continuing to move down? >> it was not in my testimony but we are aware of construction cost inflation. >> what can we do to keep that downward movement going? >> inflation is a function of different factors. international environment. when russia invaded ukraine, it substantially increased our oil prices, fuel prices. the more stability overall in the system, global, economic system is of importance. we continue to manage inflation as best we can. >> for the record, some comments from your industry, that would be great. >> thank you.

>> mr. webster. >> thank you chairman. you mentioned in written testimony that you want to ease the assessment, access to the assignment of nepa or states that want to do that but could you elaborate on why or how or what takes place that makes you well-positioned as a state, georgia to take that assignment? >> the pilot program provided for federal level allows states to make those decisions and

manage that process in lieu of the federal government. a handful of states have taken that opportunity including texas, utah, california that have seen an improvement in the number of months it takes to get through the nepa process. it is effective use of the tools provided at the federal level. not every state will take advantage of that because one of the aspects of that program will require states to waive sovereign immunity and a lot of states are not interested. that's been a big barrier for why other states are not taking on nepa assignments because some governors are reticent.

>> are you in georgia ready to do that? >> because of the snowstorm, they have three inches of snow in savannah but georgia has not taken on nepa assignment but they have incorporated other tools into what they do. they set up an office to where they were able to bring in personnel to sit together and work on specific projects that have to go through permitting and regulatory process but they have found that putting those federal agencies together working on george's specific processor improved the efficiency of being able to get some of those projects moved

through the pipeline in a more efficient manner. >> it's like an interagency thing? >> georgia is one of the states that pays for personnel in other federal resource agencies to work specifically on projects so it is strange in that the state is using their dollars to pay for salaries for federal employees but they feel it is a worthwhile investment because it helps them expedite those projects specific to georgia. in an ideal world, they would not have to do that. the people would be there to work on those projects but in george's case they pay for the expenses associated with some of those federal resource agency staff to expedite projects. >> should that model be replicated in other places?

>> given the current structure it has worked well in georgia and several other state. other states are looking at that as an option so it is a model to help improve the process for states unwilling to waive sovereign immunity and take on nepa assignment. >> yield back. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you for hosting this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for your time and testimony. the title of this hearing, "transportation to move people," is fitting because every day we rely on transportation to live our lives. in fact, all of us took some form of transportation just to be here today. whether we walked on the roads, drove a car, or rode a train.

we need to build a future where safe, efficient, and sustainable transportation is not a luxury, but a reality for every american regardless of zip code. when we invest in our infrastructure, we create a ripple effect that touches every aspect of our society and economy. the investments from president biden's bipartisan infrastructure law have already contributed to the creation of 1.6 million jobs in construction and manufacturing. our job now is to continue building on that progress, so millions are not left behind. i look forward to hearing your answer to this question, mr. tymon. on monday, president trump issued an executive order titled "unleashing american energy." section 7 of that order states, "all agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the inflation reduction act or the infrastructure investment and

jobs act," the bipartisan infrastructure law, which will impact transportation funding under those two acts. can you explain the impact the pause in federal funding will have, and how is aashto working with the new administration to clarify this order? mr. tymon: well, thank you for that question. i will say that when we saw that executive order on monday and then how it was implemented briefly yesterday, there was a lot of concern within the state dot community because for a short period of time, a federal funding reimbursements for the formula programs was halted, and we worked closely with the new administration and the folks at usd and usdot and at omb to make sure there was clarification

that the intent of that executive order was not to stop the flow of all federal dollars that were provided for transportation programs through those two bills, and our understanding is that both usdot and omb do not intend for that executive order to impact all of the transportation programs in those two acts, and that they are working together to clarify exactly which programs it should apply to. so there was some panic yesterday initially. we do feel a little bit better about it as of yesterday afternoon and this morning, but there's still some concern. rep. johnson: yeah, it's kind of like, you know, first you're numb. and then you start realizing, ok, well, maybe there's some wiggle room, but then when you go back and read the executive order, there is none.

