[Senate Hearing 119-304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-304
CONSTRUCTING THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
REAUTHORIZATION BILL: STAKEHOLDERS'
PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 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
62-925 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
JULY 16, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Armstrong, Hon. Kelly, Governor, State of North Dakota........... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 10
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 10
Ramierz, Austin, CEO, Husco International, Inc................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 21
Gallego, Hon. Kate, Mayor, City of Phoenix....................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 29
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 31
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Position paper: Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Generate
Electrification (CHARGE), Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Priorities..................................... 54
Written statements from:
Ian Jefferies, President & Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads.......................... 57
The Environmental Law & Policy Center........................ 64
James T. Riley, Esq., President, Railway Supply Institute.... 70
Pew Charitable Trusts........................................ 74
Letters to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:
American Cement Association.................................. 76
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and fifteen other
organizations.............................................. 79
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations........... 82
Coalition for Recreational Trails............................ 84
The National Association of Counties and three other
organizations.............................................. 87
The North American Concrete Alliance......................... 89
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association............ 92
Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club............ 95
Letter to Senator Capito, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Cramer and
Senator Angela Alsobrooks from American Rivers Action Fund..... 100
CONSTRUCTING THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
REAUTHORIZATION BILL: STAKEHOLDERS'
PERSPECTIVES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Sullivan,
Ricketts, Boozman, Husted, Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Blunt
Rochester, Alsobrooks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you for joining us this morning and
welcome to our three great witnesses that we have.
This hearing is second in a two-part series of hearings
that we are having to help guide the development of our next
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
Earlier this spring, we held a hearing with U.S. Secretary
of Transportation Sean Duffy, where he detailed how the Trump
administration is administering the current law and described
priorities for the next bill. Today, we will hear from new
stakeholders on their priorities.
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 businesses, large and
small, create jobs, economic activities, and enable their
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
For example, my home State of West Virginia is pursuing
important projects like Corridor H to better link our
communities to essential services and economic opportunity.
This legislation will provide the funding and establish the
policies and programs that enable the improvement of the
surface transportation network that we all rely on.
Since the enactment of the bipartisan Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, the Committee has reviewed and
conducted oversight on existing programs and policies, and we
have learned a lot about what is working and what is not. The
IIJA met a generational level of investment in our surface
transportation network, but there have been some challenges in
the implementation.
We know that the highway formula programs are producing
results in communities across the States. We also know there
have been some issues getting discretionary grant awards out
the door and producing tangible improvements to that network.
When Secretary Duffy appeared before the Committee, he
outlined the backlog of more than 3,200 discretionary grant
awards without signed grant agreements that he had inherited
from the prior administration. I appreciate the Secretary's
ongoing efforts to address this backlog, and I know that the
Department of Transportation is making progress on getting
these agreements in place. As a matter of fact, I believe they
have done over a thousand of those already, and have resolved
those.
We will apply the lessons learned from the IIJA to shape
the next bill and those lessons have led me to three
principles. I have discussed these principles at our hearing
with the Secretary, but I believe it is important to reiterate
them today.
Principle one: improving the safety, and I want to
emphasize safety, 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 sometimes have
duplicative purposes and project eligibility. This leads to an
expensive and time-intensive process to get funding out the
door and lessens the impact that the legislation can make.
As we craft the next bill, we must prioritize investments
that instead optimize Federal funding and give State partners
the confidence to invest over a longer period of time. We
should focus on eliminating duplicative programs and increasing
funding for the highway formula programs that our States rely
on and, as I said earlier, have a proven track record of
success.
Principle two: reforming and modernizing Federal programs
and policies to create efficiency. We all know that, as
currently structured, Federal requirements can add red tape
that increases costs and slows down the completion of projects.
We all want to deliver transportation benefits faster and save
money for the American taxpayer.
To achieve this goal, we need to take a serious look at
Federal requirements to determine how we can create certainty
for the partners who make these projects happen and ensure that
the public receives the benefits of these investments quickly.
Principle three: addressing the variety of surface
transportation needs across all States. Obviously, different
States have different needs, and I think we will hear about
that today. I would not expect West Virginia, with our
mountainous peaks and valleys, to which Senator Curtis is not
here to tell me how much more mountainous his State is, so we
will just say we are the Mountain State, to prioritize the same
transportation projects as other States.
We need to avoid top-down mandates from Washington, DC. and
give States the flexibility to address the individual
improvements that their communities need. It will take
collaboration from my Senate colleagues, the Trump
administration, and our stakeholders to complete this bill
before the IIJA expires in September 2026.
We must be pragmatic, work in a bipartisan fashion to
deliver a bill that sets us up for a productive conversation on
this reauthorization effort with our colleagues in the House.
I am really grateful, I know many of you have traveled far,
to the witnesses that have joined us today. I look forward to
learning about these priorities. This is an excellent
opportunity ahead of us to make a pivotal impact on 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
Committee's bipartisan tradition of developing legislation that
delivers for the American people.
Ranking Member Whitehouse, I now recognize you for your
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, for this hearing.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Welcome particularly
to Mayor Gallego, who will be introduced later by her Arizona
kinsman, Senator Kelly.
As we consider the next surface transportation
reauthorization bill, I would be remiss not to remind everyone
that Democrats will have no reason to do a bill if we have an
administration that will not faithfully execute the laws,
meaning both sides of any compromise we reach.
On the bright side, DOT has made substantial progress
obligating money to hundreds of previously frozen grants. New
draft guidance for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
program, NEVI, was submitted to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. This is progress.
NEVI is still stalled at OIRA, and periodic threats
continue to politically disfavored projects, like high-speed
rail and congestion pricing.
I want to get a bill done, and I have given my team the
green light to work on details. DOT is moving in the right
direction, particularly when compared to the dumpster fire of
political corruption at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Here in Congress, there is bipartisan agreement about a
strong Federal commitment to our infrastructure. The American
Society of Civil Engineers still gives our roads a D+. We have
more than 43,000 bridges still classified as structurally
deficient. Thirty-nine percent of our public roads are still in
poor or mediocre condition. Close to 40,000 people still die
each year on our roadways, in the wealthiest country in the
world.
Our directive is clear: work together to build on the early
successes of the IIJA and further improve our transportation
infrastructure. As we do this, prudent investments must account
for anticipated conditions.
Annual costs for climate-related damage to road and rail
infrastructure are expected to reach nearly $20 billion a year
by 2050 with approximately $1.5 billion in costs for bridges
alone. A recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
Allstate found that for every $1 invested in infrastructure
resilience, communities across the Country save $13 in post-
disaster losses. One to 13 is smart spending.
I thank DOT for finalizing the PROTECT grant agreement for
the historic and beautiful Mount Hope Bridge in Rhode Island
just last week. That PROTECT program recognizes that climate
change is a real driver of infrastructure risk, and that
investments in resilience now save big money in the long run.
Pollution-driven climate change is costing lives and
livelihoods. To pretend otherwise is to abdicate our moral and
fiscal responsibility. The next reauthorization bill must and
will take climate change seriously. We may not have to say it,
but we have to do it.
Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions: 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into our
atmosphere each year, more than a quarter of total U.S.
emissions.
Just last week, four communities were ravaged by 1-in-
1,000-year rainstorms. Climate change is making floods like
those in Texas, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Illinois more
intense, more deadly, and more frequent.
Homeowners' insurance in coastal wildfire risk areas is
collapsing, taking down real estate values and presenting a
systemic financial danger to our economy. Our transportation
system is driving this climate upheaval, and that, in turn,
challenges the functionality of our transportation system.
In addition to climate safety, the next reauthorization
bill must prioritize roadway safety. The persistently high
number of traffic fatalities, and their immeasurable pain and
suffering, is unacceptable. This is not just driver and
passenger safety, but the safety of those walking, biking, and
working on construction sites or responding to emergencies.
Many of our roads that are in poor condition are the local
roads that carry a large share of our vehicle miles traveled,
exacerbating the safety risks.
As we put pen to paper on this next transportation package,
let us be clear-eyed. Let us follow the evidence. Let us make
the investments in our transportation systems that reduce
emissions, that prioritize safety, that bolster resilience, and
that meet the real-life needs of the communities we serve.
With that, I look forward to working together with the
Chair and my Republican colleagues on this bill, and I look
forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Next, I will turn to Senator Cramer to introduce our first
witness for this meeting. Senator Cramer, you are now
recognized.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking
Member Whitehouse.
Chairman, let me just start out by promising you that
unlike Senator Curtis, Governor Armstrong and I have no
intention of bragging about how much bigger our mountains are
than yours.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. Good.
Senator Cramer. We will just yield to that.
It is a really great honor for me to represent my Governor
and a former Member of Congress, Kelly Armstrong, whose actual
years of service are very similar to mine in that every time he
won an election, he improved the institution he went to. He
replaced me in the House of Representatives.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. Including on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and he also served on the Judiciary Committee, which
as you know, Madam Chairman, is not a small task in the House
of Representatives, to be on Energy and Commerce and have
another such important office.
Kelly--what is interesting to me about Governor Armstrong
is he is not naturally a politician at all. In fact, he is
quite naturally the opposite. He is a successful
businessperson, he is a lawyer that is not even ashamed to say
it. He is a graduate of the University of North Dakota, where
he got both his degrees, his undergraduate and his law degree.
