>> again, it's something that really can be talked about by the state but implemented by either the state or local jurisdictions. old workers are the point of contact for most voters -- poll workers. so having well-trained poll workers ask is extremely important to the smooth functioning of the system and just the way voters feel about voting. it comes down to training. and whether that is a top priority or not with local administrators to be able to recruit poll workers. wannabe laments we heard from election officials was a difficult it is to recruit poll workers to find enough, ma to be in the polling places. so we have some suggestions about using college students and even high school students. apparently high school students are more reliable and showing up then college students. go figure. and to encourage businesses to

allow their employees to be able to help out as poll workers on election day and then to have sufficient training. >> your report also talked about importance of access the information in languages other than english, including outlets in other languages, outreach to non-english media outlets, bilingual poll workers. i know we've made some effort in minnesota with voters with asian and pacific islander groups, and why our efforts so important? >> want to stress, that the broader theme that the commission struck, and i think it's well within its charge, is improving the voter experience for language minority voters to go to the polls and to find that there's nobody there to help them who can speak the language successfully. it is simply not consistent with our been the kind of experience to all of our voters, that all

of our voters deserve. and as we pointed out, there is support by federal law, this congress has tendered to these voters and the statutes that provide for this protection are not drawn universally consistent compliance. so in a variety of ways both in the localities recruiting systematic recruiting poll workers with language capability, and then on the next scale come next point of this care, devoting their efforts to comply with the voting rights act protecting land which minority. it's critical to reflect respect fofor the voter. >> want to do things you also talked about in here is people serving overseas in our military and how having online registration materials would be so helpful to them. i think that it makes a lot of sense. do you want to explain that? >> we found inconsistencies among the states in the sort of usefulness of the websites for

people serving in the military, especially people serving in the military overseas or living overseas. and so there are some states that seem to have more robust sites than others. websites is kind of the easiest way to communicate if you are overseas or in the military, much more so than postal service or even a direct delivery system. and so we would encourage at least the provision of registration materials on state websites to be enhanced in states. >> okay. thank you very much. >> i want to follow up again on the question of certification because you both identified there is a kind of coming at his wave of replacement of machines with new technology, and yet if the certification system is broken, that could be a real problem, for, six to 10 years. is the problem the structure and

the lack of functionality of the eac, or is it the idea of federal certification itself? i see those two separate issues. in other words, if the eac tomorrow became fully functional, with this open the process and what we take care of this in an expeditious manner, or should we seriously consider saying hey, this is a state and local responsibility, why do we need federal certification? mr. ginsberg, your thoughts. >> it's an area where federal certification process makes sense in which the states in some ways desire it. there certainly needs to be a central body to be able to judge machines and to give the states some comfort in the quality of machines. >> like ul, underwriters laboratories for appliances. >> perhaps something like that. again, the state election directors forming a group was

the model before the eac. i would agree that the eac and its functionality is a complete -- completely separate question wrapped up in a lot of other different regulations. >> but it's a question that's important because if it doesn't get fixed, and we don't get the certification, right? >> correct. so it should be fixed. personally, i'm partial to the state election directors solution for it. i think that could happen much more expeditiously with kind of a greater need. they would be a federal rule in terms of the expertise, in terms of the expertise that would need to be brought to it. but that's not necessarily through the current certification process. >> mr. bauer, your thoughts on my question. >> i think you posed the question exactly correct and i think it is possible to confuse the issues. i believe we would not have arrived at this conclusion i

don't think and made his recommendation if the eac in this particular area hadn't been in somewhat of a state of paralysis. and so if the question is has this never develop in the eac was fully functioning, could it discharge shall successfully come and the answer in my judgment issues. we have to take into account the reality that that may not prove to be decades and we can't wait for a solution that may not be available to us in the political or public policy or political sphere and so on alternatives have to be developed on a fairly urgent basis. >> would it take legislation for those alternatives? right now, the certification is just behind the dam, right? it can't happen. what do we do? this is a problem that's going to come at us in the next two to four years. >> i think that's where, and my co-chair will correct me if i'm wrong, but that is part of the discussion that i think needs to take place right now, which is what steps should be taken and