so there's a need for clarification amidst the chaos that has ensued from this reckless action in issuing this executive order. mr. dellinger, with the recent record-breaking increase in cargo theft across the country, this issue has become a pressing challenge for the trucking industry. american trucking association member companies have been heavily impacted, facing increased costs, disrupted supply chains, and heightened security risks. could you please elaborate on the impact this issue is having on the industry, and how can stakeholders and the federal government collaborate to enhance prevention efforts and strengthen enforcement against cargo theft? mr. dellinger: cargo threat became rampant, and i think that

basically the thieves and the rings have have learned a lot of different ways to steal, you know, whether it's stealing loads, whether it's actually going in there and posing as a broker and sending a truck in, knowing that they're not going to take the freight to where it's destined, they're going to take it to a warehouse somewhere, but probably the biggest solution would be that the federal government work that there would be some type of clearinghouse where you could call one location. i mean, we're now involved in situations where you got to go in the jurisdiction that it's in to report the crime. rep. johnson: these are illegal immigrants that are doing that, are they? mr. dellinger: i'm not going to put that on illegal immigrants. i've understood it's maybe even russian gangs -- rep. johnson: did you see an executive order issued yesterday that related to this problem

that the american trucking association and the industry is experiencing with these cargo thefts? mr. dellinger: i did not. rep. johnson: thank you. chair rouzer: the gentleman's time's expired. mr. bost, you're recognized for five minutes. rep. bost: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. tymon, as you know, i am leading a bipartisan effort in the house to authorize federal funding to expand truck parking capacities. many states have indicated they don't have enough truck parking capacity, which we know affects highway safety, supply chain efficiency, driver recruitment, and retention. as a representative of the state department of transportation, if congress created a grant program exclusively to be used in the truck parking projects, would your members pursue these federal funds for the protection of the states? mr. tymon: if there was a grant program for truck parking, states would be interested in that. i would say that it's not just availability of funding on the state dot side.

a lot of the right of way that the state dots have control of, there is a restriction as to what they can do within that right of way, including establishing new rest areas, and commercializing them to be able to support truck parking. rep. bost: so that is we need to also work on the regulations that allow you to be freed up to use the properties around there to expand that? that is good to know. if you would reach out to our staff, i'd like to see what we can do there. mr. dellinger, thank you first off for your support of the trucking legislation truck parking legislation. i think it's vitally important, and you mentioned it in your testimony that it is, and i was in the business for several years. but i'm going to switch gears here and i want to ask you about something. you know, as a former trucker myself, one of the biggest concerns with the highway trust fund has been its long-term health and potential changes that have been put on the truckers. in your testimony, you brought

up something that it was -- on the consult -- it actually bothers me, and here's why, and that was on tolls specifically on trucks. so right now, and for years we have had -- if you travel in the intra or interstate trucking industry, you have apportion plates, and those apportion plates, you basically -- if you own the business, you calculate out what how many miles last year you drove in each state, and then you pay apportionally based on each state. well, back whenever i was doing dispatching and driving myself, we couldn't figure out which one costs the most, but computers today say, ok, i can drive down one interstate in missouri and not have to go into illinois because illinois is too expensive. do you think these tolls added on top of that will then also add to the fact that many of the trucking people that are in the

trucking industries, they're going to make wise decisions. they're going to say, hey, you know what, we're no longer driving down and through that state. we're going to go around that state because we can to save money. mr. dellinger: i think that does happen. you know, i guess as far as our position on tolls, we just want tolls to be equitable. you know, we want the passenger cars to pay just like the trucks. we're not opposed to paying, but basically, you know, we are against tolling current roads, maybe new roads or bridges, but current roads, and we need alternatives where there are tolls. our company -- you know, our company, 500 trucks, we spend close to approximately $180,000 a month in tolls. rep. bost: ok, well, first off, you said your trucking company has 500 trucks. most i ever had was 45. god bless you.

