdown in delivery of that
approval process. Then if it is slowed, then there could be
projects that we are not able to advance because Federal
Highway does not have the approval that we can push the button
in the system to get the contract authorization necessary for
us to bid a job.
In Georgia, I have to have the contract fully encumbered
with all the money when I bid a project. I am not going to bid
a project until I know that the money is in place and it has
been authorized.
Senator Alsobrooks. Again, in your experience, however, you
acknowledge that this new process is one that could add delays?
You prefer the traditional process?
Mr. McMurry. We are going to see how this goes. Yes, it
could, and we are optimistic that it will not.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay. The reality is this
administration is not actually concerned about efficiencies.
The Department of Transportation is adding an unnecessary layer
of review for STIP amendments at the same time it is slashing
our Federal work force, the very civil servants who could help
get projects on the ground in our States faster.
Mr. McMurry, in your experience, is it normal for the
Federal Highway Administration to abruptly halt a bridge
project in the middle of construction just because there was a
change in administration?
Mr. McMurry. It has not been my experience that that has
happened.
Senator Alsobrooks. What about a resurfacing project?
Mr. McMurry. The same.
Senator Alsobrooks. Or any project funded through the
standard formula allocation, for that matter?
Mr. McMurry. That has not been my experience.
Senator Alsobrooks. Between planning and construction, what
we know is that these are transportation multi-year projects.
If we start subjecting State transportation projects to
political whims every time there is a change in administration,
do you believe that projects will be completed on time without
interruption?
Mr. McMurry. I believe that will cause a challenge.
Senator Alsobrooks. Last, I know I am running out of time
here, about funding uncertainty. The administration issued its
funding freeze memo, States were locked out of their payment
portals without any indication about when they might receive
it. Mr. McMurry, what does funding uncertainty mean for a State
department of transportation?
Mr. McMurry. We count on the Federal funding reimbursement
on a weekly basis to move our funds forward, so that we can pay
the contracts and the vendors for the work they do.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Senator Capito. We are waiting to see if Senator Sullivan,
I will give him a couple of minutes to come. While we are
waiting, I am going to make a quick comment about the NEVI
program because the Senator from California brought up that
$1.8 billion had been released for that program. I want to
point out that $1.8 billion has resulted in 58 chargers being
built in three and a half years and in 15 States. Mr. McMurry
said that he has five on the drawing board.
Mr. Carroll, do you have any input on this?
Mr. Carroll. PennDOT administers the NEVI program. We have
been working on the charging fuel infrastructure program. We
have not constructed any but we are planning to build about 200
city-wide.
Senator Capito. Right, so I mean, if we are looking for
efficiencies and moving things quicker, I am not sure that
program is a good example of the best way the Federal
Government--personally, I thought it should all have been left
to the private sector just like gas stations were built back in
the day. Obviously lost on that one.
Quick question for you, Mr. Johnson. Just curious, we have
had a lot of snow and ice, and Mr. McMurry, I am sure, well,
all three of you, really, have to deal with the
unpredictability when the weather gets cold like this. It
really wreaks havoc on the paving, highways, and if there is
nothing that gets somebody steamed up more than anything, it is
popping a tire in a pothole. It happens frequently in the
winter for us in West Virginia.
Are you finding this year is any more exceptional? Mr.
Carroll, I will go to you. You have had a lot of cold weather
there.
Mr. Carroll. It has been on the high end. What is sometimes
worse is the freeze-thaw back and forth. Because it was colder
longer, for longer periods of time, it didn't get as high as I
have seen it, but it was pretty high.
Senator Capito. Does your municipality handle that?
Mr. Carroll. We do.
Senator Capito. What about you, Mr. McMurry? Are you seeing
anything? I know it was even colder down in Georgia.
Mr. McMurry. Yes. We actually had a big event that had snow
from metro Atlanta all the way to the coast and down to Florida
just a few weeks ago. That was a very big event for us.
You are right, nobody wants to hit a pothole that results
from cold weather. We do our best to get back out there and
repair roadways as soon as the weather clears.
Senator Capito. Mr. Johnson, do you have any?
Mr. Johnson. We do a significant amount of work in the
State of California, in Washington. The rains that we have had,
torrential rains in California have caused a lot of short-term
and now long-term problems of washing our roads that are going
to have to be rebuilt. It is an issue. It varies geographically
from State to State.
Senator Capito. No matter how long you plan or how much you
plan for, there is always the unpredictability.
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Senator Capito. We didn't ask about Buy America waivers.
Mr. McMurry, do you have a comment how often you use those, how
do they work? Are they working? How can we alleviate that in a
new bill?
Mr. McMurry. Let me just talk a little bit about Buy
America. First and foremost, Georgia and AASHTO totally
supports American manufacturing. Foundationally, we are all in
violent agreement, I like to say, on that principle.
The issue that has happened through Buy America-Build
America is trying through the construction materials, each
State is having to certify the material that is Buy America
compliant. Fifty States are having to do 50 different ways.