how could they be taken to fully develop those alternatives. we indicated only in broad brush strokes what the alternatives might be but we didn't grapple with the details in this report. >> mr. ginsberg suggested he thought an alternative where the state directors created a certifying agency would be an acceptable alternative. would that be acceptable to you? does this have to be a federal responsibility? >> i would consider all the alternatives. that i would want any position that we take, one of the concerns we've always had taken the sort of a damning sort of conclusion about the d.c. and its future. that's not our intention. certainly not my intention. any alternate that promises to be -- is one i would consider. >> my question is, even assuming the eac is perfectly functional, does this need to be a federal responsibility, i guess it's a question i'm asking? >> i don't know i would define as a federal responsibility by

necessity but i'm not prepared to say that there is an alternative, i'm not prepared at this point because i'm not sure i stood close enough a reached a conclusion in my own mind which of the alternatives, the one ben suggested, potential to another with more federal involvement might be the most effective. all in my mind what we need is focused on what will be most effective and on that i don't have the conclusion. >> we have to do something. the alarm bells are ringing. >> yes. >> if i might, cindy. the way the systems work is that different states have different standards. almost inevitably they say the machines that are used in their state need to have been certified by, right now, the existing structure. it's not that there's federal legislation or a federal role that particularly blesses a particular machine when it gets done. we are still state legislation that refers back to a central testing facility for the machines to be sure that they are worthy of use.

that can't or cannot be a federal function, that group that is judging the quality of the machines. >> or if i may, senator, it may be a function that is not federally supported. >> thank you both for your thoughts on this. and together additional thoughts on this important issue, please file them with the committee. i appreciate. any other questions? on half of the committee i would like to thank the both of you, mr. bauer, mr. ginsberg for your important testimony, and particularly for your work on this commission. it is important. it's important the people of america, import your process and who we are as a country. i really appreciate the work that you've done on this and thank you very much. and this will conclude today's hearing. [inaudible conversations] >> without objection the hearing record will remain open for five days for additional statements and questions. thank you, senator klobuchar,

and we don't have a quorum now so we can't proceed to a vote on the two nominations but we will recess subject to the call of the chair take up the matter and i think you'll be off the floor during the vote today. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> the senate yesterday wrapped up work and they're out for next weeks presidents' day recess.

before heading out chamber of put some new committee assignments. resignation last week of finance committee chairman max bachus is taking over as u.s. ambassador to china caused a bit of a shakeup in leadership with sender ron wyden replacing them on finance. louisiana senator mary landrieu will take over the gavel on the energy committee and senators maria cantwell of washington and jon tester of montana leading up the small business and indian affairs committees. join us tonight at eight eastern for remarks from supreme court justices ruth the ginsburg and elena kagan. they talked recently about the court and women's rights that election -- a lecture series hosted by the new york city bar association. here's a look. >> so in my three and a half years on the court, serving with justice ginsburg, i've come to admire her really more and more each day. as a judge, college and a

friend. you know, they say that life on the court can be a little cloistered, and i didn't realize until recently that the folks on the outside justice ginsburg is much more than that. too many of them, she is a hip-hop icon. [laughter] i'm going to disappear from my first crop. the notorious rbg. [laughter] [applause] >> they sell these, truly. she is the subject of an opera, a comic book, a tumbler and a blog called trans one blog. i'm going to disappear now for my second prop. she is a bobble head.