He served on the State Senate, which is, in my mind, where the
rubber meets the road. Then of course, like I said, in
Congress, and now as our Governor.
Kelly, to me it seems like you are still a new Governor. I
do not know how it feels to you, having been through one
legislative session. You may feel much more experienced.
Governor Armstrong brings that perspective, as I look forward
to hearing from the Mayor.
I think for all of us up here, it is really, really
important to remember that there is probably no better
illustration of the juxtaposition of the relationship between
the Federal Government, local and State governments than
infrastructure. It is actually legitimate in the Constitution,
right, interstate commerce.
Kelly brings that very important perspective from a rural
State that produces a lot of things that we do not consume in
our own State, or at least we do not consume nearly in the
supply that we provide to a hungry world and a growing economy,
whether it is energy or food or how you get semolina wheat to
the mill to turn it into flour, or durum wheat to turn into
semolina flour to get it to a pasta plant to get it to the
restaurant in New York. He understands it all, and he
understands the relationship. I am really grateful he is here.
Beyond all those other things that Kelly has done, he is
most of all, and what he is really, really good at is, he is a
very experienced youth baseball coach. That is really where the
rubber meets the road.
With that, Madam Chair, it is just my honor to introduce
Governor Kelly Armstrong.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
I would mention that Governor Armstrong is testifying here
on behalf of the National Governors Association this morning. I
will say to all of you out there, today is the congressional
women's softball game. We are playing at Audi Stadium tonight
at 7:30. It is going to be televised.
I am the only Senator playing, so we had better get through
that vote-a-rama quickly so I can get there. This is how I met
Governor Armstrong; he helped coach and coached us all, I think
over on the third base line for one of our games. It is really
great to see you, and I welcome your testimony, Governor.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY ARMSTRONG,
GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Governor Armstrong. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking
Member Whitehouse, and Senator Cramer, for that introduction,
and members of the committee.
Before I get into my remarks, I would say if we are going
to talk that much about baseball and softball, anybody who
thinks being a State senator or being a trial lawyer is the
best preparation for Congress is wrong. The best preparation
for Congress is dealing with youth sports parents.
[Laughter.]
Governor Armstrong. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and offer the State perspective as this committee
continues its work on surface transportation reauthorization. I
have the honor of serving as the 34th Governor of the State of
North Dakota.
In rural States like ours, transportation infrastructure is
not merely about convenience; it is a pillar of our communities
and thriving local economies. Our highways, roads and bridges
are essential lifelines connecting our agricultural producers,
energy industry, small businesses and families to markets,
healthcare, education and emergency services.
North Dakotans drive over 12,000 miles a year, and we are
the geographic center of North America. As Senator Cramer
mentioned in his introduction, we produce a lot of things the
world needs. We are very proud of the fact that we provide
calories and energy to a world that continues to ask for more
and more and more of those, to continue what is the greatest
economy in the history of the world.
We put a lot of miles on. Unlike D.C., where many people do
not own a car and rely on public transit, our citizens depend
heavily on personal vehicles to reach their destination. We
have teenagers driving farm trucks, senior citizens driving
hundreds of miles for doctor's appointments and students
driving 20 miles one way for baseball or basketball practice.
The roads in our State are not just for North Dakotans.
Investment in rural highways benefits the entire Nation. The
movement of people and goods from the coasts across North
Dakota and other rural States benefits people and businesses at
both ends.
Good roads in States like ours are essential to getting ag,
energy and other products to national and world markets. My
request for the Committee today is simple: continue providing
robust funding, giving maximum flexibility to States and watch
us go to work.
A key piece of ensuring States can successfully and
efficiently build projects is formula-based funding. The next
highway bill should maintain or increase the percentage of
program dollars distributed by formula, allowing States to more
quickly deliver critical transportation projects. This is
especially important in States like North Dakota that do not
have that long of a construction season.
Although discretionary grant programs play a role in our
infrastructure funding, the process is often inefficient, slow
and costly. In some cases, it can take up to 18 months between
an award and grant announcement.
I can give you a specific example. In June 2023, the North
Dakota Department of Transportation was awarded a $30 million
Railroad Crossing Elimination grant from the Federal Railroad
Administration. The grant will fund a long-overdue grade
separation project in Grand Forks, a city with nearly 60,000
residents and home to my alma mater, the University of North
Dakota.
Secretary Buttigieg came to Grand Forks, we welcomed him,
and we were excited about the project. As of today, more than 2
years later, the North Dakota DOT is still awaiting execution
of a grant. In our first legislative session, we had to
appropriate $20 million in State DOT money because of the cost
increase that is associated with that 2-year delay.
We are very, very appreciative of the money. We are very,
very appreciative of the award. The delay alone is an expense
that was never anticipated, never dealt with. We will fix it.
We will get it done. We are excited about it. It is important.
It was unnecessary.
Delays in discretionary grant programs are problematic,
regardless of their geographic location. However, in a State
with a short construction window, the negative impacts of these
delays are magnified.
While discretionary grant programs serve an important
purpose, I encourage this committee to increase, to the extent
possible, the percentage of dollars delivered via formula.
Additionally, I ask that you consider including provisions
that give States more flexibility to deploy funds to the places
they need it most. The bipartisan Highway Funding
Transferability Improvement Act from Senators Cramer and
Alsobrooks will do just that by increasing the percentage of
funds departments of transportation can transfer between
accounts.
States know their needs, and this legislation will enhance
our ability to make the best decisions for our unique
situations. Robust funding is important, but all the money in
the world, and quite frankly, we could appropriate less money
if we streamline the permitting process. We would take less
money from the Federal Government every single day if we could
get a shovel in the ground faster.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and just would end
with, thank you so much for having us. Thank you for all you
have done to help us build infrastructure in North Dakota, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Governor Armstrong follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, and I am sure your voice is loud
and clear for all the other 49 Governors and others.
Our next witness is Austin Ramirez, the CEO of Husco
International, Inc. He is testifying on behalf of the National
Association of Manufacturers today. Mr. Ramirez became CEO of
Husco in 2011, taking over from his father, Gus Ramierz.
Today Husco has over $500 million in annual sales, employs
over 1,500 people worldwide and has a global footprint. They
specialize in high performance hydraulic and electromechanical
components. Mr. Ramirez will share his perspective as a user of
the transportation network that relies on safe roads and
bridges to get people to work and products to market.
I would note in his bio he was an all-American swimmer at
the University of Virginia. Wahoowa for you.
Mr. Ramierz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN RAMIREZ, CEO,
HUSCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Mr. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman Capito, for the generous
introduction. Good morning, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and
members of the committee.
My name is Austin Ramirez, and I am proud to serve as the
President and CEO of Husco. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify about the importance of modern infrastructure to U.S.
manufacturing, and to provide manufacturers' views on surface
transportation reauthorization.
Husco is a family owned business based in Waukesha,
Wisconsin. We make vital components used in the cars you drive
and the equipment that powers construction. For nearly 80
years, we have been an economic driver in our local community,
providing thousands of family supporting careers.
We are also a business with a purpose, guided by the values
of opportunity and service. Husco is the top corporate
philanthropic donor in Wisconsin. We have built schools and
welcomed refugees. These values reflect my family's story.
My dad, Gus, was born in Puerto Rico. He came to this
Country at the age of six and pursued the American dream,
graduating from our Nation's top universities. Over several
decades, Gus went from working at Husco to leading it as a
standalone company. Under our family's leadership, revenues
have grown from $20 million in 1985 to over $500 million today.
Husco is an American success story. We represent the
possibility and prosperity created by a strong manufacturing
sector, an industry that employees 13 million people, and
contributes $2.9 trillion to the U.S. economy. When
manufacturing wins, America wins.
Our competitiveness depends on decisions made here in
Washington. We need policymakers to promote a comprehensive
strategy to grow U.S. manufacturing. Such a strategy must
include continuing investments in our Nation's surface
transportation infrastructure.
Modern, dependable transportation helps manufacturers make
and move our products. These projects generate productivity
gains and induce demand for manufactured goods, stimulating the
economy and bolstering American competitiveness.
At Husco, we see these benefits directly. Our customers are
in the automotive and construction industries. Husco families
drive over the roads and bridges improved by highway projects.
Several are turning dirt this year in Waukesha County.
To realize these benefits, however, we need the Federal
Government to be efficient and remove red tape. Permitting
reform must be part of any comprehensive manufacturing
strategy.
Congress should seize the opportunity to support
manufacturers like Husco through continued infrastructure
investment. We cannot go back to the fits and starts of highway
bill extensions. Our industry needs certainty to invest, plan,
and hire in America.
Manufacturers are ready to do our part to get a bill done
this Congress. We champion the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, a historic effort made possible by the leadership of
this committee. We commend your leadership now as you look to
drive the next highway bill to enactment.
As you begin this work, manufacturers respectfully
encourage you to consider several policy proposals that will
support our growth and success. First, we ask that you continue
to make robust investments in our surface transportation
infrastructure. Manufacturers recognize the importance of
ensuring efficiency in government spending. We support long-
term solutions for the Highway Trust Fund.
Second, Congress should strengthen supply chains.
Manufacturers depend on the movement of freight, but industry
surveys have shown repeated supply chain challenges. Surface
transportation legislation should continue to expand highway
capacity, connectivity and support our Nation's freight network
through intermodal improvements.