That is where AASHTO stepped in and said, working with Federal
Highway, let's make a repository of materials that if they are
Buy America compliant in Georgia, it will be the same for West
Virginia.
AASHTO has taken that lead. Now, my comment is that might
have been a better Federal Highway initiative to say, if this
is good for the Nation, synthesize it one time instead of 50
efforts. AASHTO has taken the lead in that.
We would hope going forward in reauthorization that that
could be a national data base of Buy America compliant
components.
As it relates to the waiver that was suspended under the
previous administration, I am really worried about that. In my
written testimony you will see that traditionally utilities
that are part of our projects that we all get involved in for
water, sewer, telecoms, all those components are usually bought
by municipal associations in bulk, not to just do a Federal aid
project which may be 1,000 feet or maybe even a half mile long.
They are buying miles of power lines, they are buying miles
of ductal iron pipe, fittings. You heard the testimony about
submersible pumps. Things like that, the components are really
concerning, if we can not have waivers while we work out way to
American-made manufacturing.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse, you are good?
Senator Whitehouse. As long as we are waiting for a minute,
I would just comment a bit on the EV program. There is a
problem here of the chicken and the egg, what comes first. Are
people going to buy good, effective American-made electric
vehicles if there is not a charging infrastructure for them?
Are people going to build charging infrastructure if electric
vehicles are not being bought?
To step into that freeze and drive infrastructure, which is
what the charging stations are, the same way that you would
build roads, same way you would build other things that the
Government does, makes perfect sense at breaking that chicken-
egg logjam of a new technology that is trying to emerge, to me
at least.
I am all for building out the infrastructure, and I know
that in Rhode Island, there was a very significant planning
component of where this should go, and talking to lots of
people. The fact that there are not many actually constructed
is a sign that that planning process has been very robust, and
now we are ready to go, and we are eager to help build out that
piece of infrastructure to support the many Rhode Islanders who
have bought electric vehicles.
What we are seeing out of the Trump administration is
something completely different. They are willing to actually
spend an enormous amount of taxpayer money to rip out electric
vehicle charging and basically throw away electric vehicle
chargers that have already been built. It is really hard for me
not to connect the dots between a fossil fuel industry that has
put a minimum of $100 million into Trump's election, that is
what we know of. There is this huge dark money operation where
we do not know who is behind it. The number is way beyond that,
and I suspect it is fossil fuel money.
This position that the Trump administration has taken, they
are trying to knock down of offshore wind. Guess what? Every
electron produced by offshore wind displaces an electron
produced by burning natural gas. Huge giveaway to the natural
gas incumbents. Every diminution in the electric vehicle
market, despite Americans wanting these and the market growing
rapidly, not only domestically but globally where our companies
need to compete, effectively supports the gasoline
manufacturers who have a lock on transportation through
internal combustion engines.
Over and over and over again you see fossil fuel money
coming into the Trump administration and fossil fuel policies
coming out of the Trump administration. I think that is
something we just have to be attentive to, because it is really
going to come back to bite us.
We are on the edge right now of a significant dislocation
in our property insurance markets, because they can not predict
what is coming because of climate consequences. We are seeing
collapse of property insurance markets, prices quadrupling,
non-renewals spiking, companies going bust, companies leaving
States behind. Very rickety structures being built to prop up
the market, but it is all rickety right now. When you see
rickety structures, that is usually the precursor to a
collapse.
This is a collapse that is likely to cascade through the
property insurance market into mortgage markets. We just, 10
days ago, had the Secretary of the Treasury say a decade from
now, we are going to start having regions of the United States
where you can not get a mortgage any longer. Well, if in a
decade you are not going to be able to get a mortgage in entire
regions, markets are going to start reacting before that.
This is really upon us right now. The subservience of the
Trump administration to the fossil fuel industry is going to
have really, really, really dangerous ramifications. I just
want to take a moment to point that out, while we have a
moment.
Senator Capito. I will thank you and we are going to be
ringing it down here. I will say that there are 71,000 publicly
available chargers in the United States. My point is, I voted
for this bill. I was obviously in support of building out an
infrastructure.
My complaint is, why is it taking so daggone long? It is
taking so long because the Biden Administration added
requirements and mandates to comply to this that then changed
the way that States and others could apply for this money and
actually get it moving.
We can debate that.
Senator Whitehouse. I am all for it. I do not know if we
are going to have much of a debate. I am all for speeding it
up, and I am all for simplification. Together is my motto.
Senator Capito. I didn't know that Donald Trump was out
ripping out electric charging stations. I will have to check
into that.
In any event, with no further questions, I would like to
ask the witnesses and all my colleagues, thank you for your
participation in today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit
written questions for the record will have until 5 p.m. on
Wednesday, March 12th to do so. I believe the Ranking Member
had a question for the record that he had already mentioned to
you.
The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to
the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26th,
and will be submitted for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]