[laughter] >> watch all of that event with two supreme court justices tonight at eight eastern over on c-span. >> on the next "washington journal," the appeal of patient privacy rights discuss the privacy laws and the future of employed benefits. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets in "washington journal" is live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> saturday booktv is live in georgia for the savanna book festival. coverage starts at 9 a.m. eastern.

the savanna book festival part of a three-day presidents' day weekend live saturday on booktv. and march 2, the civil rights movement and the obama era. historian peniel joseph we'll take calls, e-mails and tweets on booktv on c-span2. and online at booktv's book club, bonnie morris, read a woman's history for beginners and join the conversation, go to booktv.org and click on book club to enter the chat room. >> the context here is that leave enjoys a reputation in a modern-day of someone who counseled acceptance and submission and resignation to the situation. and that has always struck me as, it's a sort of series that doesn't add up in essence, that

we no believe was most prestigious man in the south and we're told he cannot sufficiently know him at the south didn't sympathetic to the political will of the north, the southerners, ex-confederates began very quickly to contest the northern understanding of the meaning of war and peace in northern plans for reconstruction through political means and extralegal means. and violent means. what i found is that in the eyes of confederates, lee was not a leader of submission. he was a symbol of unbowed pride and a kind of measured defiance to rethink and grant and lee at appomattox, saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday morning at 11, part of a three-day presidents' day weekend on c-span3's american history tv. >> the highway trust fund which goes into paying for major transportation projects and is funded through the federal gas tax is expected to run out of money later this year.

chamber of commerce president thomas donohue and head of the afl-cio richard trumka were among those who testified about the program's solvency at a senate hearing yesterday. it's one hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. so happy to see you all fear. this is such an important issue that we are discussing today. we are focusing on maintaining federal funding for transportation. maintaining federal funding. that's what's at stake here for transportation. ensuring the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund and averting a major crisis later this year. we will hear from our witnesses who are national leaders, representing businesses, states and workers. the bills maintain and utilize our transportation system. i'm so pleased to once again welcome tom donohue from the u.s. chamber and richard trumka

from the afl-cio. i always feel when they are together we have a winning issue. they are joined by the honorable mike hancock, secretary of the kentucky transportation cabinet and current president of aashto. president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. i want to say to all who are here that there will be devastating impacts across our economy of the highway trust fund is allowed to run out of funds later this year. we must not let that happen. here are the sobering facts. cbo and dod estimate that the highway trust fund may run out of funds as early as septembe september 2014, which would create cash flow problems for states during the critical summer construction season.

due to the uncertainty leading up to that bleak scenario, states already beginning to develop contingency plans to prepare for reductions in federal transportation funding which includes cutting pending projects from the current funding plans. this is terrible. for businesses, for workers and for our nation. according to georges department of transportation, the federal funding is cut quote we wouldn't be able to fund any new projects. officials from other states have made similar statements and the effects are very negative to say the least. as states postponed, putting construction contracts out to bid, businesses will be more reluctant to invest, and that impact will be felt throughout the entire economy. let me be clear. depending highway trust fund shortfall must be addressed by an infusion of funds, otherwise cbo estimates and obligations for new projects in 2015 would need to be reduced to zero.

zero. this would result in federal highway, highway safety and transit funding being cut by $50.8 billion in 2015, with almost 1.8 million jobs lost. only old projects could be funded. no more new projects. again, this means that states will be unable to obligate any federal funds for any project, perhaps as early as this summer. it's critical for our nation to continue investing in our aging infrastructure. therefore, providing -- preserving the trust fund needs to be our number one priority for this committee and other committees and in the senate and in the house. we must work together to find a sweet spot for the dependable bipartisan support source of money for the highway trust fund. a strong transportation system is vital to ensuring the economic competitiveness of the united states of america and

this requires maintaining federal investments in our transportation infrastructure. a report lash of the national association of manufacturers, so happy they're with us today, found that 70% of u.s. manufacturers believe america's roads are getting worse, and 67% believe that infrastructure is important enough to american businesses that all options to fund investments should be on the table. roads and bridges are not democratic. they are not republican, and i'm so proud of the bipartisan support on our committee from my ranking member, senator vitter, to every member on this committee. i've met with almost every one of them. and it is our intention to report out the bill, and i'm hoping for a five or six-year bill. i have begun discussion with chairman wyden and ranking member hatch on funding the highway trust fund. they know they have that responsibility, and i know we will all work with them.