but when you say the tolls, because you put tolls on existing roads, we've already paid for those, right? this is -- and the maintenance and upkeep still should be -- the idea and intent of the motor fuel tax was that we would have enough. but we've been dealing since i've been here with the issue of what taxation, what generation of revenue, especially as we start going to more ev's and everything like that, how are we going to get those revenues in, and do you have any suggestions for that? mr. dellinger: well, i guess if i had the answer, i wouldn't be running a trucking company -- rep. bost: that's true, too. mr. dellinger: but i mean, you know, we want to help to be a part of the solution and not the problem. we want to pay our fair share. and you know, we think as well ev's need to be paying for the highway trust fund as well. and i guess -- i know it's kind of a difficult thing to raise taxes, but you know, when you

look at the tax base, the fuel tax base, basically it hasn't been raised in, what, 30 years? i think back when i started driving in the 1960s and 1970s, the cars got about 8 or 10 miles a gallon. now they get, you know, between 30 and 40. rep. bost: and trucks got 2. mr. dellinger: yeah, i can remember when i first got into the business, 3 miles a gallon. now we're getting 8.2, so, so less dollars there as well. i think there's time that a solution is found. rep. bost: my time's expired and thank you for being here today. chair rouzer: mr. pappas. rep. pappas: well, thank you to the chair and ranking member for holding this session as we begin to prepare for reauthorization of surface transportation and think about how iija has been working and some of the priorities that we have that we're seeing from our district level.

i really appreciate the testimony of this panel, mr. dellinger, if i could start with you and just sort of building off that conversation, you kind of beat me to the punch in bringing up the fet issue, which is something that i think we've got to take a look at if we want to achieve fairness and sustainability with respect to how we fund surface transportation. you mentioned the fet issue. this was a tax initially introduced during the world war i era to support wartime mobilization. more than 100 years ago, the federal levy is 12%, which is the highest excise tax on any product in the country. tax is only collected when trucks are newly purchased, so there's a disincentive for the procurement of newer, more efficient models. and as you say in your testimony, a single truck manufactured in 1988 emits the same pollution as 60 trucks built today. so that's pretty amazing to consider. along with mr. lamalfa, we've introduced the modern clean safe trucks act, which will repeal

the world war i era federal excise tax. i wonder if you could just speak a little bit more and underscore for the committee the importance of looking at this 12% fet, which i think sets us back with respect to us procuring newer, safer trucks, easing supply chain challenges, and working to support businesses like yours. and by the way, congratulations on 60 years in business. mr. dellinger: thank you. from the fet, i mean, you could look at it in a lot of different ways. and i spoke earlier about, you know, for every 10 trucks we purchased, we could purchase 11 and create jobs. but other ways are when you're looking at that environmental footprint as well, if we were able to take trucks, incentivize people to buy newer trucks that have better safety systems on, animsome of the 2007, 2010, and earlier trucks, and actually have then a truck that is more energy-efficient and

produces less emissions would be better for the economy, would be better for the environment. i guess from also from a safety standpoint as well, having the newest and the greatest out there. rep. pappas: appreciate those comments. mr. tymon, thank you for reflecting the state perspective here. and as you know, the total amount of highway trust fund dollars that can be annually committed is capped by congress every year during the appropriations process. state dots receive their portion of the obligation limitation. they must use it before the end of the fiscal year or the funding will permanently lapse every august. to avoid losing those funds, state dots are given access to any anticipated unused obligation limitation beyond their initial share. so this is a kind of a "wait and hurry up" approach. this is always a pain point that i hear about from my state dot places unnecessary pressure on them and puts the needs of our

constituents and the priorities at risk. so in your experience, can you talk a little bit more about the august reredistribution process, how it worked this past year, what recommendations you would have for us going forward? mr. tymon: well, thank you for that question, and you're absolutely right, the fhwa's august redistribution process is broken. it was originally intended to distribute, you know, just a handful of dollars that were left as they approached the end of the fiscal year, and provided the state dots, because fhwa knew that state dots would be able to put those dollars to use as quickly as possible within that fiscal year. this past year, august redistribution was $8.7 billion, or 14.5% of the total federal highway program. so states were asked to obligate $8.7 billion, close to 15% of the total federal highway program, in just 30 days, in the last month of the fiscal year.

