    [Senate Hearing 119-281]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-281

                      HEARING ON CONSTRUCTING THE SURFACE
                      TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL:
                            UNITED STATES SECRETARY
                        OF TRANSPORTATION'S PERSPECTIVE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 2, 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
    62-718                     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

                                 APRIL 2, 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

                                    WITNESS

    Duffy, Hon. Sean P., U.S. Secretary of Transportation............    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Sullivan.........................................    19
            Senator Husted...........................................    21
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    22
            Senator Sanders..........................................    26
            Senator Markey...........................................    29
            Senator Padilla..........................................    31
            Senator Schiff...........................................    36
            Senator Blunt Rochester..................................    39
            Senator Alsobrooks.......................................    41

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    E.P.A. Hunt for Shady Deals and `Gold Bars' Comes Up Empty.......     5

                      HEARING ON CONSTRUCTING THE SURFACE
          TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL: UNITED STATES SECRETARY
                        OF TRANSPORTATION'S PERSPECTIVE

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
    Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,
    Curtis, Sullivan, Wicker, Boozman, 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. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for
    joining us this morning as we begin our work to develop the
    next Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. This hearing
    is the first of a two-part series that we are having to help us
    guide our work. I really want to thank Secretary Duffy for
    being here with us today.
        My vision for this legislation is simple, but important. We
    want to improve the movement of people and goods. Our roads and
    bridges are what connect us to the people and places that
    matter most in our lives. They help American businesses, large
    and small, create jobs and economic opportunities, and enable
    that competitiveness in the global marketplace. They connect
    everything around us from Point A to Point B. Every State has
    transportation needs and stands to benefit from the Surface
    Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
        My home State of West Virginia is pursuing important
    projects, like the Coalfields Expressway. I am specifically
    mentioning these in front of the Secretary, because he will be
    hearing from me on these two. Corridor H also, to better link
    our communities to essential services and economic opportunity.
    This legislation provides the funding and establishes the
    policies and programs that enable the improvement of the
    surface transportation network that we all so rely on.
        Since the enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act, the Environment and Public Works (EPW)
    Committee has reviewed and conducted oversight of the existing
    policies and programs. We have learned a lot about what is
    working and what is not. That effort has provided me with three
    key principles for the next bill. By focusing on these
    principles, I am confident that we can work toward bipartisan
    legislation, as we have in the past, that will deliver results
    for the American people.
        Principle One: improving the safety and reliability of
    America's surface transportation network with impactful
    investments. In recent years, we have seen an increase in the
    number and scope of Federal transportation programs. These
    programs have often had duplicative purposes, and project
    availability and eligibility. This leads to an expensive and
    time-intensive process to get funding out the door that
    disrupts the focus of Federal funding and lessens the impact
    that the legislation can make.
        As we craft the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization
    Bill we must make investments that instead optimize the impact
    of Federal funding and give the State partners the confidence
    that they can invest over the longer period of time. We should
    focus on eliminating duplicative programs that invite
    regulatory overreach and increase funding for the highway
    formula programs that our States rely on and have a proven
    track record of success.
        Principle Two: reforming and modernizing Federal programs
    and policies to increase efficiency. We all know that as
    currently structured, Federal requirements can add red tape
    that increases costs and time, and slows down the completion of
    projects. We all want to deliver transportation benefits faster
    and save money for American taxpayers.
        To achieve this goal, we need to take a serious look at the
    Federal requirements to determine how to make meaningful
    improvements to our planning and procurement procedures, our
    environmental review processes for projects, and discretionary
    grants and loans requirements. By reforming and modernizing
    these requirements, we can create certainty for the partners
    who make these projects happen and ensure that the public
    receives the benefits of these needed investments quickly.
        Principle Three: addressing the variety of surface
    transportation needs across all States. Obviously, different
    States have different needs. I would not expect West Virginia,
    with our mountainous peaks and valleys, to prioritize the same
    transportation projects in other states in other parts of our
    Country.
        By avoiding top-down mandates from Washington, and giving
    States flexibility to address the individual improvements, I
    think that is what we need to be looking at. The bill can
    support our common goals while ensuring that Federal
    regulations, programs, and policies recognize the different
    needs of our States.
        It will take collaboration from my Senate colleagues, our
    stakeholders, and the Trump administration in order to complete
    the bill before the IIJA, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act, expires in September 2026. We must be pragmatic and work
    in a bipartisan way as we have in the past to develop a Senate
    bill that sets us up for a productive conversation on this
    reauthorization effort with our colleagues in the House.
        I am grateful to Secretary Sean Duffy, who is here to share
    the Trump administration's priorities for this legislation, and
    I look forward to learning more about those priorities. The
    Department of Transportation's technical assistance and support
    will be critical parts of this process.
        This is an excellent opportunity ahead of us to make a
    pivotal impact in our surface transportation network. Each of
    us knows how important that network is and the role that it
    plays in keeping our Country's economy and people on the move.
    I am excited to get to work and continue the EPW's bipartisan
    tradition of developing this legislation.
        I want to thank our witness and the members for
    participating in this hearing today. I will now turn to Ranking
    Member Whitehouse for his statement.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome,
    Secretary Duffy. It is good to have you here.
        A strong bipartisan commitment to infrastructure got us the
    historic Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Last week I
    attended the unveiling of the American Society of Civil
    Engineers' 2025 Infrastructure Report Card. We are not ``A''
    students yet, but the report card progress, thanks to both the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act,
    which are delivering real results across the Country.
        At the start of the Biden Administration, our
    infrastructure was crumbling from decades of neglect. Forty-six
    thousands bridges were in poor condition. More than 170,000
    miles of major roads were in poor condition. We had unreliable
    and insufficient transit systems.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law began turning this around
    with long overdue investments in roads, bridges, transit,
    ports, drinking water, wastewater, and other systems that are
    the backbone of our Nation's economy. We see this progress in
    Rhode Island's bridges. We have gone from 27 percent
    structurally deficient in 2016 to 12 percent in 2025. Like I
    said, not `A' students, but progress. The Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law brought nearly 100 projects closer to
    completion in Rhode Island alone.
        As we think about the future of transportation and other
    infrastructure projects, it is incumbent upon us to address a
    big obstacle: unreasonable delay. China builds high speed rail,
    airports, and ports at warp speed while we tread water. Even
    France, long lampooned for embodying bureaucracy, builds subway
    and rail projects faster and at less cost than we do.
        Delays take many forms. There is permitting, and I am
    thrilled to work with Chairman on permitting reform. There is
    bureaucracy, and as I have mentioned many times before, we have
    to manage this interagency process monster better.
        To be clear, I and many of my colleagues rode the Biden
    Administration hard about delays of infrastructure and other
    projects. This is actually very often a legislative versus
    executive separation of powers issue, in which the executive
    branch hides behind interagency process, all sorts of delay,
    irresponsibility, non-accountability, and bad execution. We
    should take our oversight responsibilities seriously, no matter
    who is in the White House.
        The most recent spate of delays afflicting infrastructure
    projects is the Trump freeze of INFRA, Infrastructure for
    Rebuilding America, Mega, Bridge Investment, and PROTECT
    funding. Thousands of projects are backed up, so they can be
    screened for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or other
    mega heresies by rattled and shrunken agencies.
        I want to start by thanking Chair Capito and her staff for
    their assistance in unsticking previously awarded funding for
    Rhode Island's essential Washington Bridge. Madam Chair, thank
    you.
        Secretary Duffy, I also want to thank you for your team's
    work delivering the funding for a number of discretionary
    grants in the past week, including those Washington Bridge
    funds. It is a crucial project, as you know, not just for Rhode
    Island, but for the region. It is where you turn to head out
    toward the Cape.
        I hope that we can rapidly deliver previously awarded
    funding for the array of I-95 bridges that need the work and
    for the Mount Hope Bridge, which I want to show. Setting aside
    how important it is as a piece of transit infrastructure, it is
    also gorgeous. It is one of the most beautiful bridges in the
    Country. It is 100 years old. We can extend its life. We need
    to get this done.
        As I said in our call, Secretary, and as the Chair knows, I
    am eager to work on bipartisan permitting reform, and the
    scoping conversation with our colleagues at the Energy
    Committee has already begun. I am eager to do a robust
    bipartisan Water Resources bill and a robust bipartisan highway
    reauthorization. These three bills could be big. They could be
    transformational.
        I can not do any of that while the Trump Administration
    blockades authorized and appropriated funds for approved
    projects, particularly if it blockades selectively. I can not
    do that if the Trump Administration violates its duty to see
    that bipartisan laws we pass are executed faithfully,
    faithfully, not with favoritism.
        Mr. Secretary, the door is open in this committee to big
    bipartisan things for our infrastructure. I encourage you to
    walk through that open door.