to all of our witnesses, thank you for being here, for your advocacy for strong transportation system. we need you now more than ever. you've been with us in these battles before, and we have won those battles because of our unity. and so whatever our differences may be another areas, and we know we have them, we don't have them here, and in partners is critical to our success. with that i would turn to my ranking member, senator vitter. >> thank you, madam chair, thanks to all of our witnesses to ethics for today's hearing, madam chairman. it's very appropriate that as we hopefully are finalizing afterward a conference our first big piece of infrastructure work on this committee and we're very hopeful about that, we increasing return our attention to our next big infrastructure work, which is the next highway bill. and we are both excited to do that under both actively doing

that. thanks to our witnesses. you represent a diverse group of interest. but collectively you represent a strong and a common voice on this issue. infrastructure is a vertical component of our nation's economy and our quality of life. firstclass infrastructure is fundamental to connect people and communities and it's a critical building block for our economy. in 2011 alone he was transportation system moved 17 points 6 billion tons of goods, valued at almost $17 trillion. however, as the chair suggested just last week, cbot met with their outdated projection for the highway trust fund, and that trust fund accelerated towards bankruptcy fast than anticipated. action must be taken before the end of the fiscal year to avoid with the chair described a

nearly 100% drop in new federal funds in fy '15. the economic impact of such a drop would resonate far beyond the lack of direct investment into our infrastructure. inaction would drastically disrupt the project delivery supply chain, the efficiency and cost of movement of our goods, and our overall competitiveness. the highway trust fund was intended to not only facilitate the unique characteristics of funding transportation infrastructure, but also to provide funding safeguards for the highest party, projects. putting such a structure on a sound fiscal footing will restore the stability and certainty of the trust fund that's so vital to economic growth. i have to say, some believe that for some reason it's a core conservative principle to adhere strictly to our current flawed

mechanism in perpetuity. and that's all there should ever be to meet our infrastructure demands. i don't understand that at all and will be advocating for solutions that go beyond that. what i do understand is concerns about a net tax increase for cash-strapped middle-class families. and i will be seeking a solution that fully addresses our highway trust fund needs while not imposing such a net tax increase. when the trust fund structure was first established, it was designed to build an interstate highway system and it was structured based on a simple principle that first you map out and find a detailed plan. you come up with the cost to complete a plan and then you build a user base financing structure to complete that task. such thinking not only produced the certainty of a 13 year authorization bill, but it also

established good government accountability and trust from system users. however that type of thinking is almost unrecognizable in our transportation funding structure today. the actions of the last six years represent a significant departure from the intent of the highway trust fund and have prolonged economic uncertainty, not only in the direct investment of our infrastructure but also the type of long-term investment that draws economic development at home and makes us more competitive abroad. if we are going to be successful in restoring that type of structure, we fundamentally have to put trust back in the highway trust fund. to me this means we can't keep adding programs and eligibility to the trust fund that are narrowly focused, that don't build or maintain infrastructure, or do very little to benefit those who pay into the system.

it means that trust fund needs to be even more transparent than before to build, rebuild that trust. we need to be able to show where taxpayer dollars are going and where future investments may or may not be utilized on a project by project level. and, finally, we must rebuild that trust by continuing to reduce the cost burden and impact of red tape and bureaucracy. the chair and i are hard at work putting significant reform ideas together in a new bill that can be dealt -- they can rebuild that process and can start the process and get the finance committee moving as a full partner on the finance peace. and so we hope to be moving j. base bill through the committee to encourage the finance committee to take it up and address the finance peace as a full partner. so i very much look forward to your testimony here very much look forward to that work,