now, states were able to do that because they have a long -- they had a pipeline of projects that were ready to go, but we have pretty much exhausted that pipeline from state to state, and if it's not addressed legislatively, they will run into problems and obligating that and some of that money will lapse in future years. congress did enact through the warda bill a partial fix to that that will take essentially roughly $2 billion off the table, so hopefully see a reduction in next year's august redistribution. but there's also a fix that's pending in the senate passed or pros bill that would really help address this as well and help even drive that number further down. and we hope that the house can support the senate position in that bill. rep. pappas: well, thanks for your comments. we want to continue to hear from aashto on that issue, and i yield back my time. chair rouzer: mr. babin, you're recognized. rep. babin: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here as well. we really appreciate your expertise. my first question is for mr.

dellinger. mr. dellinger, how does the patchwork of state-specific emissions regulations and sales mandates, such as those in california, impact trucking companies in terms of operational efficiency, compliance costs, and long-term planning? mr. dellinger: well, the problem is we run in all 48 states and whenever the group of states, take on different rules, and regulations, it becomes difficult for us to operate. i mean, we are operating on interstate highways for the most part, and we do need the help to have a federal rule, not that, carb or a group decides what we're going to do as a nation. rep. babin: ok, thank you. and my next question is for you

as well. i understand that cargo theft remains a significant challenge for trucking industry, impacting ata member companies through increased costs, supply chain disruption, safety risks. what do you see as the most pressing gaps in addressing this issue, and how can industry stakeholders and policymakers work together to enhance prevention efforts and strengthen enforcement against this cargo theft? mr. dellinger: and looking at cargo theft for us as an organization, we took it on as a top-tier priority actually last january at a meeting that took place, or actually early february. it's one of those things that in our industry a lot of people did not discuss, did not share, so that's one of the negatives that you just didn't want to talk about. but it has become so prevalent that basically it is an issue that, you know, people are starting to recognize and have discussion. again, it's having -- it's having maybe that central clearinghouse that's looking at

all these thefts. i mean, we're not talking about a theft of a piece off a trailer, we're talking about the theft of an entire load. you know, this was something that was again prevalent years ago in the tobacco industry for the finished product, or maybe the electronic issue, but it's got to the point -- i mean, they're even still in roll stock paper. i don't know if they don't know what's on the trailer and just load, you know, just pick it up and go with it, but household goods. i mean, when i say goods, i'm not speaking of the household furniture. i'm speaking of toilet paper, paper towels. rep. babin: maybe that's desperation. ok, well, thank you very much. and then my next question is for ms. kavinoky. yes, ma'am. i represent the port of houston where vulcan materials does

quite a bit of business. and so we're very familiar with your company. congress should be in the business of supporting our industry partners and not stepping on their toes. i'm sure you would agree with that. can you talk a little bit about how congress should be a good partner, a better partner, if you will, in supporting the aggregates industry? ms. kavinoky: we have been very fortunate to have a good partner in congress for the aggregates industry, whether that is access to aggregates, something called the rocs act that of course we have many of you who have supported, assistance at the local level in ensuring that there is support for quarries in the places or distribution yards as in houston and the place that we need them. and of course we have enjoyed the support of many members of this committee as vulcan materials company with our issue with mexico and the illegal shutdown of our operations there. i think the aggregates industry overall knows though that the biggest priority here is that