Finally, Congress must make the reforms necessary to get
these projects actually completed. The vast majority of
manufacturers say that our complex permitting laws impact
investment decisions. We need to fix this broken system and
stop endless litigation. Doing so will unlock growth potential
across manufacturing and empower infrastructure investments
that help companies like Husco compete.
As a small manufacturer in the heartland of America, I
appreciate the committee's work to continue investments and
support manufacturing. Manufacturers like Husco strongly
support your efforts to advance bipartisan surface
transportation reauthorization.
To put it simply, investments in infrastructure are
investments in manufacturing. Our industry depends on a robust,
modern, efficient transportation system, and you can promote
domestic manufacturing by getting a highway bill done this
Congress.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today to share Husco's
story. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramirez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Ramirez.
Now I want to turn to Senator Kelly who will introduce our
final witness.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am excited to
welcome my friend and the Mayor of Phoenix, Kate Gallego, to
the committee. Mayor Gallego is only the second woman to be
elected the mayor of Phoenix, and she is one of the youngest
big city mayors in the Country and certainly the best.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kelly. Now, Mayor Gallego has a wealth of
transportation policy experience that I know will be critical
to this committee's discussion today. During the Biden
administration, she served as Chair of the Transforming
Transportation Advisory Committee, and she continues to serve
as chair of Climate Mayors, a bipartisan network of nearly 350
mayors across the Country who are leading cities to meet their
sustainability goals.
As a lead negotiator of the CHIPS and Science Act, I worked
closely with Mayor Gallego to boost domestic semiconductor
manufacturing in Arizona, and bring the Taiwan semiconductor
manufacturing company to Phoenix. This critical investment is
generating thousands of jobs and it is cementing our State as a
global hub for microchip manufacturing. It is also part of the
growth that is fueling the region that requires smart
investments in transportation infrastructure to keep up.
Mayor Gallego, thank you for testifying today. As the
committee discusses the upcoming surface transportation
reauthorization, I know how valuable it will be to learn from
your experience about what Congress can do to meet the
transportation needs of urban areas while ensuring that our
infrastructure remains resilient in the face of climate change.
With that, Madam Chair, I hand it back to you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Welcome, Mayor, and we look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATE GALLEGO, MAYOR,
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mayor Gallego. Thank you, Chair Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse. Senator Kelly, thank you for the wonderful
introduction and invitation. Members of the Senate, I am
grateful for the invitation to testify today on surface
transportation reauthorization.
I am honored to share my perspective and offer insight from
local government. I have the great privilege of serving as
mayor of the fifth largest city in the United States. More than
1.7 million people call Phoenix home. That is more than the
population of 11 States.
We have a lot of people, and a lot of roads, nearly 5,000
miles. We own hundreds of bridges.
Throughout my time as mayor, and before that as a member of
the City Council, improving our transportation infrastructure
has been a top priority for me. I served as Chair of our MPO,
the Maricopa Association of Governments, and helped lead our
transit agency, Valley Metro.
I serve as Co-Chair of Accelerator for America, which
operates the national infrastructure advocacy coalition, United
for Infrastructure. Madam Chair, we were so grateful to you for
kicking off our Infrastructure Week event this year.
I chaired the U.S. DOT Transforming Transportation Advisory
Committee, a national panel that advised on how to use
technology to improve surface transportation. Our work included
tools to speed project delivery as well as how to best use AI
and automation.
I also serve as Chair of Climate Mayors, where I have the
privilege of working with a bipartisan network of nearly 350 of
my colleagues to work toward making our communities safer and
more resilient. Recently, our coalition had the honor of
speaking with Ranking Member Whitehouse. It was a perfect
showcase of how direct collaboration benefits our levels of
government.
That is why I am excited about the opportunity to speak
with you today. The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act was
revolutionary for our city. It is essential that the funding
levels from that law continue, or better yet, increase, to
allow States, tribes and local governments to carry on the
essential work that the law spearheaded.
One thing I know is top of mind for all of us is safety.
With an average of 30,000 crashes annually and an average of
two crashes resulting in serious injuries every single day,
NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has
consistently ranked Phoenix in the top three cities in the
Nation for overall traffic fatalities. That is not a point of
pride.
As a mayor, among the moments that stick with me the most
in this job are the tragedies that involve children. Both as a
mom and a local leader, there is nothing worse than seeing a
child get hurt. One moment I will always carry with me is
speaking with a father of a young woman who was killed due to a
traffic accident. He gave me a picture of her and asked me to
work hard to make sure it never happens again. I still have her
photo.
As a result of the Safe Streets and Roads for All program,
we have been able to address some of the safety issues on the
roads that took his daughter's life. This grant allowed us to
implement proven safety measures designed to address issues
involving pedestrians, transit riders, and drivers on a very
critical corridor.
Another challenge that Phoenix faces is rising
temperatures. Just last week, we hit 118 degrees. Our highway
infrastructure is required to face this reality head-on and has
to be built and maintained differently. It must be resilient.
Programs such as PROTECT, and Senator Kelly's Healthy Streets
Initiative, would help cities to implement essential
initiatives such as cool pavement.
Infrastructure benefits our economy and our national
security. When I was recruiting our largest economic
development deal, a semiconductor manufacturer, to come to
Phoenix, I spoke about our commitment to investing in
transportation infrastructure to support their investment. That
mattered. TSMC, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, is
now investing $165 billion in our city, and the Federal
Government has partnered with us to invest in freeway
infrastructure to support these advanced industry jobs.
This partnership means that we, Americans, now make the
most advanced chips in the world again in our Country,
important for our national security.
In the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization
bill, I encourage Congress to invest more directly to local
governments, tribal governments and MPOs in addition to States.
More than 75 percent of road miles are owned by cities and
counties. In addition, local governments own and operate more
than half of our bridges and the majority of our public transit
systems. Local leaders drive the same roads as our constituents
every day and we are well equipped to determine where to make
key investments.
The discretionary programs in IIJA help cities, including
mine, tremendously. Congress should continue to invest in those
programs to meet the needs of communities today.
Phoenix is a growing city whose best days are still ahead
of it. With continued help from Congress, who has so often been
a key partner of cities, America's infrastructure will be
safer, more resilient, better maintained, and more responsive
to the needs of each community.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Gallego follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
I will kick it off with a sort of general question to
everybody on the panel. In your individual ways you have talked
about the importance of the surface transportation network and
what reauthorization will mean to you in terms of economic and
job growth.
I want to dig down a little bit more on that. Is it the
predictability, the affordability, the flexibility? What would
you point to as, from your standpoint as Governor, and then we
will go down the panel, to how this will impact your economic
growth and job creation abilities?
Governor Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair. All of the
above, but I think, I have had the opportunity to serve here
too. We spend money inefficiently. We are required to do that
because you go a decade without any increase in funding and
then things turn to whatever. The more predictability and
foresight you can push onto us, the less money we will spend to
build the same project.
Senator Capito. Would you say the predictability factor
would be, get this bill in by the end of September 2026, so you
can have the predictability for the next five or 6 years?
Governor Armstrong. Yes, that would be a worthy call. Then
I also think, I mean, like I said, our perspective, we start,
each State is different, but I do not think any community or
any State in the Country has the amount of money they need to
fix their roads and bridges or whatever. They can prioritize
their projects, they know which ones are permitted at the State
or county level. They know which ones that they can divert, I
mean, they can start doing, I mean, the work force shortage
exists all over the Country. The earlier you could do that and
the more flexibility you can, like with Senator Cramer's and
Senator Alsobrooks' bill, then we can divert and move things
around.
It is not just about like picking winners and losers. We
know which project is ready to go, and we know which one we are
going to have to wait another construction cycle to do.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Ramirez, how would this impact your ability to grow?
Mr. Ramirez. I mentioned supply chain in my comments, and I
think that is a real issue we have. Rural facilities, and
having surface transportation to those facilities that is
efficient and well-maintained is really important.
Another really big one is, my main facility is outside
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The main east-west corridor, I-94, has
been caught up in litigation for years. I have employees that
spend hours a day stuck in traffic because we can not execute
projects that we have already agreed to do.
Senator Capito. That project is still waiting to be
completed? I am not unfamiliar with that.
Mr. Ramirez. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Capito. Wow. That is a major corridor for you.
Mayor, do you have a comment on how this will impact your
ability to grow? You kind of alluded to it in your comments.
Mayor Gallego. Absolutely. I think we all share a goal for
American infrastructure being the best in the world. This
committee has moved that forward, but we have an enormous
backlog. We appreciate the leadership on starting early.
Certainty helps us. Same with the Governor, the earlier we can
hire and plan, the less it costs, and the more we can do
better.
Phoenix is proud to be one of the homes of the Mayo Clinic.
In our case, they are in North Phoenix, in an area that has a
lot of infrastructure challenge, including a major flood plain.
There is a huge bridge, where if we could get that built it
would expedite their ability to expand.
They have come up with incredible research that has reduced
the risk of cancer, heart disease and more. The whole Country
benefits from the innovation that is happening there. They need
investments in infrastructure to be able to expand and do that
work. It is literally life-saving.
The work you are doing here today matters so much to us.
Senator Capito. Well, good. You led me right into my next
question. This is one of my pet projects for surface
transportation as it was in the past, is our bridges. Our
Nation's bridges, I could speak for my State personally, we
have a lot of bridges, a small State but a lot of bridges. We
have some that are considered, you can still use them, but in
another five to 10 years it is questionable whether you are
going to be able to use them.