rebuilding trust in the trust fund so that we can fully finance our clear infrastructure needs. thank you. >> senator, thank you. editing this gives a signal that we are very much of one mind as to how to proceed, which is very important. here's the situation. we have several votes at 11:30, so i'm going to ask members to keep the remarks down to about four minutes if you can. your opening remarks, and we will turn to senator merkley. >> thank you, madam chair. this is a very important project that we pursue renewal of map-21. i know oregon's department transportation is very nervous about the shortfall of the highway trust fund. if our states have to delay projects that's of course will result in much higher costs and it also results in a direct impact on jobs within the state. we anticipate that we would have a challenge when we would lose about 5000 jobs in oregon if we

don't succeed in this effort during 2015. so i am very aware that america is spending only 2% of its gdp on infrastructure. europe is spending 5%. china is spending 10%. the experience of going to beijing 10 years apart and we saw beijing go from bicycles to the bullet train in that time period. our 2% can't even repair the aging infrastructure we have from world war ii. we have to do more. let's get it done. it's terrific to have the chair and ranking member working together to help take this project forward. its extent important to our economy and infrastructure that will fuel our future economy. ..

infrastructure is a combined federal and state responsibility. we need to do better because the nation deserves better as senator merkley said. we need to pass a reauthorization that last longer than two years. earlier this congress is committee held -- held a hearing on the limitation of the provision of map-21. most of these provisions have yet to be enacted. the state department of transportation needs the certainty of a long-term reauthorization to plan and maintain spending. that said we still proceed with caution. we need to continue to let the states be the laboratories for the best practices. more than 30 states are considering or have considered increasing revenues for

transportation infrastructure. over a dozen of these states have committed and passed these increases into law. we should allow and encourage these experiments to continue and let the states be the proving ground for some of the more radical or innovative proposals that have been brought forward. what may work in one state may not work for all states. we need to examine the root causes of our current situation. over the last two decades the buying power of gas tax revenues has slowly declined. not only as a result of increasing maintenance and construction costs but also as a result of increased fuel efficiency. we need to ensure that all users shoulder and equitable burden for the wear and tear on her nations roads. finally madam chairwoman you to save her the integrity of the gas tax as a user fee. we have an obligation to the users, an obligation to ensure

the revenues are going to their intended purpose in maintaining our nation's roads and highways. thank you. >> thank you so much sir and now we will turn to senator whitehouse. >> thank you chairman for calling this hearing and it has not been that long since we were able to pass map-21 in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. we did that because we recognize the value of investing in our transportation infrastructure. projects that put americans to work and ensure that our goods and services can get it -- only to market. that bipartisan view is reflected in today's hearing which brings together groups which don't agree on many things but we do know that building roads and bridges can create jobs across the country and help our economy move forward. that is nowhere more important than in my home state of rhode island which still suffers an unemployment rate of 9.1%.

we have no shortage of transportation projects that could put rhode islanders to work. i-95 corridor runs through our capital city and the viaduct they are built in 1964 is showing its age. it's deck has badly deteriorated in the steel girders are cracked. wood planks have been installed to prevent concrete from falling off of the viaduct into cars crossing below and similarly for the amtrak trains that go underneath it. happily with the help of a tiger grants and other federal funds that project is broke and brought -- ground and a replacement bridge on one way or the highway is under construction. but there is a lot more work to do on the northbound lane on route 6 en route 10 converging with highway 95 there in that central location providence is just one example of how federal transportation programs are necessary and can help good people to work.