long-term, predictable, on-time transportation bill. that's the best way you can support us. rep. babin: yes, ma'am. and then finally, do you have any thoughts on how congress should be streamlining the permitting process? permits are one of the biggest problems across the broad spectrum of our bureaucracy. so would you like to chime in and just have a few words about how maybe we could streamline that process? ms. kavinoky: sure, and understand that this allows me to add on, chairman rouzer, to what i said to you. so our production and delivery is principally affected by state and local laws, but with regard to speeding transportation project delivery, we do, in addition to the full implementation of one federal decision, and the analysis of federal permit agency timelines, i think there are a couple of specifics to look at. one is expanding categorical exclusions, and the second is granting greater flexibility

around utility relocation that can also help in speeding project development and delivery. rep. babin: ok, thank you very much, and i'll yield back, mr. chairman. chair rouzer: ms. sykes. rep. sykes: thank you, mr. chair and thank you, ranking member norton, for holding this hearing today, kicking us off for the 119th congress for the subcommittee. i appreciate your leadership and looking forward to getting to work, especially as we have a lot of great opportunities this year. thanks to the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law in 2021, communities from coast to coast will see about $1.2 trillion in local investments to improve the reliability, resilience, and efficiency of america's infrastructure over the next 10 years, and americans are already seeing these tangible differences, including improved roads, bridges, transit systems, airports, waterways, and environmental infrastructure. in ohio, for example, which is home to the nation's fifth largest interstate system that spans over 8000 lane miles, we

have 19,000 center lane miles, the bipartisan infrastructure law is awarded 27 grants amounting to about $1.3 billion with the funding to improve our state's roads and bridges with more than 6.6 committed to our state, which we are very much looking forward to expending and using. and i'd like to turn your attention to ohio's 13th district, which is where i represent. we've seen over $176 million of investments to create jobs and promote clean, green, safe, more accessible transportation for my constituents and business communities all over. but one of the things that is really important as we are discussing these investments is that they're not just play dollars that we just talk about, and as we are building, literally building our communities and we're talking about how we're increasing our economic opportunities. i know people in my community

get really frustrated when they see detours and barrels, but barrels means jobs. i like to say each barrel means a job for someone in this community, that they're investing those resources back into ohio 13 and our across our entire state. and where we are in ohio, you can get to about 80% of the population in a day's drive, and it just shows how important we are in the transportation network across this country. so knowing that to be the case and talking about that job specifically, i want to turn my attention to you, mr. colvin, because the prevailing wage is an important part of ensuring that the folks who are working on these projects are being paid livable wages and that they can actually sustain themselves and their families. can you talk a little bit about the members who you represent and why the prevailing wage, the davis bacon standards are so important to you in our communities? mr. colvin: yeah, i mean, i think in addition to what you're saying, it guarantees a quality of work that, you know, that they know that there will be

high standards for workforce training for those workers and that the delivered product is going to be better and delivered on time. i think beyond, you know, beyond davis bacon and looking at other labor workforce protections that are built into our surface transportation programs, you know, it's sort of a promise that the people who are delivering these assets that we're investing in, you know, should, should be paid fairly and should be able to afford a middle-class lifestyle and not have it be, you know, low wages and undercutting workers as the goal for how we build out our infrastructure. rep. sykes: and thank you for saying that. and even before we get to the point where we have someone on a job site, we have to train them. we have to recruit them into these apprenticeship programs, and i hear from literally every industry i meet with, they have a hard time recruiting and retaining employees. what are some of the things that we could do to help ensure that

we have a reliable, well-trained, skilled workforce prepared to take these jobs on as we continue to expend these dollars across the country? mr. colvin: yeah, i mean, i think, you know, there was flexibility for funding in the iga to go towards workforce recruitment. i think the challenge there is that like, if a state, dot is looking at, at capital expenditures or recruiting with that money, i think, you know, the capital is going to win probably most of the time. so i think we do have to be more creative about how we recruit where we recruit from and, and i think -- you know that that is think -- you know that that is an outstanding challenge and it's beyond just construction state dots, earlier i mentioned transit agencies that had a huge sort of impending cliff, their workforce, so i think have a good argument to make that these are, you know, good jobs with