        If I may just revert to one other topic for a moment, I
    addressed last week the mischief and the nonsense that has
    surrounded the Green Infrastructure Fund. We have seen, Senator
    Sullivan is a former attorney general, I am a former attorney
    general, I am a former U.S. attorney, when you are firing
    career staff who disagree with you and you are proceeding with
    only political signatures, without any career staff who will
    sign, when you are getting shot down in one court and told
    there is no evidence for what you are saying in another court,
    and you are still sending Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI)
    agents around to harass employees, and particularly when you
    are making derogatory accusations of fraud and criminality,
    which Administrator Zeldin has done, first, it is a violation
    of Department of Justice (DOJ) process. Second, it is a matter
    of law, it is defamatory per se. It appears from the rejection
    by the career staff, the rejection by the magistrate judge, and
    the finding of no evidence by the Federal judge, that this was
    a knowingly defamatory set of statements made by the EPA
    Administrator and that acting U.S. attorney. We are going to
    continue to drill down into that piece of misconduct, and I
    will simply ask for the moment that the article today, ``EPA
    Hunt for Shady Deals and Gold Bars Comes up Empty'' be made a
    matter of record for this hearing.
        Senator Capito. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much for that.
        Senator Capito. All right, so this morning we are really
    honored to be joined by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean
    Duffy. Secretary Duffy was approved to be Secretary of
    Transportation with 77 affirmative votes by the Senate, and was
    sworn into his office on January 28th of this year.
        Prior to his service in the Cabinet, as many of us who
    served in the House know, he was not just a successful district
    attorney, but he was a member of the House of Representatives
    with several of us, where I had the actual privilege of serving
    with him on the Financial Services Committee.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here. You are
    recognized for your opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN P. DUFFY, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
                             TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
    Whitehouse, and members of the committee. I appreciate you all
    inviting me to the committee today.
        Maybe if I could just first talk about the bipartisanship
    of this committee. Per Senator Whitehouse's comments, I think
    that Senator Capito has talked probably more about your
    projects than her own projects in West Virginia, as evidence
    that you all work together in a bipartisan fashion. I
    appreciate that, because I think infrastructure is bipartisan.
        Senator Sullivan. Shelly, I am going to call you after this
    hearing.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Duffy. I do think it is one of the unique spaces in our
    government where we all work together. Our roads and bridges,
    our airplanes or airports, the safety of our cars is a
    bipartisan American issue, not a red or blue issue.
        My aim over the course of this hearing is to provide you a
    sense of the administration's priorities as we work together on
    surface transportation reauthorization and embark on what I
    hope will be the golden age of transportation. I took office
    just over 2 months ago, and in my first full day on the job, we
    experienced a sobering reminder of why the Department's top
    priority is and must always be safety.
        While I know today's hearing is about surface
    transportation, I want to start by highlighting some of the
    steps we are taking in the immediate aftermath of the mid-air
    collision on the approach to DCA, Ronald Reagan Washington
    National Airport, because they underscore how we are going to
    approach our overall mission as we move forward.
        The Department of Transportation has been refocused on our
    mission of safety. Following the mid-air collision, we swiftly
    restricted helicopter traffic in the vicinity of DCA and
    initiated a review of our Air Traffic Control work force,
    policies, and procedures.
        At the end of February, less than a month after the fatal
    accident, I announced my plan to streamline the hiring process
    for air traffic controllers and increasing pay for new students
    who attend the academy. In March, following the NTSB's,
    National Transportation Safety Board, recommendations, I
    announced that the FAA will permanently restrict non-essential
    helicopter operations around Ronald Reagan Airport, and
    eliminate mixed helicopter and fixed wing traffic.
        We will continue to push for a state-of-the-art air traffic
    control system. I think America deserves it; America needs it.
    It is going to be a process that is going to take all of us
    working together. I look forward to sharing with you what I
    have seen with regard to our antiquated system. I think when we
    have those conversations, I think the Congress, Senate and
    House together, Republican and Democrat, are going to work with
    us, because our air traffic control system, it is using World
    War II aero technology. Equipment like floppy disks are
    commonplace in our towers.
        With your help, we can propel America's aviation system
    into the modern era. We will do this by embracing the most
    advanced 21st century technology that makes our system safer,
    more affordable, and more efficient for all Americans. Whether
    taking road, rail, sea, or air, cutting unnecessary red tape,
    as you have mentioned, Senator Capito, and building big,
    beautiful infrastructure that Americans are paying for with
    their hard-earned dollars, that is a top priority. Let us do it
    efficiently. Let us cut the red tape. We can still protect the
    environment but let us move these projects faster.
        Lawmakers on all sides of the aisle can agree that
    infrastructure projects are taking way too long to complete.
    The recent reconstruction of interstate 40, the critical
    Appalachian artery between North Carolina and Tennessee washed
    away by Hurricane Helene, demonstrates what is possible when
    everyone is working together. To expedite rebuilding, we found
    creative ways to source materials closer to the job site,
    saving taxpayers both time and money.
        It is this kind of innovation and problem-solving that
    moves projects faster and more efficiently. There is so much
    more that we can all do together. I look forward to working
    with the Congress on Surface Transportation Reauthorization
    through the process. I appreciate you, Senator, starting these
    hearings early, as we are just beginning the conversation. I
    think in Congress sometimes we start late, but to go through
    regular order I think would be a real benefit for the American
    people.
        We can make sure transportation infrastructure is built
    with speed and ingenuity and durability so that Americans can
    reap returns on their investments, not just for this generation
    but for generations to come.
        I want to thank you all for having me, and I look forward
    to taking all of your questions. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Duffy follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate
    that.
        I do appreciate the beginning statements on the air traffic
    control system. I know that you guys have diligently been
    working on that. Safety is safety, whether you are driving or
    whether you are flying or whether you are on a train, as you
    made that very, very clear.
        I would like to ask you about bridges. Senator Whitehouse
    mentioned that we still have a ways to go before our bridge
    infrastructure is where it needs to be for the future. In my
    State, obviously, we have a lot of rivers and mountains. We
    have a ton of bridges. We need your partnership to make sure
    that we are going to have the ability to fix--and we are in the
    process right now of some major projects, fixing some of our
    bridges or maintaining them.
        What can you say about bridges in terms of what you have
    seen since you have been there on improving our Nation's
    bridges, and what more would we need to do to address the
    issues with bridge safety and bridge maintenance?
        Mr. Duffy. Not far from where I grew up in Wisconsin, the
    I-35, 35 W I think it was in Minnesota collapsed, a bridge I
    have gone over many times, the Francis Scott Key Bridge that
    collapsed. We see that people lose their lives when our bridges
    are not safe. I know it is a top priority for this committee
    and for the department as well. We will make sure that the
    grants that have been awarded are expeditiously moving through
    those grants, and I am making sure we have funding for that
    which was awarded.
        Beyond that, I think we have to take a look at the list of
    priorities and the oldest and maybe most dangerous bridges have
    to be funded first, and those projects have to get underway.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        For the past couple of years, I voted for the IIJA, and I
    am glad that I did. I have raised concerns about the
    implementation in the IIJA's competitive grant programs and the
    time it takes, and we have already, we are going to see this as
    a repeating theme, I think, of the time that it takes to get
    that funding out the door.
        Can you please commit to a timely execution of project
    grant agreements? We know that there are numerous projects that
    are still been promised and are not through the pipeline yet,
    promised by the previous administration, which is fine, but
    they still did not move them through the pipeline. Can you talk
    about that, and how you think that you could improve that
    process in your department?
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you for the question, Senator. A lot of
    you, many of you have called me and said, where is my project,
    where is the money, can you speed this up. I will be happy to
    talk to Senator Whitehouse about questions that are going to
    come from him on did we slow, did we pause, did we stop.
        There are 3,200 announced projects at the department that
    do not have signed grant agreements, 3,200. We are going to
    work through those projects. If you say, where is my project? I
    am not looking at 10 projects for grant agreements, 3,200, some
    of them date back to 2022.
        There is a lot of workload to do to get these projects
    completed, or get the grant agreements completed and the money
    out the door to your States. I will just note that Senator,
    usually, historically, there was 47 to 107 projects announced
    between election date and inauguration day. This last
    administration announced around 950 projects in that timeframe,
    almost a 1,000 percent increase. Everybody wants their
    projects, and I am going to do my best to get those projects
    out the door. It is a historic number that was announced.
        It is easy to blow the kazoo and send up the balloons when
    you announce a project. The hard work is actually doing the
    grant agreement. I am committed in a bipartisan effort to make
    sure we get those grant agreements signed and out the door.
    Especially as we come into the spring building season, that is
    a top priority for us.
        By the way, the first bridge, the first project that we
    actually got through and done was Senator Whitehouse's. He
    asked about bipartisanship; I am committed. Infrastructure is
    non-partisan. We all use roads and bridges in blue and red
    States, and I am committed to making sure we have a non-
    partisan view as we move money.
        Senator Capito. I am interested in the 3,200 projects that
    basically landed on your desk the day you got sworn in that
    were not completed. Could you just flesh out a little bit why
    they might not be? It might be that their environmental review,
    their financing, can you just kind of line out a little of
    those?
        Mr. Duffy. That is a good point. Some of them are, the
    NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, work had not been done
    yet. That is true. There are others that would expand capacity.
    If you are going to expand capacity from two lanes to four
    lanes, there, it is my understanding there was a set of ideas
    that we, they did not want to expand the capacity. They would
    redo current capacity. If it was an expanded capacity, those
    projects actually sat for a longer period of time.
        Senator Capito. They sat at the back of the line?
        Mr. Duffy. Yes. Again, when the announcement goes, I am
    going to work for all of you to get these projects out. If you,
    I have a lot of complaints, it is a lot of projects that we
    have to get done to make sure we can meet the commitments that
    were made in the last administration.