less than two years ago we put map-21 into place with important reforms but the thing we were not able to get done was to solve the problem of the diminishing and soon to be trust fund. so it is headed for zero and when it gets to zero that is going to be a real disaster for transportation and infrastructure. so i am particularly interested in hearing from areas where witnesses might find common agreement as to how we can address the central issue for the next reauthorization bill. i don't think just raising the gas tax is going to help this mileage increases and electric cars emerge and hybrid cars also cut into the value of the gas tax for highway infrastructure source. i think the chairman and i think the ranking member and i appreciate the panel being here

together even in some unusual pairings. >> senator thank you and in my opening statement talked about how we had talks with senators wyden and hatch because it is their purview to fund this and they are very, i think they are excited with the challenge not that it will be easy. nothing is easy. senator inhofe. >> thank you madam chairman. i do have a long and brilliant opening statement to give but i will listen to you and say that for the record and just make a couple of comments. there is one paragraph in here that i do want to actually read. we have four choices moving forward one based on cbo estimates. if we don't find any new revenue in the trust fund we will be a a -- see a 90% cut in less than eight months. some data has that figured at 100%. second we simply, something

we'll talk about later on, third raise revenue and forth in the absence of answering the first three map-21 relying on a series of short-term extensions. this is something i want to avoid and i have to say confession is good for the soul. our problem and it seems like every year and i'm involved in these every year since i was on the dni committee in the house many years ago. it is not so much with the democrats but with the republicans. there is this passion for some republicans to get conservative ratings and somehow when spending comes along they use that as an example. that is the bad news. the good news is over on the house side and i was privileged to go over. you guys need to understand this. you are denuded this. i got all 33 of the house republicans from the dni committee in one room. this was right after we passed

the senate -- and i said i know a lot of you guys are conservatives so i gave them my pitch as to the literal vote would you to vote for extensions. extensions that we had, nine extensions between the last to two cost about 30% off the top rate that is not something that conservatives should be doing. i'm not saying it was my influence there but all 33 of them voted in favor of enthusiastically supporting it so i think we are making some headway there. again i look at, i look at the trust fund and you can't tell me that maintaining unused stake in federal properties in $25 billion a year is more important than reauthorizing the highway bill. there are a lot of things that come out of the general fund and i think we will have to look at that. we may have to end up doing that anyway like we did last time but if you read the constitution article i section 8 is says the

main thing we are supposed to be doing here is defense and infrastructure so my case rests. we will go after it. >> you make a very good case. i want to point out an edition you're talking to the tea party members over there i had tea or coffee with quite a few of them and i enjoyed it actually end we did get tremendous support. remember senator wyden and hatch are going to decide how this is paid for. senator gillibrand. >> i can't tell you how grateful i am that you have pulled together this distinguished panel of witnesses to discuss the importance of investing in our nation's infrastructure. and our transportation systems. this is an issue obviously that unites both labor and business because the united states cannot maintain our competitive global edge without -- it is as simple as that but

reauthorizing map-21 in new funding to shore up a trust on the run the risk of doing damage to our economy if congress fails to act. there will be serious consequences for each of our states are businesses both large and small as well as for working families who depend on our transportation networks just to get to school to get to work to get home safely and reliably. we all know that the highway trust fund is projected to become insolvent at the end of summer. the effect would have severe impacts of my state of new york. new york has 628 federal aid highway project scheduled to begin in 2015 which requires approximately $2 billion with the funding. 40% of these projects are bridges that are in need of construction or repair. without the new funding from the highway trust fund to start these projects next year in new york city in new york city would have to begin restricting the use of roads and bridges that are no longer safe or can no longer handle the capacity for

which they were originally designed. this would result in detours, delays, problems with getting things that need to be brought into our commerce. it means more time and money lost for businesses and families who are struggling to make it in this tough economy. new york state obviously is by no means alone. this will hurt every single one of our states and transportation system so we really can't afford the delays by congress. we have really have to make sure that congress acts now. we risk falling behind other countries that are making these investments sending businesses jobs overseas instead of ringing them here and keeping them here where they belong. the long-term consequences of inaction in my view are extremely costly. thank you madam chairwoman for holding the hearing and i look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. >> thank you senator and now we turn to senator fisher. >> thank you madam chairman and ranking member if it are for holding this hearing and thank