good benefits. again, the challenge is, you know, ensuring that that is prioritized by state duties, prioritized by transit agencies, and in many cases that's just, you know, poor management or a lack of forward thinking. rep. sykes: thank you, mr. chair, i yield back. chair rouzer: mr. westerman. rep. westerman: thank you to the witnesses for being here today. you know, as we consider this important reauthorization, we have to face the fact that we have a real problem in our country that we can't really build things anymore. you know, it took 35 years to build the 1st 42,000 miles of interstate highway, and in the last 34 we've built 7000 miles. it's not just that we can't build, we can't really maintain and repair like we're capable of doing. and it's almost to the point of ridiculousness. i have a forest service road in

my district that had a couple of landslides. this is a gravel road in a very remote area, and so far there's been $6 million of grants awarded to fix the road, but the timeline is maybe six years. and to tell you the truth, nobody really knows who's on first and who's on second and how this is going to get done. and we can do much better than that as a country, and we know that time is money. these delays cost things. and mr. dellinger, you know, as a user of the highway system, i think you said in your testimony $109 billion a year in delays and burning something like $6.4 billion of fuel setting in delays. we see those kinds of costs. but then mr. tymon, in your testimony, you showed a graph on the iija funding, which ranges from about $70 billion to $80 billion a year over a five-year period.

and the $80 billion in 2026 is going to have $40 billion of purchasing power. and also in your testimony you show where it takes 6 or 7.6 years to get through the nepa process. we've got to do better than that for the american people and for the -- everybody paying taxes and everybody that's using our roadways. mr. tymon, what can we do to allow state transportation departments to do what they do and build roads and do it in a timely manner? mr. tymon: well, thank you for that question. you know, i think that this has been an issue that congress has been struggling with for decades now, really. i think that people on both sides of the aisle agree that we need to do more to streamline the project delivery process. as was mentioned, there was one federal decision provision that

was provided in iija. it has not been fully implemented as congress intended by the previous administration. we're hopeful that the incoming administration, the trump administration, will embrace the one federal decision and the intent behind the timelines associated with that provision and implement it in the way that congress intended. some other ideas is, as i mentioned, in georgia they've decided to co-locate and collaborate federal resource agencies together in one interagency office to help make sure that everybody's working on a project in the most efficient way, trying to find ways to consolidate duplicative permits and reviews overseen by coast guard and army corps of engineers and the national marine fisheries services and u.s. fish and wildlife services, making sure that those things are happening concurrently and that if there are duplicative permits by multiple resource agencies, there's only one that

you need to do, as opposed to the same one over and over again for different resource agencies. rep. westerman: there's a project that should have been done in my district many, many years ago. it's interstate 49 that goes from new orleans up to kansas city and provides interstate highway. but the section in arkansas is kind of the missing link to finishing that project. i did some research. here's the environmental impact statement from 1997. this is the executive summary that's 37 pages long. the actual eis is 566 pages long, and the arkansas department of transportation tells me they have to go back and redo the whole thing before they could do that project if they were to get funding for it. i'll just ask -- i want to ask everybody on the panel, is reforming nepa critical to getting more for our infrastructure dollars? mr. tymon?

mr. tymon: i'll start and say absolutely, and not just nepa, but also looking at the underlying resource protection laws that are in place. many of those have not been modernized or looked at in over 40 or 50 years. we're not saying that they need to be eliminated, just modernized. rep. westerman: streamlined, made to work quickly. anybody else want to weigh in on that quickly? you've got a whole 7 seconds. i'll yield that back to you, mr. chairman. chair rouzer: thank you, mr. nadler. you're recognized. rep. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank our witnesses for coming here. i am eager to begin reauthorizing our nation's surface transportation programs, particularly those under the federal highway administration's jurisdiction. however, i must first address the deeply troubling issue of president trump's hastily and poorly drafted executive order titled "unleashing american energy" that at least temporarily triggered an entirely avoidable crisis. in the misguided attempt to pause funding for electric vehicle charging stations and similar programs, the order inexplicably froze a substantial