        By the way, most of these projects are really good
    projects. I have not found too many that I disagree with. It is
    good work for the most part.
        Senator Capito. All right. Senator Whitehouse?
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks. Again, thank you, Secretary,
    for being here, and thank you for your assistance with that bit
    of bridge construction support.
        I guess also thank you, there was a misbegotten effort at
    the Department of Transportation to require your office's
    approval every time any one of the 50 States wanted to change
    their State transportation plans. I think probably on a
    bipartisan basis, State transportation directors said, what?
    Why do you need to approve our State transportation plans?
        You backed that off, and thank you, because that is, that
    would have been an unnecessary addition to the bureaucracy that
    bedevils infrastructure projects.
        We still have the 3,200 projects. My concern is that while
    some of them, a lot of what you describe as the problems on the
    way to final agreement would actually have been considered and
    resolved when the grant was awarded. Right? You do not put a
    grant into a project where you do not know if it is two lanes
    or four lanes yet. You have to figure that out first.
        It strikes me that one of the reasons for the 3,200 case
    backlog that you have is that you are trying to plow through
    these executive orders, many of which I believe are both
    illegal and nonsense, to examine each one of them to see if
    there are any MAGA hobgoblins and heresies in them like strip
    out the word climate, or strip out the word equity, that kind
    of stuff, which when you are fixing a bridge, if the word
    equity popped up, that is not all that interesting to me.
    Getting the bridge fixed is what is interesting to me.
        If the word climate popped up, that is not all that
    interesting to me. Getting the bridge fixed is what is
    interesting to me.
        By the way, we just got a significant grant for the Newport
    Bridge, which is the key artery from the mainland to Aquidneck
    Island, a lot of traffic over it. The problem was that the
    cabling was rusting because there is a higher level of
    humidity. We had to install dehumidification equipment in the
    cabling between the cladding of the cable and the cable itself
    inside the cladding to both solve the problem of rust and
    reduce the rate of rusting.
        That grant application would have the word climate in it.
    The increase in humidity can be tracked to climate change.
        If you want to stop a project like that to scrub out the
    word climate, you are wasting an enormous amount of time. There
    actually is a climate-related reason for it. If you are dealing
    with coastal highways, we have roads all around Rhode Island,
    and I am sure many of my coastal colleagues, and I would not be
    surprised at West Virginia because of river and rainstorm
    flooding, you have roads that need repair on a more rapid basis
    than ordinary.
        If the applicant asking for those funds said, oh, yes, and
    this is going to continue to be a problem because of climate
    change, to have to go back and undo that seems like massively
    unnecessary bureaucracy.
        Could you give me your, I do not think you have a study on
    this, but could you give me your take from what you have seen
    so far as to how many of those 3,200 stuck projects are stuck
    because of the demand from the White House to have words they
    do not like, like equity and climate, scrubbed out to meet the,
    I guess, new anti-heretical requirements of these orders? How
    much of it is actually like a substantive problem with the
    infrastructure itself?
        Mr. Duffy. I appreciate the question, Senator. Again, these
    projects, many of them date back three and, three and a half
    years. To think that we can move through in 2 months 3,200
    announced projects is, it is impossible for us to do that.
        Quickly, the problem is not that we are going through these
    grant NOFOs, Notices of Funding Opportunities, right, looking
    for the green and the social justice. We are looking for it
    because it might not be interesting to you, I take your point,
    but if you are putting on additional requirements with regard
    to green or social justice, well, that drives up the cost of a
    project. That takes the project a longer timeframe in which to
    complete.
        I would just note that all of you on this committee and
    this body, you considered, should we include green, should we
    include social justice requirements in the IIJA? You debated
    it, and you did not put it in there. This administration, the
    last administration, actually put the requirements that you
    considered but did not include, they put it in the grant
    agreements. I am actually complying with the will of the
    Congress by pulling it out. It is going to take longer and cost
    more.
        Senator Whitehouse. Let me just ask you to consider whether
    the delay of going through that heresy hunt----
        Mr. Duffy. Not a heresy hunt.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. is worse than whatever the
    added cost-up is from having those words included in the grant
    application.
        Mr. Duffy. I have been there for 2 months, and I do not
    believe following the will of the Congress is heresy. I think
    when I do not follow the will of Congress, I am sure I will
    hear from you. I have due respect for you, Senator, and for
    this body, and I am following your will by pulling out the
    green and the social justice, which is not just language. It
    does not say green, green, green, green, green, social justice,
    social justice. There are requirements in these proposals that
    I am pulling out.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, my time is up, so, to be
    continued. Thank you very much for being here. We will continue
    this conversation. I am taking my colleague's time right now.
        Mr. Duffy. I appreciate your invitation to come to Rhode
    Island. I can not wait to go. I was there over the summer and
    it was beautiful.
        Senator Whitehouse. You are going to love it.
        Senator Capito. Senator Cramer?
        Senator Cramer. Well, first of all, I want to make sure
    that the minute and a half you went over really is in my time.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. I think it was a worthwhile minute and a
    half, Senator.
        I was not going to get into any of this, but I can not
    resist asking, is humidity along the coast new to climate
    change? Or was there humidity before that had to be considered?
    I think it is a relevant question in the moment.
        Mr. Duffy. Listen, I am not a climate scientist, but I have
    to imagine it existed for some time.
        Senator Cramer. I think so. I am, I do marvel, though, at
    how green this 100-year old steel bridge is. I have seen a lot
    of rusty ones, and that one is beautiful.
        The other thing I have to say, I think all of us on this
    side of the dais that worked through the current bill and
    worked closely with your predecessor, Secretary Buttigieg, like
    him a lot. I mean, I like him a lot. I will tell you, he liked
    announcements a lot. He was very good at announcements, there
    were lots and lots of announcements. He showed up at a lot of
    the announcements and we are grateful for all that.
        Your point that the announcement is not the grant I think
    is an important one to continue to remind us of. Those of us
    who hate bureaucracy also recognize there is some legitimacy to
    going through the grant application and having signatures. I
    appreciate your raising that point.
        Mr. Duffy. Some of the grant agreement, announcing that you
    got a project, is fun.
        Senator Cramer. It is.
        Mr. Duffy. It is a great process. You all celebrate, and
    have cake and ice cream and you cut ribbon. Truly the hard work
    is getting the grant agreement signed and the money out the
    door. That is the hard work. Again, so when I say there is
    3,200, it is going to take us some time to work through that.
        Again, I want to--can I just make one--I know you all want
    the projects done. I want the projects done. What is great is
    the President loves infrastructure and wants big, beautiful
    roads and bridges. It is not just you putting pressure on me.
    It is the President who is going to say, why are not you
    getting more money out the door? Get these projects done.
        Everyone around agrees on infrastructure.
        Senator Cramer. Since we are on that point, Mr. Secretary,
    and welcome, and it is great to see you, and I was looking
    down, the first several of us served with you in the House.
    Some of them are not even here yet. Welcome, and
    congratulations.
        Along those same lines, one of the things we did put in the
    current bill is the One Federal Decision, codifying the One
    Federal Decision rule of the first Trump administration. Yet, I
    have not seen a great application of that for the last 4 years
    in the permitting of a lot of these projects, either. I do not
    know if you have a comment on that.
        Mr. Duffy. That is a good point, and we have to, we do have
    to streamline the process even further with One Federal
    Decision, taking the full meaning of the legislation and the
    language.
        Senator Cramer. In the remaining half of this discussion,
    at least at this moment, I would point to the emphasis that
    Chairman Capito put on the formula funding, and the history of
    formula funding. I often like to refer to the fact that you
    cannot reserve 300 miles in the middle of the North American
    continent for gravel along interstate 94, or durum from North
    Dakota would never become pasta in New York.
        I think, while, and by the way, I strongly support the
    Chairman's emphasis on applying that formula to even more grant
    programs and discretionary programs, to the degree that we can
    do that. I mean, I know the political realities of it as well.
        I would just be interested, you coming from the middle of
    America and a pretty rural district, if you could just
    elaborate maybe a little bit on that commitment to formula
    funding in the next bill as well. It would help people
    understand formula funding recognizes that the miles of road
    are just about as important as how many people are in any
    particular mile of that road.
        Mr. Duffy. I think it is a good point. Many of us come from
    North Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Senator Lummis knows
    rural as well.
        Senator Cramer. Better than any of us.
        Mr. Duffy. It is a really important point. Again, making
    sure, again, our urban centers are important, making sure
    people move there. We can not focus on urban centers and forget
    rural America and making sure that, again, a lot of products
    come from the places where we live. They might move from roads,
    trains, to ships. Making sure that there is a complete view of
    infrastructure is incredibly important, and I would share the
    view of this committee, I think, that we have to have a
    holistic view of how we have built out infrastructure.
        Senator Cramer. Great point. Some of us have our favorite
    types of transportation as well. Just so people know, 90
    percent of the durum wheat grown in the United States is grown
    in North Dakota. That is what becomes semolina flour, which
    becomes pasta. Literally, but it does not all go on the
    interstate, either. A little bit goes by rail, a little bit
    gets on a boat now and then.
        Anyway, I thank you for understanding. Just know that will
    be a point of emphasis for a lot of us. Thank you.
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Husted?
        Senator Husted. Thank you very much.
