Hearing

Witness List:

• Mr. Tim Duit, President, Duit Construction Co., Inc.; on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) | Witness Testimony
• Mr. Philip K. Bell, CAE, President, Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) | Witness Testimony
• Mr. William “Lewie” Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) | Witness Testimony
• Ms. Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America (T4A) | Witness Testimony

Opening remarks, as prepared, of Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-AR) from hearing, entitled “Examining the Department of Transportation’s Regulatory and Administrative Agenda”:

We are here today to examine the Department of Transportation’s regulatory and administrative agenda with respect to the modal administrations under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

Since President Biden took office, we’ve heard frequently from stakeholders spanning all regions and industries about the burden of this administration’s onerous regulatory agenda. An analysis by the National Association of Manufacturers found that across the board, federal regulations cost the United States economy more than $3 trillion. Yet, the Administration continues to march forward with crushing regulations, including those that exceed its statutory authority.

The Federal Highway Administration continues to pursue its final rule to force a greenhouse gas performance measure on state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations, despite lacking the statutory authority to do so. As I have said many times in this subcommittee, this policy was considered and disposed of during negotiations of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Two federal courts issued opinions earlier this year finding the rule exceeds the Administration’s statutory authority. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas went so far as to vacate the rule. Concerns have been repeatedly raised in this subcommittee about the Administration’s unauthorized actions, including concerns that this rule would put the thumb on the scale and potentially influence project selection.

This rule would be particularly disastrous for rural areas, whose communities can’t build a subway or bike lanes to cut emissions. Yet the Administration is squandering valuable resources to appeal both rulings.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the only example we’ve seen of the Department using executive action to advance the progressive agenda it wishes had been included in IIJA. For example, in December 2021, the Federal Highway Administration released a policy memo, which, among other things, sought to encourage states to prioritize “non-motorized modes and transit,” as well as update existing infrastructure over developing new capacity projects. Many called on Federal Highways to rescind that memo, specifically citing confusion as the memo ran counter to IIJA, as well as concerns with the Administration’s process and lack of public notice or comment period.

Thankfully, after several Members of this committee raised our significant concerns, Federal Highways did the right thing and superseded its own memo. Going forward, we must retain the ability of individual states to prioritize projects and address their wide-ranging and unique needs. 

Similarly troubling, we’ve heard concerns from businesses that they’re being hamstrung by ambiguity and a lack of clarity surrounding regulations.

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act provided $4.5 billion for the Biden Administration’s Buy Clean Initiative to allow the General Services Administration and Federal Highways to pilot low-embodied carbon programs. There has been confusion about the material requirement differences between GSA and Federal Highways, as well as a lack of transparency for the Environmental Product Declaration, or EPD, collection. I remain concerned that the Biden Administration is pushing the market without considering the actual lifecycle of the materials in construction projects.

Likewise, rules and regulations continue to be considered that mandate certain technologies that may not be ready for mass adoption, particularly as it relates to the trucking sector. This can stifle the safe and efficient movement of freight, have safety implications on other roadway users, and may needlessly increase costs for consumers.

I appreciate our witnesses being here to discuss their thoughts on the Administration’s regulatory agenda and look forward to hearing their perspectives.