you to to our panelists who came today as well. there's no doubt that our roads and bridges are essential to the economic health of our nation. in the ask our agricultural industries especially reliant on efficient transportation system to move goods from arm to market investment in infrastructure is the key to expanding and strengthening commerce and promoting opportunity for this business growth. with the highway trust fund again on the brink of insolvency it is clear that it is time for congress to put infrastructure investment back on a sustainable course. i believe that a limited government should focus its resources on meeting its core duties. infrastructure including the highway maintenance and construction, is one of those important responsibilities. as we work on the next highway reauthorization bill i am hopeful that this committee will continue to work toward policy reforms that will ensure that the federal dollars we are

investing are devoted to task for the truly add value to the projects and are not wasted on piling up paperwork that only serves to fulfill bureaucratic requirements. while map-21 made needed improvements they're still much more work to be done. i look forward to the hearing today and again thank you and thank you madam chair. >> thank you senator fisher. senator cardin. >> we have a very distinguished panel before a senate size of pleasure remember the last time we had mr. donohue and mr. trumka together it was on a similar bill so it's nice to see the entire panel together with labor and business recognizing the importance of the long-term surface transportation reauthorization. i want to stress that madam chair. i think it's critically important that we do a long-term surface transportation reauthorization to give

predictability to our transportation program in this country. you can't plan transportation needs on a one-year or two-year basis. you have to have at least a five or six your reauthorization bill in order to do the types of modernized transportation that we have in this country. as many members of this committee have already pointed out and as members of the panel has pointed out this is about jobs and will create jobs for our economy. not only direct jobs related to construction and transportation needs but also jobs in the way in which we can attract the type of economic activities in our community that modern transportation provides. it's also important for livability. it took me two hours coming from baltimore and that's not unusual. the traffic around baltimore and washington every car we can get off the road and transit believe me helps everyone. not just the person who has a

much nicer experience in being able to get to work but also allowing the commerce of our highways to be moving more efficiently with less cars on the road. all of that is critically important. i can put a plug-in right now madam chair. we have made the four major transit problems -- transportation projects going and obviously without long-term authorization is hard to see those move forward. they are critically important to our national economy to the federal government but also critically important for all of their communities. it's also a matter of our environment and we have heard that many times before. in modernizing our transportation system we provide a much more efficient way to deal with our energy needs and our environment. why are we doing this? we have got to make the tough decisions. the tough decision has to be

made in conjunction with our colleagues on the senate finance committee and all the members i have to say on both committees but we need to have the revenues necessary to support a long-term surface transportation reauthorization. we have to recognize the realities of the current revenue flow into the transportation trust fund is inadequate because it's based upon the gasoline task in the -- gasoline task and the gasoline tax with regard to the use of gasoline alternative ways so we need to look at ways we can have an adequate source. i would hope we would be open to things such as using carbon fees or other ways to get the revenues necessary. i know transportation is a bipartisan issue and senator inhofe has been one of the great leaders moving forward on infrastructure. senator vitter also strongly

supports this so let's try to find a way to get the revenues that are adequate so we can have transportation reauthorization that is befitting the record of this committee and befitting our country. >> senator thank you and you raise a good point. a few of our vendors to sit on finance which will be helpful working with senators wyden and hatch who both have expressed interest in working with all of us. now we are going to turn to senator sessions and i want to remind of you and we have four vote at 11:30. >> madam chair thank you for the hearing. it is important. infrastructure situation is facing a financial challenge in the future and we are all worried about it and i believe it represents a valid and legitimate experience with federal dollars. a lot of things we do around here are not valid and legitimate but certain

infrastructure projects are. we have the director of office of management and budget testified before the committee yesterday. just for example today he testified that last year interest on the debt that we pay out of our revenue that comes and was about $230 billion. he projected last year at the end of 10 years that would rise to $830 billion. this year he says 10 years from today the annual interest payment would be $890 billion in 2024. this is a stunning diversion of money from unproductive use or from productive use to unproductive -- unproductive use and the result and a big part of the problem is these deficits we have been running up in the last few years we have almost doubled the deficit in the next few years we