        I wanted to just talk about the concept of time is money,
    and this process. I come from Ohio, and have only been in the
    Senate for 10 weeks, and I have viewed Federal Government from
    afar, and things seem to take so much longer.
        I will give you an example. This is not directly related to
    the Department of Transportation, but broadband. Passed a bill
    in Congress 2021 about rural broadband, still nothing has been
    built. We passed a law in the State of Ohio to do rural
    broadband with State money. We built it in 2 years, all by
    basically saying, this is what we want, you bid on it, you
    deliver it, you do it in a timeframe.
        In preparation for this conversation this morning, I was
    looking, you know, how long does it take to get a new exit on a
    highway? Well, five to 15 years, but if you look at it, it is
    usually toward 15 years. How long does it take to build a new
    bridge? Seven to 20 years, typically it is more closer to 20
    than it is 7.
        What is it that you are doing to institutionalize, to look
    at how we can deliver this faster? How can we help you?
        Mr. Duffy. First off, Senator, thank you for the question.
    Welcome to the Senate. Congratulations.
        Senator Husted. Thank you.
        Far, with these delightful colleagues, it has been
    wonderful.
        Mr. Duffy. You make an incredibly important point. I think
    Senator Whitehouse made the point that in China, other places
    in the world, they build their infrastructure so much faster.
    We have decades of laws and rules and regulations that make it
    really complicated to build.
        What we have done right now at the department is, there are
    requirements that are put on funding that is in the bill that
    we have to actually do. I have asked, let us take out all the
    other requirements that we are putting on from the department
    so we can build projects faster.
        I think we are going to work on NEPA reform in this
    administration. I know that all of the body bipartisan wants to
    work on regulation reform as well. Again, we can protect the
    environment and move projects faster. We are not doing it
    smartly.
        I think it is going to be a whole of government. We all, I
    think, are recognizing what sounded like a good idea at the
    beginning is now becoming a weight around our neck as we try to
    build infrastructure. I would look forward to working with you
    on what we are going to do at the department, what you all can
    do in the Senate. If we do that, again, instead of taking 10,
    20 years, we could take 3 to 5 years to build out these
    projects.
        Senator Husted. I am going to ask you about being
    intentional about it. Is there anybody's job inside the
    department to figure out how we are going to go faster?
        Mr. Duffy. What is important for the department is to
    streamline the process for the States, right? To take off as
    much of the weight as possible so they can build faster and
    spend more time turning dirt and less time doing paperwork. We
    are at the department doing that part.
        There are some requirements that the Congress has put on us
    that we include in these agreements that States have to comply
    with. Offering more flexibility to States, who have, I think, a
    more vested interest in moving these projects faster, I think
    is a key part of this as well. I think Texas has been a great
    example of delegating authority to Texas and seeing them move
    more quickly on projects.
        Senator Husted. Well, we have the rules and regulations in
    place to protect people, to protect the environment, to make
    the process more accountable. It actually, the delays end up
    costing the taxpayers more, not less, because of inflation and
    other consequences of the delays.
        As a competitive item for this Nation, I just take three
    things that happened in the last 4 years. Rural broadband,
    charging stations, the CHIPS Act, how long it takes money to
    get out the door for the construction to go, while China is
    innovating nuclear power plants. You go through the list of how
    long it is taking us as a Nation to literally get government
    money out the door, to build the things we say we need to
    compete and defend ourselves for economic and national security
    takes longer and longer.
        I would argue that these rules and regulations are at the
    expense of Americans, that their health, for example, if we
    know that there is a traffic issue that is a safety issue, and
    we take years to get it accomplished, people are dying,
    people's lives, it is not good for the environment if you have
    to--all these things add up and I just share that and urge you
    to help us.
        Mr. Duffy. I look forward to working with you. Time is
    money. We saw with inflation over the last 4 years that these
    projects have become so much more expensive because they did
    not move more quickly.
        Can I take one moment and just----
        Senator Capito. Yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Duffy. The cost of a whole project, upwards of 40
    percent of the cost is complying with the rules and
    regulations. We are not turning dirt; we are not building
    bridges. We are actually giving this to consultants, money to
    consultants, as we try to go through the regulatory process.
        I think if the American people knew that, they would be
    outraged. They want their bridge. Put the money in--by the way,
    if we streamline that process, it is not 40 percent, it is
    maybe 15 percent. That means we build more bridges, we build
    more roads, you get more projects and Americans are happier,
    which is what we want, happy America. Less regulation.
        Senator Husted. Yes. Every time you have a compliance
    officer or an attorney, that is one less construction worker or
    engineer you are employing.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. I am turning slowly to Senator Merkley,
    because Senator Whitehouse wanted to make a quick comment.
        Senator Whitehouse. I just wanted to jump in and remind you
    that my distaste for interagency process is something that can
    be remedied purely within the executive branch by adding
    transparency and accountability so that somebody is in charge
    when the interagency process fails or derails or delays. Please
    keep considering that, and both the Chairman and I are eager to
    give you a thumbs up and a blessing if you can cleanup the
    swamp of interagency process.
        Mr. Duffy. I will, and you said I might hide behind, I am
    not going to hide behind that, I will join you in that effort.
        Senator Capito. Senator Merkley?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
    really appreciate the point you are making about time is money.
    Really, the concerns that folks have back home in Oregon is
    that projects, instead of being expeditiously going forward
    that they are being delayed.
        Everything you are saying, as I walked into the hearing
    room, I am like, yes, yes, yes, and I am just basically asking,
    put that philosophy to work. I will just take an example with
    one of the bridges over the Columbia River, the Hood River
    Bridge. It is absolutely sitting on the desk waiting for
    approval for the contract. Meanwhile, you have the design team
    waiting, you have, trying to line up the construction side,
    trying to get it all lined up. You can not line those things up
    until the signature gets onto the page.
        In this case, it is a signature on the INFRA grant. Can you
    take a look at that project and say, is there any reason to
    hold this up? Everything you just expressed, that is exactly
    how people feel. Like, this project will be so much more
    expensive month by month if it can not go expeditiously
    forward.
        Mr. Duffy. Is this the one between Oregon and Washington?
        Senator Merkley. Well, it is one of two, actually. The Hood
    River is in the middle of the Columbia Gorge, so it is the
    smaller project. It has a $200 million INFRA. It is not the
    interstate crossing, which is another really important project.
        Mr. Duffy. I will take a look at the smaller project. I
    would love to talk to you about the I-5, because I think there
    is, the bridge needs to be redone. There are some simple things
    we could do to move that thing more quickly and get through the
    regulatory hurdles with the Coast Guard and others. I would
    love to have a conversation about that. Again, I think that
    would be a top priority for us to move that project.
        Senator Merkley. As you travel the Country, you can remind
    people that the only drawbridge left in the interstate system
    across the Country is over the Columbia River. If America can
    not figure out to put a bridge that lets the ship traffic go
    under it across the Columbia, then who are we really?
        Mr. Duffy. Music to my ears.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Well, so that Hood River
    project is one. A second project is the Pacific Coast
    Intermodal Port Project. This is where there is a deepwater
    port on the Oregon coast that is perfect to establish more
    ability to move freight. We have many things going on in the
    freight world, but we really saw before how overloaded the
    Tacoma and the ports in California, southern, but this is right
    in the middle of all that. It has a railroad line that serves
    it, connects into the railroads going all across the Country
    and the railroads going up the Columbia Gorge. It is a perfect
    place to add port capacity.
        They too are hoping to see the philosophy you have been
    expressing applied, so they can go forward with the design work
    for that port.
        Mr. Duffy. Is this Coos Bay?
        Senator Merkley. Yes, this is Coos Bay.
        Mr. Duffy. I have had internal conversations with the
    administration. It is on my radar, and I will continue to look
    at it and work with others in the administration about this
    project and how it could move forward every productive way. I
    think it is an important area, and an important project.
        Senator Merkley. I have often heard folks talking about how
    when there is a project with national significance, it really
    needs to go to the top of the pile. This is one with not just
    regional but national significance, to be able to get our
    products out, fast and cheaply out of the U.S., to be able to
    get products in fast and cheaply. We do not want them going
    through, you know, Canada is adding port capacity. We do not
    want to have to have stuff imported to Canada and then ship it
    down into the United States. This is a huge opportunity for us
    to do something of national significance.
        Mr. Duffy. I hear you, and I have heard others talk about
    this same topic, Senator. I would be happy to partner on it.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Mr. Duffy. To think through how it would look and how we
    could do it.
        Senator Merkley. We have a lot of projects, obviously,
    lined up, as every State does. Another one is the Safe Streets
    and Roads for All Program. There is a whole series of grants.
    These are largely related to bicycle, pedestrian
    infrastructure, and helping students get to school safely. I
    did notice a whole bunch of orange shirts with the word
    ``bike'' on it.
        The thing that we appreciate about expanding our bike
    capacity in Oregon is it reduces the congestion on our roads.
    Not only is it folks who are choosing a cheaper way and a
    healthier way to get to work but it is a way for everyone else
    in their car to get to work faster. Everyone appreciates it.
        I wanted to encourage that set of Safe Streets and Roads
    grants. They are minor grants; they just need your autopen to
    go to work.