There is also, and they are so expensive to repair and fix,
and inconvenient, as Mr. Ramirez was saying.
Governor, does having a set-aside for bridges help you, or
would you rather have the flexibility to decide if you are
going to use that for bridges or not?
Governor Armstrong. The State of North Dakota owns over
1,700 bridges. There are 4,800 bridges total in the State of
North Dakota. I would tell you that if you had a set-aside for
bridges, no matter what the Federal Government gave us, it
would not be enough.
I would say we have to do a better job at our level. Again,
we do not have mountains or all of that. You would not build a
grid infrastructure for bridges in North Dakota in 2025 the
same way you did it in 1925. I think we can help make a better
case to the Federal Government by saying, we are prioritizing
these things, this is how we are going to do it.
I would not be opposed to the set-aside for bridges,
because----
Senator Capito. Well, there is one. I think there has been
one, and I'm very much committed to that.
I would also say, your point on whether you would rebuild
in 2025 as you built in 1925 really leads me to my next Senator
here, because that is the resiliency portion of the bill that I
think it is exceedingly important. Not only does it save money,
it saves lives, and it is much safer.
Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, Mayor Gallego. We appreciate your being here.
What are the particular challenges that 118 degree weather
presents to your regional transportation system? Can you even
wait for a bus in that kind of weather?
Mayor Gallegos. Our weather can be dangerous. We had 31
straight days above 110. Workplace safety really matters. I
appreciate that you both emphasize how important that is. We
hope surface transportation reauthorization will make sure that
as construction contracts go forward, we honor the men and
women who are building America. We have to make sure that they
are structured so that safety is part of the areas we
incentivize the most. Construction in 118 can be dangerous.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Mayor Gallegos. We do not want least cost bids that say you
can not take breaks for water and shade, because those
abilities to cool yourself down matter so much to our
community.
Similar to North Dakota, the way we build bridges today is
not, the way we built in 1925 is not what we would do today. We
did not have the challenge of 31 straight days above 110. We
want the flexibility to use pavement and construction
techniques that make sense for our climate, that can deal with
the expanding and contracting.
We are so grateful that Congress appropriated money for
bridges. Right now, how it is structured, that money goes
primarily to the States. As the Governor mentioned, they do not
maintain every bridge. Phoenix maintains bridges directly, so
we would love to be eligible for that money.
We have bridges that things are falling off of right now.
We want to be able to make sure that they are safe and that we
keep our constituents ready. Again, we want to, at least in
Phoenix, be able to use certain building materials that tend to
be lighter in color, so they do not maintain the dark heat.
When you wear a black tee-shirt, you get hot more easily than a
white tee-shirt. Same principles with building materials; we
just hit 97 as the overnight low. We used to cool off a lot
more at night and building materials matter in that.
Senator Whitehouse. When I visited Phoenix some time ago, I
met with the city's emergency management and law enforcement
people, who pointed out that they were having staffing issues
in the heat because responding, for instance, to a regular car
wreck could require a lot more people, because the heat effect
on the first responders could be such that they need to be
actually switched out on a pretty regular schedule, say,
responding to a fire, for instance. That you needed people who
were there to help cool them down, so that the payroll load for
the same task had gone up considerably because of the dangers
of trying to work, particularly with protective gear on, in
that kind of an environment.
Is that still the case?
Mayor Gallegos. That is still the challenge. For us, we now
need to have mobile cooling units onsite at fires, so that our
firefighters can cycle in and out. Like West Virginia, we are
home to beautiful mountains. Phoenix is proud to have the
largest urban mountain park of any big city.
When our firefighters go in and have to do multiple rescues
in a day, it is dangerous. I have called firefighters who have
been hospitalized after doing these rescues, because it is so
hot and often they will have to carry the weight of human
beings.
We try to pre-position ice throughout the city to cool
people's bodies down. It is a real challenge and vulnerable
populations are impacted the most by the heat.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Mr. Ramirez, you mentioned in your testimony clean school
buses, which is something dear to my heart, because in addition
to everything else, the school buses have kids in them and they
go around neighborhoods and they have fairly standard routes,
so they are pretty easy to put a charging schedule on. They do
not spew particles and exhaust into neighborhoods as they go
around and as they idle.
How would we best, in a highway bill, try to gather into
our decisions some of those benefits that are not kind of
instantly in the program of, for instance, kids waiting for the
school bus to pick them up, having clean air to breathe at the
school bus stop instead of school bus exhaust to breathe?
Mr. Ramirez. It is a great comment. I think any time you do
a major investment, you need to look holistically at all the
positives and negatives associated with that. I will tell you,
our business is making components for automotive applications,
including things like school buses. Almost every new product
that we manufacture has something to do with emissions and
efficiency.
That is true on the internal combustion engine side as
well. If we can improve every internal combustion engine by 5
percent, that has a huge impact on the environment that our
kids and our cities are dealing with, just as much as making
electric vehicles go further for every charge.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you think a pollution tax or fee
would be a sensible thing to look at to fund infrastructure
improvements?
Mr. Ramirez. I do not know that I have a position on the
right way to do it. I think considering environmental impact is
certainly appropriate.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Cramer?
Senator Cramer. Thank you. Thank you all. This has been
very, very interesting.
You have done a great job, by the way, of answering my
first two questions. I will not repeat them, although I will
say, my first two questions would have been about formula
funding and the importance of that, and the flexibility within
the formula to do the things that are important in a city or a
State. I appreciate all of that.
What we have not talked about yet, though, is adequate
funding. Where do we get this revenue from? It is interesting,
because as you all know, we are, the pay-to-use system is what
our highway system is built on, except it is completely
dependent on people who pay gas tax, largely. Yet not all
vehicles utilize gas or at least, and even the ones that do,
utilize less of it, or use less of it.
Yet this becomes such a major political struggle, not among
us so much as out there. It is so misunderstood oftentimes.
I would like each of you to perhaps, particularly the
Governor and Mayor, to talk about any ideas you might have for
how we approach, whether it is electric vehicles, even hybrids,
and having some sort of a way for them to pay to use this
system in a way that is not offensive to everybody. Now I am
asking for political counsel, quite honestly, so I will start
with the Governor.
Governor Armstrong. I think that you kind of hit it, to
start with, the gas tax part of it. I mean, we had a bill in
the legislature to raise the gas tax that did not pass. We run
into use, I mean, if you are going to raise any tax, a use tax
is significantly more.
I always get a little concerned about vehicle miles driven.
I have written 500 briefs on the Fourth Amendment throughout
the course of my life. I do not know exactly, but everyone in
North Dakota drives a lot. I think Wyoming is No. 1, but we are
in the top 10. You would negatively impact States like mine.
I think a real conversation about, well, I will back up. I
think if you can deploy the money faster and allow us to do
things faster, that is what I think is the easiest version for
adequate funding, because we did not need as much. If we have
more flexibility and we can do it quicker, we can do that.
I think it is a real conversation. I mean, every car,
combustion or otherwise, is driving a lot more on that 18.3
cents that is being taken in. As you get more and more other
vehicles on the road, there is going to be a disparity there.
Senator Cramer. Did not North Dakota, I know most States
have a registration fee of some sort, now, that is applicable
to all vehicles. Is that at least a way to get to it?
Governor Armstrong. Yes, I think at the State level, I
think that is appropriate. I think whatever four-tired vehicle
that ends up on the road is going to utilize that road and is
going to require maintenance and upkeep and all of those
things.
You can incentivize, I mean, there are a lot of political
reasons that different people incentivize things. We are just
talking about school buses. I hope they exempt places that have
a shortage of school bus drivers, so we actually have schools
getting out early and running schools and they are driving 200,
300, 400 miles a day in that single school bus.
Senator Cramer. Yes.
Mayor, maybe you could address the same thing. It seems to
me that with this large dependence on Federal funding, it just
does not seem right to me that certain categories of vehicles
are not paying what I would consider to be their fair share for
the cost of building and maintaining these roads.
Do you have a thought or a solution on that?
Mayor Gallegos. It is important to me that we adequately
fund the National Highway Trust Fund. Phoenix is a proud member
of the National League of Cities, and the League has produced
seven principles around this item. We would like to make sure
it is adequate funding. We want to protect privacy. Any new
solution, we think technology needs to be ready to go on day
one. This is so essential: we have to get it right.
I share those principles in my written testimony. I think
they are a good guide for how we can improve in this area.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
In the area of permitting, or maybe just reform in general,
and you have all spoken to the efficiency issues, do any of you
have just some solid closing recommendations for ensuring that
infrastructure projects do move faster, get permitted and move
faster, while also maintaining a high level of environmental
protection? I will start with you, Mr. Ramirez.
Mr. Ramirez. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
This is a really complicated topic, but I actually think
the solutions are pretty simple. We need deadlines in the
regulatory process that are enforceable. We need limited
expedited judicial review. I think if we do those two things,
we will actually get infrastructure dollars from being approved
and allocated to actually being spent and invested in new
projects.
Senator Cramer. Counselor, would you support expedited
judicial review?
Governor Armstrong. I would.