portion of critical bipartisan infrastructure law funding, including fhwa resources. this egregious misstep forced the agency to shut down systems states depend on to process highway project agreements and reimbursements, effectively halting access to $383 billion in highway trust fund contract authority and endangering infrastructure projects nationwide. the administration sent out a memorandum late yesterday to attempt to correct this error, this committee should swiftly address the issue and ensure that the flow of essential infrastructure funding to the states continues without further delay. mr. tymon, in your testimony, you emphasized the importance of stable federal funding for state dot's. could you elaborate on the potential impacts of any funding pause on project timelines, costs, and state dot's ability to effectively leverage federal funds? mr. tymon: well, thank you for that question. i do believe that yesterday the pause that occurred was more of a miscommunication than what the

intent of the administration was, and we did work with folks at usdot and omb to make sure that that was quickly corrected. so our hope is that there is no hangover effect associated with that short-term pause. rep. nadler: do you think that that correction completely solves the problem that was caused? mr. tymon: i -- my hope is that it that it did, but before close of business yesterday, we did have assurances from usdot that the flow of federal dollars to states for the vast majority of the programs authorized under iaja would continue as normal. so i don't believe there is -- there was much of an impact, if any, to reimbursements for states. rep. nadler: thank you. mr. colvin, your testimony highlighted a notable increase in transit ridership through the third quarter of 2024, with cities like milwaukee and madison experiencing impressive growth. you also emphasized the critical

role public transportation plays in driving economic prosperity and the importance of stable federal funding for sustaining transit operations. what specific actions can congress take to ensure stable funding and mitigate the impact of political uncertainty on the implementation of vital transit projects? mr. colvin: welcome i think -- i think -- i think guaranteeing as much of the funding as we can has been a big change that, you know -- predictable funding is important, as important in public transit as it is in highway construction. i think there were other things that we did in this bill that i think have been really important in driving the return to transit post-covid. you know, i think public safety has been a big sort of driver in terms of turning people away from transit, and i think the work that we've done to bring workers into the fold of safety planning and transit agencies, i think that's starting to pay off.

i think people are seeing that it is safer, and it's 100% because we brought the voice of workers into that planning process. so i think, you know, it does go beyond just money, but, you know, certainly i think, you know, we have treated transit as sort of like a less-than in this country for many years, and i think in many ways that's just because they see -- some people see it as an urban issue and not sort of something that's enjoyed universally. i think something that everyone should be looking at is the success of rural transit post-covid recovery. the rural transit, i think, has had the biggest, quickest bounceback. beyond stable funding, it is, -- investment in making sure that these are predictable services that we are growing service that people can count on it that it is all making a difference.

rep. nadler: thank you, mr. colvin. your testimony underscored the impressive addition of 10,000 new transit workers over the past year, a remarkable recovery from the challenges faced during the height of the covid-19 pandemic. how can congressnhce and expand training programs in the upcoming reauthorization to equip transit workers with the skills necessary to operate and maintain advancing transit technologies safely? mr. colvin: well, we simply need more investment in training. i think traditionally transit has been well below in terms of total payroll invested into training, well below averages in any other industry. i think we're starting to see a change in that now, but what we did make significant investments in workforce training for new technologies, electrification, there's not sort of an across-the-board national strategy when it comes to investing in our transit workforce, and i think that needs to change.

rep. nadler: thank you, mr. colvin. i yield back. chair rouzer: mr. stauber. rep. stauber: thank you very much, mr. chair. i do want to speak to the comments of my good friend larsen made earlier. the american people rejected the policies of the last administration in november. it is absolutely the trump administration's prerogative to review the policies and programs of the last administration to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and responsibly. projects like roads, bridges, and airports will certainly align with these principles. but when we talk about $7.4 billion of american taxpayer money going to build charging stations with the buy american provisions removed, and 11 have been built in the last three years, that's what this administration will be reviewing. we do need to stop wasting money