        Mr. Duffy. The Congress was clear, and I am going to abide
    by the will of the Congress. I am not going to hold up any
    projects. Again, bikes are healthy, bikes oftentimes in many
    places move people faster.
        Senator Merkley. In the years I was working here in D.C.,
    in the 1980's, I biked everywhere. I always beat my friends in
    cars. By the time they could figure out a parking space, I had
    already been on location 15 minutes. Anyway, thank you so much.
        Mr. Duffy. Now people are riding scooters.
        Senator Capito. Senator Lummis?
        Senator Lummis. Thanks, Madam Chairman, for beginning the
    dialog between the Department of Transportation and this
    committee on surface transportation now. We have a lot of big
    challenges.
        Mr. Secretary, honestly, I have to say, since hours after
    you were sworn in, you have been drinking out of a fire hose.
    You have had crisis after crisis, challenge after challenge.
    You have handled it magnificently, and I want to thank you for
    the way that you are continuing to work through these projects
    while you continue to communicate with the American people.
        I want to thank you specifically for looking at the Rock
    Springs, Wyoming airport grants. Like everyone else, we are all
    hopeful that some of these grants that were signed, sealed and
    not quite delivered are moving forward. Bless you for that.
        A couple subjects with regard to surface transportation.
    Electronic Vehicle (EV) mandates just really do not work for
    Wyoming because of our climate, because of our cold weather.
    Electric vehicles just do not go as far as they can elsewhere,
    because of that there are not very many.
        When there are electric vehicles, they are just not
    contributing to maintaining our roads and bridges, because you
    have to be using a liquid fuel that pays a gas or diesel tax in
    order to maintain our roads. We are all going to have to work
    together to find out a way that electric vehicles can help
    contribute to the maintenance of our Nation's roads and
    bridges.
        I have one little sliver of it that I want to talk to you
    about. The EV mandates and the National Electric Vehicle
    Infrastructure Program (NEVI) charger program, and its related
    discretionary program, budgeted $7.5 billion with really
    disappointing results. It is leading to the suspension in
    February that occurred so it could be evaluated.
        I want to look at that program and ask you to look at it
    with me. The NEVI program just buckled under piles of
    regulation and rigid technical requirements, private capital
    was left on the sidelines to address the EV charging issue.
    Wyoming and other States have millions of dollars sitting idle
    in accounts for chargers that they just can not build. That is
    money that is not creating this joyful, happy America where we
    have great highways and great bridges.
        I introduced this bill called the Highway Funding
    Flexibility Act that would authorize States to redirect unused
    EV charger funds to roads and bridges, and then highway safety
    priorities like truck parking and wildlife crossings could also
    be eligible. It would empower States like Wyoming to devote
    money to real highway needs with potentially billions
    nationwide for addressing infrastructure priorities.
        I would like your help exploring this and maybe other ways
    to make sure that money that has been appropriated could be put
    to use on big, durable projects that connect our Country, some
    of the projects that my colleagues have raised.
        How do you recommend we go about having a dialog about
    things like that?
        Mr. Duffy. First, Senator, I live in a place in Wisconsin
    that is cold and rural as well, and EVs do not work that well
    in my part of the Country also. Just in regard to the NEVI
    program, just to be clear, the guidance, I think, from the last
    administration was not working. I believe there has been over 3
    years, 66 chargers built with the $5 billion out of the $7.5
    billion that was directed toward the EV chargers, and again,
    very burdensome regulation.
        We are redoing the guidance. We can have a debate about
    whether we should have charging stations or not. You guys all
    passed a bill with charging stations. I think if you pass a
    bill saying, we should build out American infrastructure with
    charging stations, we should build charging stations. We should
    not pay people to not have charging stations, we have 66 of
    them.
        I look at the guidance, I am going to make the guidance
    work. Whether I agree with it or not, you told me to do it, and
    so let us do it well. There is still money there, and that is a
    role for the Congress to say, hey, do we want to take this
    money and use it for something else? That will be your all's
    decision as you go forward this next year.
        I am going to do what you directed and 66 is a shameful
    number. Again, it goes back to the Senator from Ohio's point,
    there are way too many rules and regulations. People can not
    comply, and then you do not get the build. I would be happy to
    work with you, though, on kind of what we are thinking, and
    happy to work with you on what you are thinking.
        I do also believe that EVs should pay part of the cost of
    roads and bridges that they use. How you do that is a question
    that we will have to grapple with.
        Senator Lummis. Thanks, Madam Chairman. If we get a second
    round, I will ask you about truck parking. There again, there
    is a Department of Labor rule that says you can only drive a
    certain number of hours and then you absolutely have to stop.
    There is no place for them to park. That is an issue for
    another round.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Duffy. That is a safety issue. We have to address it.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Padilla?
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Duffy,
    thank you for being here. I appreciated our productive and
    constructive dialog by phone yesterday on some of the
    California transportation priorities that we have been
    discussing for a while.
        I appreciate, Madam Chair, the opportunity to shed light on
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It has meant more than $54
    billion of investment in a number of projects throughout the
    State of California that not only help keep up with our transit
    needs, help keep modern and efficient some of the Nation's
    busiest ports, and of course, our extensive highway system. We
    are doing so to meet some deferred maintenance needs in some
    respects, but also make necessary improvements to accommodate
    both a growing population and a growing economy.
        A lot of these projects have been a long time in coming. We
    are finally glad to see the activity happening.
        As we talked about yesterday, it is also critical that the
    administration supports some key events that are drivers of
    goods movement, people movement, and are a catalyst for
    modernization. I am specifically referring to the L.A. 2028
    Olympics to be hosted in Los Angeles, the most populous region
    in the Country already. Add to that the anticipated 50 million
    ticket holders coming to events in 2028 to make it successful
    and to lay the foundation for economic growth well beyond the
    Olympics.
        We are looking to partner with the Department of
    Transportation in a big, big way and 2028 seems like a long
    ways away, but it is actually just around the corner from a
    planning and preparation standpoint. We need funding for those
    preparations now.
        I think it would be helpful to have a designated line item
    in the President's budget to help us prepare not only for L.A.
    2028, by the way, but also to lay the foundation for the 2034
    Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
        Long intro to ask you what you might be able to provide in
    terms of an update on your work to support the Olympics in
    2028, including any work with the OMB to develop funding
    proposals for the Olympics.
        Mr. Duffy. I appreciate the question, Senator. Again, it is
    the Olympics that are going to be hosted in L.A., but in
    America.
        There is a task force in this administration that we are
    part of, that I have designated someone to as we think through
    what should the administration be looking at, what are the
    needs of the greater L.A. area as we, to your point, we are
    going to see a lot of people coming to our Country. We are
    going to move them, house them, and again, that is a thoughtful
    process that we are engaging in right now. I would agree with
    you; 3 years is right around the corner. Not a lot of time; we
    have to move quickly.
        Senator Padilla. Move them, house them, and help maintain
    safe and secure events around the Olympics.
        Question on a different topic. The Infrastructure and Jobs
    Act provided $8 billion in advance appropriations for the
    FTA's, Federal Transit Administration, capital investment
    grants program, one of the items we talked about yesterday,
    which helps fund large transit capital projects. Projects make
    their way through the pipeline after already rigorous review on
    their merit and their feasibility. There is a number of
    critical projects in California making their way through the
    pipeline as we speak.
        As you can imagine, there are some constituents, there are
    some transit agencies back home, some municipalities that are a
    little nervous about the reliability of that funding, given
    some of the changes and whiplash that we are experiencing here
    in Washington.
        As your team executes the program, can you assure us that
    the review process and just the awarding of funds going forward
    will continue to simply be based on merit?
        Mr. Duffy. Yes, Senator, and I think you might also be
    referring to the California High Speed Rail project, which we
    are going----
        Senator Padilla. One of a number, yes.
        Mr. Duffy. Per our conversation yesterday, our people have
    been in touch with the California Rail Authority, I believe is
    who that is.
        I do believe as a philosophy if we commit to rail, if we
    commit to infrastructure, we should actually build the
    infrastructure we commit to. I know that this project you have
    laid out, those distinct differences for the L.A. to San
    Franciso portion of this high speed rail. When we skip
    timelines and projections of cost that we can not meet, and it
    is $33 billion, it can be like $133 billion. There are
    timeframes that were set, it should be done by 2020, now there
    is no timeframe in which it is going to be completed.
        That is not your fault, Senator, but we have to actually
    deliver on projects for the people. We do not have high speed
    rail in America. If we want to have high speed rail and we want
    to dedicate money to it, let us actually show America what high
    speed rail looks like because we built it. We did not just
    spend the money on a project, we built a project.
        Senator Padilla. I respect that, Mr. Secretary, but to be
    clear, that is one of a number of projects I was making
    reference to. There are transit projects, including rail lines,
    in and around San Diego. Second, part of the city in
    California, another one of the largest cities in America, in
    and around Los Angeles, second largest city in America, but the
    anchor for the most populous county in America. Around the San
    Francisco Bay area.
        There is a significant economic contribution to the Nation
    and our Federal coffers that can continue to grow with the
    proper infrastructure investment. I want to keep those moving
    along.
        My time is up. I will submit some questions for the record.
    I appreciate your attention and partnership.
        Senator Capito. Senator Sullivan?
        Mr. Duffy. I want to keep them safe, too, Senator. I want,
    when people ride the rail, I want them to be safe when they
    move.