[Remarks off microphone] permitting process at the Federal
level. I think you all have a unique opportunity, because a lot
of the fights that are associated with infrastructure reform do
not apply to roads. Try getting a bridge permit across a
Federal waterway. We are not building new ones. We are
replacing existing ones.
Every one of our constituents wants this kind of
infrastructure, and you do not get into some of the ideological
fights that exist in transmission or pipelines or some of those
things.
Senator Cramer. Thank you all.
Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all
three of you.
Mayor Gallego, good to see you again. I want to recognize
that Phoenix recently hosted yet another Super Bowl which did
not just put the city of Phoenix in a national and
international spotlight, but places significant demands on the
city's infrastructure.
I am asking this question because in the next 3 years,
California will host a couple of Super Bowls as well as the
World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics. Based on your
experience, what can the Federal Government do to better
support cities as they prepare for the transportation
challenges of hosting large major events?
Mayor Gallegos. Our Super Bowl was successful because of a
partnership with the Federal Government. We were able to use
the New Starts program to expand our transit system. Often with
these major sporting events, everyone stays until the last
minute. That means that they are all leaving at once. The
transit system was very important for moving people.
We were able to, in partnership with the Federal
Government, expand the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. We
had much more traffic when we were hosting that major event.
I do want to note, though, people with private planes
apparently left at a high rate right after the Super Bowl
halftime show, which was not obvious to me what happened. New
buses were really important to us because we had to
dramatically expand our fleet.
I should note in past Olympics, Phoenix has helped other
cities that are host communities by lending buses, and I think
all working together, we can help make sure it is a great
experience. Our Country is in the international spotlight, and
it is in all of our best interests to make sure that works
well.
Not this committee's jurisdiction, but the safety dollars
you all sent are very important. Unfortunately, we are in a
world where pretty much every city is investing in things like
vehicle barriers, trying to learn from what happened in
communities like New Orleans, and that done in partnership with
the Federal Government.
Senator Padilla. Those are the big two, security and
transportation.
Back to the Super Bowl experience again, are there any
specific investments or flexibilities that could have been
additionally helpful for the city that we should consider as we
are crafting the next bill?
Mayor Gallegos. I think we would, again, because we often
build our systems for the average transportation users, and
these events cause such a huge spike, we would love that the
Federal Government understand the huge variety and look at
funding for peak levels. You will hit an all-time peak in every
mode of transportation in southern California, and we ought to
consider that in our planning. That is a way we might need to
modernize.
It is important to us that security dollars and
transportation dollars go hand in hand. Our transportation
system does have some vulnerabilities, and so we need to plan
ahead. We saw during the Paris Olympics one of the most
dangerous safety threats was to their train system. We ought to
learn from that, and plan ahead.
Senator Padilla. I was there when that happened.
Thank you for that. I may have some followup questions,
both on that topic as well as the heat stress, heat island
effects and some of the initiatives that you are pioneering,
that came up earlier in the hearing. I want to associate myself
with that as a concern and as a need.
Mayor Gallego. Thank you for your leadership on that topic.
It will save lives.
Senator Padilla. Colleagues, I will call your attention to
the map of current fires out west. We have a lot of work cut
out for us.
In my time remaining, I do want to ask a question of Mr.
Ramirez on a different topic. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
provided $2.25 billion for the Port Infrastructure Development
Program to strengthen our Nation's ports and freight systems.
We know that these investments are part of a broader effort to
expand capacity and keep goods moving more efficiently and
reliably across the Country.
You mentioned in your testimony that supply chain issues
are a primary business challenge for nearly a third of
manufacturers. Can you talk about the need for continuing
investment in port infrastructure in our efforts to keep goods
moving efficiently?
Mr. Ramirez. Thank you for the question, Senator Padilla.
Absolutely. Husco is a global company. We have facilities
around the world; we have suppliers around the world. We both
import a lot of components from the rest of the world into our
U.S. facilities, and we export products that we make in our
U.S. facilities around the world.
Certainly, ports are an absolutely critical part of the
supply chain infrastructure that we have to deal with. It has
been an issue with congestion over the years.
Senator Padilla. Any suggestions as to, not just to
maintain, changes, additions to the port components of
transportation legislation?
Mr. Ramirez. I think continued investment in technology and
how we load and unload containers can make a huge difference in
throughput for our ports.
Senator Padilla. Modernization and new fuel sources like
hydrogen.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Husted?
Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito. Thank you to
all of you for being here today.
I represent the State of Ohio. We call ourselves the heart
of it all, because we make everything, right? We have
agriculture, we have manufacturing, we have a lot of things.
I will brag for a moment that in the recent CNBC ratings of
best States to do business, we were No. 5, and we have got No.
1 rated in infrastructure. I have been involved in those issues
over the years. One of the things, the reason that we were
rated No. 1 is because we have invested the money. We have
actually asked people to sacrifice by paying a little bit more
so that we could have quality infrastructure to make roads
safer, to make sure that the infrastructure serves our
manufacturing capacity. Those things matter a lot.
Different States take different approaches. Some States
have very hot weather that affects their roads and some have
freezing and thawing, we know salt, all of those things on the
roads really impacts the things that we do. I just am
interested in advice from each of your perspectives as we think
about our highway infrastructure and what we are doing for our
roads and bridges, and new technologies and adoptions.
What advice do you have for us as we consider how to fund
those things and regulate those things going forward? I will
start with you, Governor Armstrong.
Governor Armstrong. My advice to my colleagues when I was
here and what will always be as a Governor who deals with this,
set metrics and let us get there. Set reasonable, realistic
metrics. Do not prescribe how we meet those metrics.
That exists in everything, but particularly in these
things. The way they do it in Arizona and the way we do it in
North Dakota is going to be different. We have bridge needs;
they have bridge needs. We do not have 118 degree heat; we have
60 below wind chill. We have a lot of different issues.
I appreciate when we start talking about resilience and we
talk about all of these things. The hair on the back of my neck
goes up, because I think it is just going to make it slower and
slower and slower.
If you can set metrics that are reasonably attainable and
do not slow down the process, we will meet them. We know how to
do it. Our construction guys, our State guys, they want to do
it. We do not want to rebuild it. We do not want to have to fix
it any more than we have to.
That would be my request.
Senator Husted. Thank you, Senator.
We talked about the philosophy of the users of
infrastructure paying for infrastructure and having consistent
funding. I think that is really important. I think even when
you have that, if we can not go from allocating dollars to
actually getting projects done, I do not think anything is more
frustrating than that, than hearing about infrastructure
spending but actually not seeing projects get completed.
To me it comes back to permitting and regulatory reforms so
we can shorten the time between allocating dollars and getting
a project actually completed.
Senator Husted. Yes, time is money, inflationary costs,
things happen. You thought you had enough money.
I know our highway funding in Ohio; we thought we had
enough money when we passed the last gas tax. Then the whole
inflationary thing happened over the course of time. Now that
money is not adequate to the task. The longer it takes, the
less value your money has.
Mayor Gallego. We all know that we have the most innovative
country when it comes to transportation. The discretionary
grants have been so helpful in pushing that innovation and
getting that technology deployed.
I spoke earlier about how we have a backlog of maintenance
on our bridges. For us, we are always going to put dollars to
safety first. We have to make sure our roadways are safe.
Because of some of the discretionary grants we have been
able to receive, we are looking at technologies that do things
like speed freight traffic. That is good news for America, when
manufacturers can get their goods where they are going more
quickly.
That is dollars in their pockets, that is American jobs,
and just the incredible innovation that comes out of these
discretionary grants will put our Country in a great place to
continue to lead the way.
Senator Husted. I am going to run out of time here, but the
idea of, again, I will come back to, I like the idea of setting
the metrics. It is a solid approach to doing this, and
everything we can do to save you time would be helpful.
Any other thoughts, Governor?
Governor Armstrong. Yes. I would reiterate what Mr. Ramirez
said. None of this works without streamlining permitting. I
think roads are the perfect example. You do not have to stop
linear infrastructure everywhere; you only have to stop it in
one spot. If there is a road from Ohio to North Dakota, they
can stop it anywhere. They can stop it in Minnesota, they can
stop it in North Dakota, they can stop it in Ohio, they can
stop it in Indiana.
Senator Husted. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Blunt Rochester?
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
you to the Ranking Member. Thank you to all of the panelists.
It is good to see my former E&C colleague as well.
I have heard from folks up and down my State about their
priorities for the next surface transportation reauthorization
bill. Your perspectives and this hearing is really very helpful
as we craft it.
My colleagues have heard me mention the Reconnecting
Communities program (RCP) before. This program addresses
physical barriers and connects people to jobs, essential
services and economic opportunities, while correcting historic
injustices and harms to communities due to past infrastructure
decisions.
Our goal is to make the best decisions for all of us. I was
grateful to get this program into the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law during my time in the House.
Mayor Gallego, the city of Phoenix received one of the last
rounds of RCP planning awards. Can you tell us a little bit
about the Grand Canalscape project and why this funding is so
essential?
Mayor Gallego. Thank you. Phoenix is grateful for your
leadership on this project. It makes so much sense for us.
It may be a surprise to some people; Phoenix has more miles
of canals than Venice. The canal system was really important
for delivering water infrastructure to farms in Phoenix's early
days, but it has now become a really important transportation
corridor.
Unfortunately, there are some major conflicts now with
rail. There is not currently a safe way to cross the rail at
one part of the Grand Canal. It also has a real challenge with
the freeway.
Unfortunately, when you do not give people a safe way to
cross, they still cross. The Reconnecting Communities Grant
really helps us to make sure that we can do that in a way that
keeps our residents safe. When you have a major crash including
fatalities along the rail, it shuts down the rail system.
We are so grateful to have that support. These projects are
enormously complicated and we could not deliver them without
Federal partnership.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Could you talk a little bit about
what will happen if we fail to reauthorize the Reconnecting
Communities program? Would the city of Phoenix be able to
deliver on this project?
Mayor Gallego. Unfortunately, this project is enormously
complex and we really need the Federal partnership. I should
take the time to say thank you, because these investments allow
us to save lives. I get to meet the people who live along the
way and who do not have to worry about their kids running
across a rail anymore. I do not know that you always get to.
On their behalf, thank you.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you for sharing that. I
think the reality is there are members on both sides of the
dais who have multiple projects that will benefit, including in
my home State, at the top of our State in Wilmington, all the
way down to our rural counties in Georgetown, Delaware. It is
vitally important and we want to continue this.
I will be introducing legislation to get this done. I urge
my colleagues to join me in expanding the Reconnecting
Communities program in the next surface transportation bill.
I would like to shift gears a little bit to digital
infrastructure. Mayor, you also spoke a little bit about
encouraging smart technology and AI. I would love to ask you
and the Governor, how could increased investment in digital
infrastructure, things like radar-based detection systems at
intersections, to live travel advisories, contribute to safety
and mobility on our roads alongside traditional physical
infrastructure?
Governor Armstrong. Piggybacking a little bit off of what
the Mayor said on safety, our legislature passed a bill that
raised our speed limit, raised our fines. That is probably not
the safest part of the bill. We are now doing digital speed
limits and requirements when we have the adverse weather, which
is snow and blizzards and icy roads. We can do that in real
time now.
I think if you are talking about mileage and cost, we are
looking at running our entire State fleet through an AI program
to see how we buy cars, where we park cars, are we driving them
too much, are we not driving them enough. I think there is real
opportunities to do a lot of these things.
Then I think, just from the way you model out
infrastructure, knowing what your traffic flow is and knowing
where it is at. It does not matter if it is in a rural State
like North Dakota or on the east coast, you can prioritize
where you are spending this money and then spending it better.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you.
Mayor Gallegos. We have been lucky to have received Federal
support for advance signals. Signal technology is so important
to the city of Phoenix. We can give our firefighters signal
priority so they can get where they are going more quickly. If
you are experiencing a stroke, the amount of time while your
brain does not receive blood is really important. Seconds
matter. Giving our firefighters a little bit of an advantage
matters so much.
We also have a real challenge with, unfortunately,
pedestrian fatalities and red light running. There is
technology today that we are going to be able to install,
thanks to the Infrastructure and Jobs Act that can stop a
signal if someone is in the intersection and save a life.
I had a very important boss who was killed in one of these
accidents. I hope my work as mayor of Phoenix will mean that
fewer people have to go through that. Your investment in this
technology helps us save lives.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will be
pushing for digital infrastructure formula funding, and
hopefully that will save more lives.
Thank you so much, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Ranking Member, for holding this important hearing today.
Governor Armstrong, in Arkansas, 43 percent of our
residents live in rural areas. We rank sixteenth for fatality
rates on rural roads and third for rural pavements in poor
condition. Some Federal programs like NEVI and PROTECT can make
it harder for States to target those basic rural road needs.
From your perspective, how can Congress better structure
funding programs to give States more flexibility to invest
where it is most needed, especially for rural safety and road
conditions?
Governor Armstrong. The one thing I have learned about all
of this is that funds are fungible. The more you were doing
into these specialty programs, the less likelihood that places
like rural Arkansas and rural North Dakota, it is not whether
or not they qualify, they are not going to apply. I mean, we
are just trying to get county roads built. We are not
interested in the other side of it.
I would say that the more flexibility that you give on a
real basis for recognizing it is not always population based,
it is economy based, it is economies of scale based. Then I
think one thing is recognizing that rural infrastructure is
more expensive per mile than urban infrastructure in a lot of
ways. It is really hard to deliver whatever service it is to
the last mile.
Often times, that last mile is producing a ton of economic
activity that the world needs. Farm equipment is getting
heavier, grain trucks are getting bigger, economies of scale in
that industry are going up. Making sure that we are not, all of
these things are worthy to debate and discuss, but not at the
expense of the places that are producing the things and just do
not have, like, we do not have barriers to connecting
communities other than 100 miles.
Senator Boozman. Along the same line, Governor, you are
well aware of the programs that bring delays and extra costs
because of burdensome applications and uncertain timelines.
However, some major projects like large rural highway upgrades
or critical freight corridors are simply too expensive for
States to tackle with formula funds alone, which you just
alluded to. That is why large competitive grant programs are so
valuable when used well.
What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of big grant
programs and the need to cut red tape and make sure Federal
dollars get turned into projects on the ground faster?
Governor Armstrong. We appreciate the grant programs as
much as we can get them, yes. The quicker you can deploy the
money, I mean, I do not know if you will find a rural Governor
that would not like block grants in every area of this versus
the requirement side of it. Not at the expense of formula
funding.
The more flexibility we are given in that is better. The
grant, we have utilized the grant programs. We care about
ports, too, in North Dakota. We care about them a lot. Our
products get there, and we need them to get there.
At the same time, we want to be able to have a more
reasonable and reliable cost analysis for the next construction
season, so we can better spend the dollars you send to us.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Mr. Ramirez, you know first-hand that strong infrastructure
is critical to manufacturing competitiveness. Rural areas
produce a significant share of our Nation's manufacturing and
farming output. Yet population decline and shrinking tax bases
make it harder to modernize roads and bridges.
What Federal investments or policy reforms would best help
manufacturers in rural States remain efficient and connected to
national and global markets?
Mr. Ramirez. Thank you, Senator. Great question. It is
true, most things do not get made in big cities. We manufacture
in rural environments. That is certainly true for Husco and I
think most manufacturers across our Country.
I feel a little bit like a broken record, but I really
think the key is around permitting reform, and not just getting
dollars allocated, but getting projects completed.
Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to welcome
the witnesses, and you are going to see a theme, I think, here
on this issue of permitting reform. This committee has a long
and I think real positive history of producing significant
bipartisan infrastructure. I am really hopeful that we can,
under the Chairman and Ranking Member's leadership, do that
again with this highway bill.
They key has to be permitting reform. I think even my
friends on the other side of the aisle, who, let's face it,
oftentimes resist it because you have far left radical
environmental groups who love the fact that NEPA takes 10
years, because you can not build anything. They do. That is a
fact. I see it in my State all the time.
Governor, let me start with you. My State, Alaska, is
resource-rich, infrastructure-poor. We have less road miles
than Connecticut and we are almost 120 times bigger than
Connecticut and have a lot more natural resources than
Connecticut.
How do we ensure that a highway bill for the whole Country
takes into account places like my State or your State that have
huge resource potential but not nearly the number of roads that
we need, that the rest of the East Coast has? Eighty-two
percent of the communities in Alaska are not even connected by
a road.
How do we make progress in that area?
Governor Armstrong. I think the first and most important
answer is an equitable formula that gives States maximum
flexibility on how to spend the money. Second, I think there
are two ways infrastructure gets beat up, how heavy is it or
how much is it driven on? Those are the two ways infrastructure
gets beaten up.
You might not have as many miles driven or as many vehicles
traveling on those roads. The things you are doing in Alaska
are pretty heavy, and they are pretty important. Recognizing
that you factor those things in.
Eventually, I mean, I think the answer, the simple portion,
the implementation is really hard, right? The simple portion is
making sure you have an equitable formula that gives States the
maximum amount of flexibility and certainty.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Ramirez, let me go to permitting reform. It is such an
important issue. The Supreme Court in its Seven County
Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was a great course
correction on NEPA, saying look, this is a procedural, not a
substantive law. You do not need 10,000 pages in 10 years.
We have a gold mine in Alaska, the Kensington Mine, is now
employing about 450 people in southeast Alaska. It is producing
gold for America. Took 20 years to permit. We had a big
infrastructure development project on the Kenai Peninsula. It
was a road that took 36 years to permit. I think it was a world
record on NEPA slowness.
I think even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
who have always blocked permitting reform, that is the dark,
deep secret here, you have my Democrat colleagues, hey, we want
permitting reform, we want permitting reform, then you go to
them with common sense approaches and they do not do it because
their far left groups tell them not to.
I think even my Democrat colleagues now want to see this,
because they see everything, renewables, any project is blocked
by this real bad implementation. NEPA had a good goal at the
beginning, but it has been totally abused and hijacked by
groups that do not want to build, certainly do not want to
build in my State.
What are the real key elements, by the way, we have some
NEPA reform in the budget reconciliation, but I really want to
thank the Chairman for staying on that. It is pretty good,
actually.
What would you say are the key elements that I hope my
Democrat colleagues can get behind on NEPA reform that
everybody in the Country wants? Every Democrat Governor, every
Democrat mayor, I am sure the mayor here wants it. I mean, it
is nuts that it takes 10 years on average to permit a bridge.
No wonder why China is kicking our butt on so many of these
things.
What would you think are the key elements of NEPA
permitting reform that we need for this bill?