        Senator Padilla. Absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, great to see you. I just want to really
    thank you. I think you are doing a great job. You have been
    very responsive. That press conference we had with our
    congressional delegation over at the Department of
    Transportation after the plane crash in Alaska was really
    meaningful to my constituents. Thank you. Keep up the fantastic
    work.
        I want to build on what we call the FASI initiative, the
    Federal Aviation Safety Initiative in Alaska. I know you are
    committed to that. I gave a big shout-out to you in my annual
    speech to our Alaska legislature last week.
        One thing to followup on, when you are talking about ATC,
    the Anchorage Center for the FAA on the air traffic
    controllers, these men and women do a great job. I would love
    for you, when you come to Alaska, to see them. I agree, it is
    like post-it notes, floppy disks, it is so antiquated. They do
    not just do aviation control for Alaska. Anyone who is flying
    from the lower 48 to Asia, Japan, Korea, they fly over Alaska.
    The ATC in Alaska essentially takes them, controls them, hands
    them off all the way in Tokyo. They are protecting the whole
    Country.
        Can you commit to me to help with technical upgrades? I
    just met with a bunch of our ATC leadership and boy, oh, boy,
    they are great, but they really, really, they are World War II
    era technology.
        Mr. Duffy. I would look forward to, I worked out what will
    be a proposal for the Senate and the House. I have shared it
    with the President. We are trying to pressure test the cost on
    this before I send it to all of you.
        We need to, this is an American effort. Time has killed,
    because we have spent a lot of money on trying to upgrade air
    traffic control, and there are a lot of high-faluting ideas out
    there. We are at the basics. Let us build the basics of this
    system that gets rid of World War II and brings us into the
    21st century. Alaska is a key part of it.
        We talked about hot spots around the Country. You mentioned
    the Anchorage area. That has been a focus of the FAA and using
    AI technology to see if we are missing something that is not
    visible to the human eye with regard to issues in your
    airspace.
        Senator Sullivan. Right, and thank you. Again, when you are
    looking at ATC tech, software upgrade, boy, oh, boy, Anchorage
    Center needs it. It is not just for Anchorage, like I said.
    They take care of everybody flying to Asia.
        Mr. Duffy. I want to do the whole Country, everybody needs
    it. We need a whole American buildout. Good American jobs, tens
    of thousands of jobs. It would be great.
        Senator Sullivan. Could not agree more.
        Bridges, I am so glad to see the Chairman and my good
    friend, the Ranking Member, talking about big, beautiful
    bridges. That is a beautiful bridge, Senator Whitehouse.
        By the way, the one thing, though, that my good friend from
    Rhode Island did not mention on permitting delays, he mentioned
    reforms, bureaucracy, the freezes. Far left radical
    environmentally frivolous lawsuits, my State lives with that.
    That is what we deal with every darned day. If there is not
    litigation reform, these groups want to kill roads, bridges,
    ports in Alaska, they get a free hand.
        These groups are allowed to sue like six, 7 years after
    records of decision. It is ridiculous. We need permitting
    reform that limits the radical far left environmental groups
    from crushing every project, particularly in my State. I can
    not wait to work with Senator Whitehouse on those ideas, too.
        Senator Whitehouse. Representing the radical far left.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. Well, you kind of do. We are still good
    friends.
        Anyway, I did have an amendment a couple of years ago that
    I would love for you to take a look at on bridges that said, if
    it is an existing bridge and you are going to rebuild it in the
    same space or do maintenance on it, why in the heck do you need
    to do a NEPA?
        My bill, which every Republican supported, I can not
    remember her name, a California Senator, she went on the floor
    screaming, ``The Sullivan amendment will kill children.'' I am
    like, what? I mean, so we want an exclusion from NEPA if all
    you are doing is building in the same footprint for a bridge.
    It is common sense.
        Would not you agree with something like that, Mr.
    Secretary?
        Mr. Duffy. A hundred percent.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay, I am going to re-attack that, and
    Sheldon Whitehouse is going to be my cosponsor.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. I do like working with Senator
    Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay, that is what I need.
        Mr. Secretary, I have a list of frozen build grants that I
    am going to just have you for the record, not many. You guys
    have done a good, you just unfroze the FHWA, Federal Highway
    Administration, one in Whittier, Alaska. If you and I can work
    on that.
        Then finally, we will submit that for the record. Two final
    quick questions. We are trying to do a lot, you just sent me a
    letter, I really appreciate that, yesterday, on the building
    out of the Port of Alaska, Port of Anchorage, we call it. We
    are getting Federal dollars, MARAD, Maritime Administration,
    and others. Thank you.
        Once again, the permitting is, I wrote you about NEPA, but
    there is a NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association,
    beluga whale thing. We need to get everybody together on the
    permitting side for the Port of Anchorage and follow through on
    the President's day one Executive Order on unleashing Alaska's
    economy and resources, which we are very happy President Trump
    did that.
        Can I get your commitment to work with us on that kind of,
    because it is not just you guys, and your letter was much
    appreciated, but it is other agencies and I think we just all
    need to get together and say, hey, this is a really needed
    port, we are finally getting Federal dollars to it. We have to
    get the permitting right. If it is six, 7 years on permits,
    that is just wasted money, wasted time.
        Mr. Duffy. I would welcome the opportunity to work with
    you, Senator, and I look forward to seeing you in August.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Then finally, I will submit it for
    the record, we have an idea on the Tribal Transportation
    Program that can help our tribes get more infrastructure
    dollars. As you know a lot of our tribes, not just in Alaska,
    but in the lower 48, they really suffer from lack of
    infrastructure. There are some ideas to help that program be
    more efficient, get some more funding to our tribes throughout
    America. I would welcome to work with you on that.
        Mr. Duffy. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You are doing a
    great job.
        Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding.] That takes us to Senator
    Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for
    being here.
        I wanted to raise concern about a number of projects in
    California that are still waiting for an answer. In the MEGA
    program, $283 million for the Port of Long Beach Rail
    Construction project; $166 million for Contra Costa's Innovate
    680 program' $53 million for a multi-modal facility in Madera.
    In the INFRA bill, $105 million for Redwood City, S.R. 84 and
    U.S. 101, $98 million for CalTrans S.R. 99 Tulare improvements.
        In the Rural Surface Transportation Program, $41 million
    for the city of Tracy, Corral Hollow Road project, $35 million
    for Yuba County, Plumas Lake Boulevard and FHWA, $102 million
    for CalTrans I-5, $56 million for SJV, San Joaquin Valley, air
    pollution control district, $55 million for California Energy
    Commission.
        Reconnecting Communities, $26 million for the housing
    authority in L.A., $11 million for the city of Goleta
    multipurpose path. In the RAISE program, $25 million for BART,
    $23 million for the Palmdale grade separation project.
        This is a partial list. These projects really have not
    received word, so they are unclear of the status of the
    projects. The delays might end up killing the projects. The
    delays will certainly end up costing more to do these projects,
    as material costs go up and other costs increase.
        I am raising the concern because we do not know whether
    these are changes in policy that are affecting grants that have
    already been approved, or whether this is a lack of personnel
    to administer the grants. I am further concerned with layoffs
    that might further delay getting this money out the door to do
    these vital infrastructure projects.
        I would ask for your comments generally on when you think
    these cities and counties will hear from you and your
    department. Also whether you are mindful of the fact that delay
    has a cost, a real dollars and cents cost.
        Mr. Duffy. I appreciate the question, Senator. I would
    maybe give the whole number, there have bene 200 awards
    announced for California to the tune of $1.74 billion. There is
    a lot of money that announcements have been made over the
    course of the last 3 years. We do not have grant agreements on
    those announcements.
        I do not know that you were here for this, but there are
    3,200 announcements that were made by the last administration
    where there were no grant agreements. That is unheard of. I am
    going to work through those announcements and get grant
    agreements so we can build those projects that you are talking
    about.
        Just quickly, I do not want the Republicans to get annoyed
    at me, but Senator Whitehouse got a bridge, and in California
    we are going to announce the Madera 410 Expressway, that one
    has been completed, we are almost ready to sign that, as well
    as the Otay Mesa $150 million, that is a border crossing. I
    believe that one is ready to go as well.
        We have three Democrat announcements. I do not have any for
    you Republicans yet, but we are going through the projects.
        Senator Schiff. We are a very bipartisan committee.
        Mr. Duffy. You are.
        Senator Schiff. I know I speak for my Republican colleagues
    when I say they are delighted with money coming to my State.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Duffy. We will see how that goes.
        Senator Schiff. Not quite as delighted as if it were going
    to their State.
        Mr. Secretary, I appreciate anything you can do to
    accelerate the approval process. Can you speak to how the cuts
    in personnel may be impacting the timeliness of approvals in
    this area?
        Mr. Duffy. Yes, I appreciate the question. That has not
    impacted how we are able to move through the grant agreement
    process. We still have more employees in the department than we
    did when Joe Biden took office.
        It is the sheer volume that I was left with. Just to maybe
    remake this point, in between Obama and Donald Trump, there was
    47 projects announced between election day and inauguration.
    Between Trump and Biden, there was 107 projects announced
    between election day and inauguration day. In this last term,
    there was about 950 projects announced.
        There has been a massive number of announcements, historic.