Mr. Ramirez. Thank you, Senator. I would offer two
principles that I think would solve the majority of the
problems. One is going in up front, to have a regulatory
process that has enforceable deadlines.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Ramirez. That can not go on forever.
Senator Sullivan. Both at the agency level and at the
litigation, the court level.
Mr. Ramirez. That would be the second part. I think going
in and having deadlines for the regulatory agencies, and then
having an expedited judicial review process so it can not be
tied up in litigation forever. If you applied those two
principles across our regulatory system, I think we could see a
real change.
Senator Sullivan. Very common sense. I hope my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle embrace those. They are common
sense. The whole darned Country wants them.
Let's not let some far left groups who always hate NEPA
reform drive the agenda for America. Nobody wants 10 years to
permit a bridge, 20 years to permit a gold mine. Unfortunately,
that is what NEPA has done to our Country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mayor Gallego, thank you again for being here. As you know
better than probably anybody, Phoenix is an urban heat island
experiencing higher temperatures than the surrounding rural
areas due to the lack of vegetation and the use of asphalt and
concrete that absorb a lot of the heat.
An estimated 45 percent of metro Phoenix residents live in
an area where the urban heat island effect raises temperatures
by about 8 degrees or more. This is why I worked to include the
Healthy Streets program, which I think you mentioned in your
opening remarks, and we put that in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, which would fund initiatives such as cool
pavement projects that mitigate the effects of this extreme
heat.
Mayor, why is it critical for Congress to fund programs
that help vulnerable cities like Phoenix become more resilient
to the effects of extreme heat?
Mayor Gallego. Thank you for your leadership on that
program. We are at a point now where we are going to have to
adapt cities to hotter environments. Phoenix now talks to
cities all around the Country, including in the northern-most
parts of our Country, about heat challenges. This is a national
problem, and we appreciate your coming up with a national
solution.
The heat can be deadly. We are losing more Americans to
heat than any other type of natural disaster. Our
infrastructure funding has not caught up with that reality yet.
Even some of the coldest States in the Country have had
terrible heat waves with an incredible loss of life.
We know the solutions. There are building material changes,
design changes, that can save lives. Your program will help
cities, rural communities, tribes, get the funding to make
those changes, many of which require us to design
infrastructure very differently.
Senator Kelly. I had a roundtable back in Phoenix on
extreme heat just last week. The number of deaths nationwide
from extreme heat exceeds every other natural disaster
combined. It is a real problem, and it is also associated with
the thing we are going to talk about next here.
I want to talk a little bit about energy. It is our grid.
The grid goes down in Phoenix, the estimates are that somewhere
up to maybe half of the residents of the city will wind up in
an emergency room, if it happens during a certain time of year
in the summer when the heat is the highest.
I want to talk about, mentioning electricity. Your data
centers, chip manufacturing and other industrial expansion in
Phoenix is putting pressure on our infrastructure. As our
population grows to fuel this technology boom, how does
electrical and transportation infrastructure need to respond?
Since this is transportation, maybe we should focus on
that.
Mayor Gallego. We are seeing a huge boom in data center and
advanced manufacturing. Just in the Phoenix metro, the data
centers have requested 32 gigawatts of new electricity. The
amount of damage, well, the impact this would have on our
streets with all this construction, these are huge construction
sites, in our case we have it in many cases right up against
residential, so very high impact. You are seeing a lot of truck
traffic; water is a different impact.
The amount of infrastructure investment is something we
really need to talk about. Data centers are very vulnerable to
heat, so the cooling impact in a community----
Senator Kelly. To put the 32 gigawatts into perspective,
the current SRP, Salt River Project, and APS, Arizona Public
Service, the two utilities, provide about 16 for the entire
county right now. The requested, over a number of years, I
think it is five to 10 years, exceeds what is currently on the
grid right now.
Mayor Gallego. It does. This is a trend we are not talking
about enough as a country; what does it mean if in a few short
years we are asking our utilities to completely replicate
themselves?
I am so grateful you are paying attention to the
infrastructure side of that. The amount of traffic in areas
that have not seen traffic, we should probably talk about
hazardous materials on our streets. They will be going places
they have not, and it may be time to have new conversations
about that.
The data centers, there is a conversation in Arizona and
several other States about small modular reactors. That would
put nuclear material in areas that have not seen nuclear
material before. Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the
Country. Our transportation department needs your support to
navigate that as do our firefighters and others who will need
new types of training if we are going to see this change. We
have to look at how it impacts our street network.
There might be some time where we would also be able to
reduce regulation, particularly around semiconductors. There is
some hazardous material regulation that we might be able to
update to be able to make it a little bit easier to do
business.
It really is time to look at the types of material that
will be traveling on streets that have never seen it before,
and how we have the appropriate regulatory system from the
Federal Government for these issues.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for being here.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and thank you
for your dedication to providing a strong foundation for the
next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Hearings like
this are invaluable as we work to build legislation that will
address key transportation infrastructure issues.
Thank you, Chairman Capito, and thank you, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, for holding today's hearing. Thank you to the
witnesses for coming here today.
Governor Armstrong, welcome to Washington. I have talked
before this committee about needing flexibility in the next
reauthorization. I have been looking for some ways to be able
to provide that flexibility through the infrastructure supply
chain. You are from an agricultural State, as I am.
Agricultural products are a large part of the infrastructure
advantage that we have, we have been able to provide that.
I know this is especially true in Nebraska, and one of the
things that I found when I was Governor was that oftentimes my
department of transportation thought their customer was the
road, not the people who drove on the road. We have $9.9
billion in agricultural exports every year. I am sure North
Dakota has a lot of agricultural exports as well. Transporting
these goods is vital for both of our States and the Country's
economic growth.
That is why I recently introduced the VARIANCE Act with my
colleague Senator Schiff. This would allow a 10 percent axle
variance for vehicles transporting dry bulk goods. As you know,
sometimes corn is going to shift around a little bit so you can
not necessarily keep the corn and soybeans over every axle.
It gives some flexibility, then increased efficiency and
safety and cost-effectiveness as well. This is one that I hope
in many ways we can get the EPW committee to go forward on it.
Governor Armstrong, where have you and your DOT experienced
regulatory roadblocks? How can Congress best address these
things in the next reauthorization?
Governor Armstrong. I will deal with one we have not talked
about yet, which is rail. The thing with rail is, we are trying
to get to our friends on the coast to get our products to port.
Eventually, you run into bottlenecks. Sometimes it is a State
line with different political ideologies, sometimes it is just
a place in which you can not get it in the ground.
We can build the front-end infrastructure. North Dakota has
done a really great job of that. Eventually, we can only build
our infrastructure out enough that it can get through Montana,
Idaho, Washington, to the ports.
I think understanding that the ability to do those things
only works in North Dakota if it works all the way to where it
is going. The more you create that, and Senator Ricketts, you
will understand this as well, I want as much competition in the
marketplace for my egg producers as humanly possible.
Then another one, which is not necessarily this, but we
should hold our frenemies accountable for the amount of empty
shipping containers that are floating around the world on a
daily basis. I think that is one thing that is not always front
of mind, but really, really affects the transportation side and
the cost side of my egg producers getting things to market.
Senator Ricketts. Just on that issue, have you found that
you have had trouble getting containers to North Dakota because
of that? Or rail cars?
Governor Armstrong. Yes. Either trouble in supply, or
trouble in cost.
Senator Ricketts. Well, I thank you for that feedback on
that. I know that working with Union Pacific, headquartered in
Nebraska, I know that they have had issues with regard to
transporting coal to get to export on the west coast ports,
because of again, local-State regulations blocking that, which
is, it is a legal product. You have, again, local-State rules
that are blocking just the pass through of that product to get
to foreign markets.
Governor Armstrong. For all of the expansion of the
InterState Commerce Clause, there are some places where it is
very hard. I do not have a port in North Dakota. I have to get
my products to a port.
Senator Ricketts. Yes. Point well taken. Thank you,
Governor.
Mr. Ramirez, you are president and CEO of a manufacturing
company, and I am sure you have run into various issues as
well. One of the problems we have had in Nebraska is a project
can be all the way through the permitting process, including in
the Endangered Species consultations, but if the status of the
species changes during that process and before the final NEPA,
National Environmental Policy Act, approval, then the whole
thing has to start all over again.
You mentioned a couple of issues to Senator Sullivan with
regard to kind of bigger picture things of making sure that we
have timelines, and to put limits on litigation. Are there are
other specific things like what I just described that would be
great reforms to be able to think about as we go through a
permitting process type of thing?
Mr. Ramirez. I think the concept of categorical exclusions
is another one that I probably should have brought up earlier.
For similar types of infrastructure having similar types of
environmental reviews, again that just strikes me as a
commonsense way to help expedite this process without giving up
any of the robustness that our citizens expect.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramirez.
Thank you, Chair.
Senator Capito. Senator Alsobrooks?
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much to Chair Capito and
Ranking Member Whitehouse for holding today's hearing and thank
you as well to all of our witnesses for joining us.
Surface transportation is a vital part of everyday life,
connecting people to jobs, education, and essential services.
Decades of under-investment, however, have left much of our
Country's infrastructure in poor condition, leading to traffic
congestion and safety concerns.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law sought to address these
issues by providing unprecedented investments to create a more
reliable, sustainable, and equitable transportation network
while creating jobs for Maryland, which is my State. This meant
dedicated funding targeting the repair of thousands of miles of
deteriorating roads and hundreds of structurally deficit
bridges.
This piece of legislation also provided over $1.7 billion
for public transit, helping to modernize buses, trains and rail
lines, and providing funding to programs that seek to improve
transportation equity and safety.
As the Ranking Member of EPW's Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and a member of the Banking
Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues here to
ensure that the next authorization provides long-term
predictable investments that repair our aging infrastructure,
improve safety and support economic development.
My first question is for Governor Armstrong. Welcome,
Governor. Many rural counties, including those in Maryland,
face unique challenges when it comes to roadway safety, like
long stretches of unlit roads, limited emergency response, and
aging infrastructure. I wonder whether you believe the current
Federal safety programs provide States with sufficient
flexibility to effectively address these unique risks.
Governor Armstrong. I will like it better if yours and
Senator Cramer's bill passes.
Senator Alsobrooks. Yes, exactly.
Governor Armstrong. I think it is important, and even
through the course of this hearing, the different things that
exist.
I said this regarding bridges; we have to do a better job
of building out safety corridors as well. Recognizing that
delivering those services in rural areas is really, really
difficult, and it is really difficult if there is four feet of
snow on the ground and the wind is blowing 30 miles an hour.
The more flexibility we are allowed, the better we can
have. One of the things that is unique to a place like North
Dakota is, you have a bad winter and a late thaw, and all of a
sudden I have a county problem or a DOT problem that nobody
knew about until May 1st.
If you are really restricted in how you utilize the money
that is available to you, you are legitimately fixing things
that would go 25 spots down the priority area because you are
not allowed to use the money for the one that should be No. 1.
Senator Alsobrooks. I totally get it. I was a former county
executive of my county, and understand so well exactly what you
described.
Next, I have a question for Mayor Gallego. The Federal
Highway Administration's PROTECT program is a critical new
funding source for States and cities working to strengthen the
resilience of their infrastructure. Maryland has used this
funding to assess and strengthen at-risk coastal infrastructure
and evacuation routes.
I wonder, how is it that the city of Phoenix, if you can
just talk to us a bit about how you have tackled the broader
challenges of infrastructure resilience in the face of extreme
heat, flooding, and other climate related risks?
Mayor Gallego. Thank you so much. We are thrilled to have
someone who understands local government advocating for the
PROTECT program. For us, we have hit record after record in
terms of heat, and our infrastructure was not built with that
in mind.
The PROTECT program, just as it helps you with sea level
rise, helps us with infrastructure that may literally melt
because of the heat. It allows us to invest in more advanced
building materials that are more heat resilient and that also
do not retain the heat as much.
We are going to need to redesign our network for a hotter
environment. PROTECT gives us the chance to try innovation. I
would very much like Phoenix to be the lead in developing the
technologies for our transportation future around heat
resilience, which I think will become important to more and
more of the community. PROTECT allows us to be innovative, to
take risks and do things we have not done before, as well as to
deploy solutions we have proven work.
Senator Alsobrooks. Great. Next, I would like to go back to
Governor Armstrong. The Federal Highway Administration's
emergency relief program is a vital Federal tool for restoring
damaged infrastructure and ensuring safety after disasters like
the bridge collapse. As you know first-hand, Maryland had the
Key Bridge collapse.
I wonder whether North Dakota has benefited from this
program, if you can just talk quickly about it.
Governor Armstrong. We utilize, I say this tongue in cheek,
what other people call climate change, we usually call Tuesday.
We can have 100 degree swings in October in the same town. We
have utilized it for, the last time I remember was actually the
2011 flood and when our capital city flooded.
Utilizing the fund to get, I mean, it is, the capital city
in the State of North Dakota, we had bridges, we had highways,
we had county roads that without the Federal Government's help
we would not have been able to recover nearly as fast.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Markey, I will give you a second here. You are up.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our debate about this surface transportation bill must
begin with a question: what do Americans want out of their
surface transportation system? I think it is fair to say they
want it to be safe. They want it to be affordable. They want a
system that does not further exacerbate the climate crisis.
Let's evaluate how we are performing in these categories.
On the topic of safety, our transportation system is a
disaster; 40,000 people are dying every year on our roads. This
is no accident.
Many of our roads are designed only for fast moving cars,
not for pedestrians, for cyclists or for public transit, all of
which are safer modes of travel with the right infrastructure
in place. That is a failure.
Now let's examine transportation affordability. On this
front too, we are failing. The Department of Transportation
estimates the cost for average Americans $12,000 a year to own
and operate one automobile. Twelve thousand a year.
Many communities are left without other viable
transportation options, requiring a family to travel by way of
car for almost every trip, increasing their costs. That is a
failure.
Then of course, when it comes to sustainability, our system
is performing poorly. The transportation sector is the largest
contributor to greenhouse gases in our Country.
We have a system that invests more money in expanding
highways than it does in building sustainable infrastructure.
That is a failure.
Our communities feel these failures every day in higher
costs, worse air quality, a deteriorating climate, and the loss
of loved ones in car crashes.
Mayor Gallego, do you agree that local communities most
directly feel the pain of our failing transportation system? I
would just love to get your expert view on that issue.
Mayor Gallego. Thank you. We are faced with a climate
crisis right now in Phoenix. We had a month straight above 110
last year; we hit 118 this month. Your constituents might put
mittens on their children in the winter; we sometimes do it in
the summer because a seat belt buckle can burn your hand.
We need to make sure, 118 is hot enough, it is too hot, and
we have to make sure that we address this. We have to design a
transportation system that is resilient. We need the right
building materials for our roads. We need to make sure our
transit hubs have shade and are comfortable so that people can
be safe while using them. We really appreciate your leadership
on this.
Senator Markey. We are seeing it as well in New England.
The Gulf of Maine, we call it Boston Harbor, after the Arctic
is the second fastest-warming body of water in the world. We
are seeing it. It is setting up conditions for a catastrophic
storm or absolute disaster. We are seeing it. No one can escape
this.
I agree with your testimony. That is why I am soon going to
be reintroducing my Green Streets Act, which would reimagine
how we prioritize transportation infrastructure investments.
The bill would require States to invest in infrastructure like
walking and biking and public transit that will reduce
emissions, bring down costs and prevent more loss of life.
The bill would also require States to maintain their
facilities in a State of good repair before expanding highways
further. Well-maintained roads are safer, they are better for
emissions, and they mean fewer potholes, flat tires, broken
axles for American travelers.
The Green Streets Act is of course a climate bill. It is
also a safety and it is also an affordability bill as well.
Research indicates a 20 percent reduction in the number of
miles traveled by car in this Country would reduce vehicle fuel
and maintenance costs for the average American family by
roughly $2,000 annually.
Even more importantly, the same reduction in miles traveled
by car would save 180,000 lives by the year 2050 in our
Country.
If there is anything more American than an automobile, it
is consumer choice. American families deserve a publicly funded
transportation system that affords them the choice to travel
safely, affordably and sustainably.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
committee, with you, Madam Mayor, with all concerned citizens
in our Country to ensure that the next surface transportation
bill addresses these issues.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you.
I think we are coming to the end of our hearing. I
appreciate everybody's testimony. I think there are a lot of
similarities in whatever everybody is saying from the different
standpoints of where you are. Permitting is something that
Senator Whitehouse and I and our staffs talk about almost
daily. We know that this is at the heart of the efficiency that
I think most folks, and how the dollars can go farther than
they can.
With that, I have no more comments. Do you have a comment?
Senator Whitehouse. Just to emphasize the comment that I
repeatedly make, which is that any bipartisan bill that does
either surface transportation or permitting reform is going to
have things in it that one side likes more than the other side
likes. That is the nature of compromise on large pieces of
legislation.
Essential to going forward is some level of trust that the
implementer of that legislation will be an honest implementer.
If we are going to have to continue to live through this
selective refusal to release appropriated and obligated funds,
if we are going to have to deal with an implementer that will
favor, for instance, only the fossil fuel projects but not the
clean energy projects, that is a huge deterrent to getting this
done.
I know I am not saying anything new here. It is obvious to
anybody who has ever been involved in a negotiation in which
the implementer has to be trusted to make it work. We are not
at that place yet by any stretch. I have nevertheless
instructed my team to go forward to try to get big bills done,
and we can get through that gate when we need to.
I do not want anybody caught by surprise later on when we
come to that gate and we do not see an implementer that we can
trust and things come to a halt that is unexpected or surprises
anybody.
We are going forward in good faith. The Chairman has been
very good to work with. I think we can have some confidence
that we can do these big things.
At the end of the day, there will be a gate that we have to
get through. That gate will be no more monkeying around with
faithful execution of the laws for partisan or special interest
purposes. Simple as that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I can not
resists, but I said, the irony of what you just said describes
the pain I felt over the last 4 years. The way we wrote the
Highway Bill, the way the implementation and the guidance that
went through went far afield from what the original intent of
the bill was.
We could argue about that, so I understand what you are
saying. I think you are right. I think you are right only
because we have lived through this over the last 4 years.
With no further questions, I would like to thank the
witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation today.
Senators who wish to submit written questions for the record
have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, July 30th, to do so. The
witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the
committee no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, August 13th, and
will be submitted for the record.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]