    Then that means our department has to do the work of, truly the
    work is doing the grant agreements. The announcements are fun,
    but grant agreements are the work. I am going to get through
    that, but it is going to take me some time. I would ask for
    some patience from the committee just because the workload is
    so significant.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Secretary, if there is any further
    information you need and you are having any delay on our end,
    please have your staff reach out to mine. We want to make sure
    that we get you all the information necessary to move these
    projects forward.
        Mr. Duffy. I appreciate that, Senator.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you. I yield back.
        Senator Whitehouse. Particularly if the delay is
    substantively based and not a heresy hunt.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        As we were talking about bridges, I saw one big beautiful
    bridge from the Senator from California's State over to my
    State, skipping the State in between.
        Senator Whitehouse. Quite a bridge.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Curtis. Secretary Duffy, so delighted to have you
    here in this capacity. I will associate myself with my
    colleagues who have complimented your fast and early start.
    Thank you for jumping right in and the work you do.
        I will be careful, because I do not know your travel
    schedule, but hypothetically if you found yourself in Utah in
    the next short time, we would be very excited. We have a
    project we would love to show you, our FrontRunner. I think you
    are familiar with that. We have the Olympics coming also, a few
    years later than California.
        Eighty percent of our population is serviced by this one
    rail because of the geography of our State. That 80 percent is
    expected to double in no short time. We would love to have your
    support on that project. I would love to personally show you
    that as well, given the opportunity.
        Mr. Duffy. Yes, Senator, I would love to work with you. If
    I could just take a moment, I want to extend my condolences to
    the State of Utah. You lost a lioness of a legislator and a
    friend of mine, and I know a friend to the great State of Utah,
    Mia Love, who served in our body in the House. She lost her
    battle with cancer. She has a wonderful family, and I know she
    loved Utah. She served your State well. Our hearts are broken.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you. From the State, thank you for
    your friendship with her, too. I know she thought very highly
    of you.
        I also want to bring up, Utah is unique in the sense of our
    regional planning, MPOs, Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
    they actually like each other and get along. At the time I was
    serving as mayor, I was told that we had the only statewide MPO
    project in the Country where all the MPOs agreed across the
    entire State. The synergy is just really important.
        I just wanted to get your thoughts on MPOs, particularly in
    the reauthorization bill, how you see the role of MPOs.
        Mr. Duffy. Senator, if it is working well in Utah, and as
    we go through the reauthorization, I am sure you will be a
    champion, and I will take your lead on what we learn from the
    success, and how do we improve on the successes in this new
    bill.
        Senator Curtis. Excellent. Good.
        We have had a lot of conversation today about bureaucracy
    and regulations. Going back to my mayor days, whenever we built
    a project, we knew the rule of thumb was if we took one dollar
    of Federal money it increased the cost of our project by 30
    percent. Keeping the same standards, right, all the same NEPA
    requirements and yet, it was led by the State, and not the
    Federal Government.
        One of my questions for you is what role can we transition
    traditionally done by the Federal Government to the States?
    Utah loves to be the lead on these projects. We would love to
    get your thoughts on that and how we can deal with that.
        Mr. Duffy. I think it is a great point. We have been trying
    to designate more authority to States, because they move
    projects faster than have happened when going through the
    Federal Government.
        To the larger point, I think there is a philosophy about
    what we have to do with these permits and the environmental
    reviews. I do believe there is an understanding, Democrat and
    Republican, that has been created today is not what was
    anticipated when bills were passed. That is why I think there
    is bipartisan support to do reform in this space, so we can
    move projects faster and more cheaply. Again, we do not have to
    sacrifice an environmental review, but I think it was Senator
    Sullivan who mentioned the litigation and the complication and
    the cost is real.
        I will do my part; I know the administration wants to do
    their part. The Congress has to do their part as well to
    streamline this process.
        Senator Curtis. Given any opportunity, Utah would love to
    serve as the lead agency in environmental projects. We would
    love to talk to you about that, and how that might help us
    streamline.
        Mr. Duffy. I would love that.
        Senator Curtis. Good. Our recreational trails program, I am
    just going to read a stat here, off-highway vehicle users like
    four-wheelers, ATVs and off-road motorcycles contribute $281
    million annually to the Highway Trust Fund and only receive $84
    million back out of it. We would love to have that discussion
    with you, too. That is a big deal in Utah, returning some of
    those back to the trails programs.
        Mr. Duffy. I would welcome that discussion. Again, I know
    it is big in Utah, but northern Wisconsin also, big deal, a lot
    of people come to ride through our beautiful forests.
        Senator Curtis. Sounds like something I need to do. I will
    get out to Wisconsin. Thank you.
        Mr. Duffy. I recommend July or August.
        Senator Curtis. Okay, thanks, Mr. Secretary. I yield my
    time.
        Senator Capito. [Presiding.] Senator Kelly?
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
    Secretary Duffy for being here today. It was great to have the
    opportunity to speak to you on the phone yesterday.
        I want to start by discussing the review of the competitive
    grant awards, as we discussed on the phone, and the guidance
    issued by the Department of Transportation on March 11th
    outlining the process of reviewing projects for grant awards
    that are not yet finalized.
        This has caused significant disruption for a number of our
    projects in Arizona, including the replacement of the 22d
    Street Bridge in Tucson. I was on the phone with the mayor of
    Tucson yesterday about this, Regina Romero. This 22d Street
    Bridge project replaces an outdated bridge for cars that are
    going over Union Pacific's main Southern Transcon rail line in
    Tucson. It needs to be replaced. There are cars, or there are
    certain sized trucks and emergency vehicles that can not go
    over this bridge, not allowed.
        There is also a project in Arizona, it is the widening of
    U.S. Highway 93, which is one of the deadliest roadways in
    Arizona, and part of what we call the future interstate 11
    between Phoenix and Las Vegas. Phoenix and Las Vegas are
    perhaps the two closest cities in the Country, major cities,
    that are not connected by an interstate highway.
        There is also the replacement of four bridges on interstate
    40 in northern Arizona that were not built to current
    standards. Then a reconfiguration of a three-way interchange in
    the west valley, that is outside Phoenix, that also has an at-
    grade railway crossing and is one of the most congested
    intersections in the State.
        There is also a project that widens U.S. Highway 95 to
    address a decades-long problem of traffic and unsafe roadway
    conditions between the city of Yuma and the Army's Yuma Proving
    Grounds in southern Arizona. Then there is more than a dozen
    more. I could go on; I am not going to do that.
        I have sent you and your staff a full list of these
    priority projects. I will note, all of these projects were
    announced before election day, not after. None of them were
    selected for political reasons. They were selected because they
    are important to my State and they meet the purposes of these
    congressionally authorized grant programs. They repair bridges,
    they reduce congestion, they improve safety. Based on your
    testimony and our prior conversations, I am pretty sure we
    agree those are the exact types of projects that should receive
    funding.
        Yet, for no fault of their own, these grant recipients in
    Arizona have had to wait several months now, not able to move
    forward on reviews or grant agreements, and forced to delay
    their construction schedules. I just had a bunch of my
    constituents in the office today talking about and asking, why
    are these things stopped?
        Secretary Duffy, what updates can you give about when the
    internal review of grants that was laid out on March 11th will
    be completed?
        Mr. Duffy. Senator, again I agree, many of the projects,
    good projects. I am told there are 44 awards that you received
    for $561 million in the State of Arizona. They were awarded
    before election day. I would note many of these go back two and
    3 years, these projects.
        Senator Kelly. Yes.
        Mr. Duffy. I love that you are saying that I can cleanup
    two or 3 years of announcements in 2 months, that is a little
    bit challenging. I am committing to you, like I did on the
    phone, I am going to work through these projects.
        Senator Kelly. Explain to me what do you mean by cleanup?
    What is required to clean them up? This is money appropriated
    by Congress, by Democrats and Republicans, grants that were
    awarded and now things seem to have come to a halt on many of
    these projects.
        Mr. Duffy. For obligated money, when there is an
    obligation, a grant agreement is signed where there was an
    earmark for Congress, all that money is still going out. There
    has been no pause, there has been no hold, there has been no--
    money is going per the law on those grant agreements.
        The unobligated money is the money where there has been an
    award, someone did a big announcement, hey, you get your
    project for the 22d Street Tucson bridge or road, and then it
    takes time to do the grant agreement. That is the actual work
    part of the process.
        The announcement is easy. The grant agreement is the work.
    There are 3,200 of those projects that we have sitting at the
    department where the fun part was done with the announcement.
    We have to do the work of doing the grant agreement with the
    States. We are going to work through that quickly, as quickly
    as possible.
        It is a historically large number. I take your point. You
    alone have 44 projects that were announced that do not have
    grant agreements on them. A lot of you all have these projects
    and you are all, I think rightfully annoyed that the money is
    not coming.
        Many of them are years old. Again, if you are annoyed or
    concerned, I think the focus should not be on me, it should be
    elsewhere. We have been there 2 months; someone else was there
    for 4 years. I will work on those with you.
        Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Senator Capito. Senator Alsobrooks?
        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Duffy, good to see you again.
        Mr. Duffy. You as well, Senator.
        Senator Alsobrooks. I enjoyed the conversation yesterday.
        During our discussion, we talked about our time as county
    executives. You know the Federal transportation programs really
    are so integral to the success of our States, projects like
    road maintenance, bridge repairs, safety projects. I am looking
    forward to working with you and working with this committee to
    craft a bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill.
        I am also wanting to ask you about three questions. One is
    regarding construction costs for infrastructure that we know,
    particularly highway construction, have increased
    significantly. The Federal Highway Administration's National
    Highway Construction cost index, which measures the rate of
    inflation and labor and material costs, increased, we know, 59
    percent since 2021, 36 percent between 2022 and the first half
    of 2023.
        These costs continue to rise. We know that they really,
    this will impact how much infrastructure we can build with
    allocated funds.
        The question is, how will the administration plan to ensure
    that transportation funding keeps pace with inflation, so that
    projects in States like Maryland are not delayed and are not
    downsized?
        Mr. Duffy. Senator, I think that is a great question and I
    appreciated our conversation yesterday, two former prosecutors.
    I appreciate the good work you have done in all the roles you
    have had in your public service.
        You are right, we have to do our work in the department to
    get these projects out the door, get grant agreements signed
    and get new notices of funding opportunity done as well. Again,
    we can have a massive infrastructure build in this Country. The
    sooner we do it, I think to your point, the more cost effective
    it will be. We get today's cost when we do projects, not
    tomorrow's cost if they are delayed.
        I think also an important part of it is not just the work
    that we have to do. I do believe that the Congress has to do
    its work on permitting reform. That is taking a very long time,
    too. It is not the work that you have done or the department
    has done, it is that the process to go through to begin these
    projects takes so long. If they are delayed, five, six, 10
    years, the cost of completion is significant.
        Also, part of that, we can reduce the cost of the
    consultants and the permitting, which means more money will be
    there for the road or the bridge or whatever, the rail that we
    are working on.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Okay. Also, I know there has been a lot
    of conversation today about bridges. Maryland happens to also
    be very concerned about a bridge, in particular the Francis
    Scott Key Bridge that collapsed after being hit by a vessel in
    2024. The collapse highlighted some vulnerabilities that we
    have in our Nation's bridge infrastructure, and particularly
    around bridges that were not designed to withstand these modern
    vessel strikes.
        In response to the tragedy in Maryland, the National
    Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)conducted an investigation
    and issued a preliminary report which highlighted other high
    risk bridges that are across the Country.
        The question is whether you will commit to expeditiously
    adopting the recommendations that the NTSB outlined in that
    preliminary report?
        Mr. Duffy. I would note I have worked very closely with the
    NTSB and their Chair, Jennifer Homendy, has done an excellent
    job and has partnered with us very well. I want to take a look
    at the recommendations, and again, to implement recommendations
    on the number of bridges that she highlighted would indicate a
    significant amount of money that comes in this upcoming bill.
        Again, the resources have to be provided and you all have
    to have the discussion if that is a priority for the Congress.
    I am happy to engage. We should have a broader conversation
    together about what that priority list looks like.
        Again, the Francis Scott Key Bridge, lives were lost there,
    tragic. We want to make sure that does not happen again.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Okay. Just a final question, I know we
    talked also about transit. On average, the Washington
    Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) carries over
    800,000 passengers daily across rail and bus systems. Very
    important to the D.C. area and the metropolitan area, including
    Maryland.
        I want to ask you whether you will, the funding stream has
    been so important to us. I know that the lack of predictable
    funding really does harm the safety of passengers. I know we
    talked a lot about safety on those trains.
        As Secretary, will you work with Congress in supporting
    long-term predictable funding streams for transit systems like
    WMATA and MTA, Maryland Transit Administration?
        Mr. Duffy. I am happy to have that conversation. I do think
    that, again, everyone driving in a car may be challenging if
    you are coming into Washington, DC or to New York City. Transit
    is an important part of it.
        We should expect that if we want people to ride our trains,
    our trains should be safe. They should not be subject to
    violence on our subways or our trains. I think that is local
    communities, and I think the mayor has been making good efforts
    in D.C. here. We have to take steps to make sure people are
    safe.
        Also, I think we have to look at the cost. In New York, I
    believe it is, the next most expensive place to build subways
    is London. New York is five times more expensive than London.
    We have to get our costs under control as well. We do not have
    an unlimited amount of money, we do not have a money printing
    machine, though some people might think the Congress is a money
    machine. It is not.
        Let us use the money well and make investments that go
    further for the taxpayer and the American people and make sure
    that they are safe. I would work with you on that and figure
    out how we make those goals a reality.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you. I yield. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Blunt Rochester?
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito and
    Ranking Member Whitehouse.
        It is good to see you, Secretary Duffy. I want to first of
    all thank you for your responsiveness when I called or texted.
    You have been very responsive and I appreciated our
    conversation as well in preparation for today's hearing.
        I am running back and forth between two committees, so I
    apologize. The other committee was also focused on safety, the
    Commerce Committee. We were talking about aviation safety.
        Today we all know how important safety is, and I just want
    to thank you for taking the time.
        I want to focus, for me, on a couple of projects, you have
    probably heard a theme here from many of us, that are important
    to Delaware. I know when we talked, one of our conversations a
    few months ago was about the announcement of funding freezes.
    You were very responsive at that time.
        I shared with you recently that in Delaware, we have the
    Cape May-Lewes Ferry system, which received a $20 million grant
    to replace an aging vessel with a hybrid ferry that is now on
    hold. This new hybrid ferry's engine would reduce fuel
    consumption by 35 percent. That is transformational.
        Over the past 60 years, the Cape May-Lewes Ferry has been a
    stable provider for travel and tourism. The service transports
    approximately 775,000 passengers and 275,000 vehicles a year.
    Without this funding for the modernization, this vessel, we
    would just be at risk.
        Secretary Duffy, I wanted to talk to you about the
    certainty of these funds. Can I tell my constituents that this
    funding for the project is still confirmed?
        Mr. Duffy. Yes, so Senator, just--yes. When you say the
    money was, we froze money, we did not freeze any money at the
    department. There are obligated projects that money continued
    to go out on. These are, I appreciate, you have been very
    kind----
        Senator Blunt Rochester. No, that is what I mean you were
    responsive to call me back and tell me the money is not----
        Mr. Duffy. These are announced projects that we needed
    grant agreements on. That is going to take some work. I do not
    see any issue with the announcements, and that we should be
    able to do grant agreements. I have to again prioritize, for
    everybody has projects to the tune of 3,200 of them.
        I am trying to get through them as quickly as possible. You
    can tell your constituents, the Secretary does not see any
    issue with these grant agreements that were announced and he is
    going to try to work through them as quickly as possible.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I just request that our
    team continue to followup with each other after the hearing.
        Mr. Duffy. Absolutely.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. I would like to bring another
    project to your attention and that is the city of Wilmington
    was awarded a $17 million RAISE grant to build the appropriate
    infrastructure for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles along the
    riverfront in support of a larger riverfront development
    project. While monthly land use discussions have continued with
    the Federal Highway Administration, the grant agreement
    discussions have not yet resumed.
        Secretary Duffy, if you can clarify, you said this is not
    on hold, but is one of the challenges because it is multi-modal
    transportation?
        Mr. Duffy. No. I appreciate the question, Senator. This is
    one of the issues that this project is, for the Wilmington
    RAISE grant, it was announced in 2021. This is an old one. I
    have been there for 2 months. I will commit to working with you
    and your team and our team to make sure we get the grant
    agreement written and get the project going.
        With the 2-months I have been there, I am not the holdup,
    it is 3 years in the making to get us here. I think it is fair
    for you to go, well, I do not care about the past 3 years, I
    care about what you are going to do for me today. I am going to
    work with you to deliver for you and this administration.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. It is interesting; you are
    actually talking on my behalf, what you think I might be
    thinking. I am just saying, this is an important project to
    Delaware.
        Mr. Duffy. Yes.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. I just want to confirm that it is
    part of a larger picture. It also includes flood mitigation and
    protection. I just want to make sure that our teams can work
    together to make sure that the talks continue and that we get
    this implemented for Delaware.
        Mr. Duffy. Absolutely.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. I see some folks in the audience
    who have their bike rider shirts on. I am also very much
    supportive of programs like the Safe Streets and Roads for All
    and the Neighborhood Access and Equity program. These
    investments have helped, as I mentioned, safety. We think about
    the safety of cyclists as well as pedestrians.
        We hope that you will also focus on these grants and making
    sure that this money is not politicized. I know there was an
    internal memo that talked about the different things that would
    be potentially on the chopping block. We hope that our cyclists
    and pedestrians as well as those who are traveling are safe.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        I want to thank you, and Secretary Duffy, I want to thank
    you. We do not have any further questions, so I would really
    like to thank you. Your whole testimony was really, I think,
    goes back to your House roots, realizing that all politics is
    local for all of us. You did your homework before you came on
    all of our various projects.
        We really appreciate that. From what I have heard
    everywhere, the responsiveness has been amazing.
        Senators who wish to submit questions for the record have
    until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 16th, to do so. The responses
    to those questions are due back to the committee are due back
    to the committee no later than close of business on Wednesday,
    April 30th, and will be submitted for the record.
        Senator Whitehouse. Let me just thank you, Chairman, for
    what I consider to be a refreshing outbreak of normal today.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Secretary.
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you all. I am very grateful.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Secretary.
        This meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                      [all]