will have doubled the deficit since 2007. i know everybody wants to spend money and i know you all have projects you want to spend on but mr. elmendorf told us that we are on an unsustainable path. you will hear that the deficits are going down and they will go down for the next two years but after that they start on an uncontrolled steady increase every year and the deficit in the tenth year will the a trillion dollars. so we are and a real difficult place. i would just say to you everybody calms of course with their projects that they want to spend money on. i would say to you those who believe in highway and infrastructure should never forget how you were taken to the cleaners in the stimulus bill. we spend $840 billion on the stimulus bill. only 40 of that winter roads and

bridges. it went into every kind of social program and mr. elmendorf told us when it passed that you will see an increase in gdp in the short-run but over 10 years carrying another trillion dollars in debt will actually reduce gdp over 10 years. so i would just say to you colleagues and to the witnesses today we have got a big challenge before us. if we don't watch it we can put us in a position where we have another financial crisis and mr. elmendorf warned us that could happen. we are in danger here. our debt situation is in the red zone and so madam chair the bill we passed last year i think we stayed within reasonable limits in the budget read i know you try to do that and senator vitter worked hard on that and senator inhofe and we were able to maintain a level of funding at the minimal level so i would

just say that's going to be an even bigger challenge this year. i look forward to working with you. >> senator, same here and you know i have to be here when we did allen's the budget and i think we can do it again if we are smart about it but the important thing about highways as we have that self-sustaining trust fund which is so critical. i have always supported that so that is operational and the spending we take in. we have to be smart about that, i agree with you. it is my pleasure now to call on the ranking member of the subcommittee that has worked so hard on the senator barrasso. >> thank you madam chairman and breaking member vitter for holding the hearing. i appreciate you sharing your commitment to ensure the highway bill program continues. i want to thank our panel who came to testify. when we can get labor and

finance at the same table that sends a strong message to both parties that this program must continue. the highway reauthorization is truly a jobs bill. we need more red white and blue jobs in states like wyoming california louisiana and across the country. i think setting up roadblocks on construction projects with excessive red tape doesn't create needed jobs are in america. a state department of transportation contractors the highway program is already complicated enough trade we need a program that cuts down on burdensome paperwork and puts people back to work. the highway trust fund needs a solution that is reliable and responsible. the question before us is how do we accomplish this in a fiscally responsible manner. in order to meet the highway systems national needs rood states must have flexibility to use federal dollars that served in the national interest. we need to protect the taxpayer can ensure a state continue to execute the transportation plans. wyoming like many of our rood

states is a bridge state a bridge stayed in it's critical we maintain our niche new shins bridge states that move the flow of commerce across america. madam chairman i hope this committee will hold more hearings on the implementation of map-21 and is the ranking member of the transportation and infrastructure subcommittee i look forward to bringing burr respected as we write the next reauthorization bill. thank you madam chairwoman and ranking member vitter. >> thank you for your leadership as well. now is your time so let's just get right to it. we are very pleased with this panel and the call on tom donohue to begin from the chamber of commerce. >> thank you very much chairman boxer and ranking member vitter. as many of you said this morning reauthorization of map-21 promises to be difficult fight but it doesn't have to be.

in fact there is a broad consensus on a number of fundamental principles. we all agreed that our infrastructure system is a critical national asset that drives growth, job safety mobility trade and enhance global competitiveness. we all agree we are running out of money to fund the system. we all agree the federal government must take a leading role in making sure our infrastructure system contributes to a strong economy. we all agree we need a predictable stable and growing source of revenue for today, and immediate funding solution for tomorrow and in the long term we need an expanded and new system. when you look at the big picture the simplest and most straightforward and most effective way to generate enough revenue is by increasing federal

gasoline and diesel taxes. remember it's 19 years or 20 years since we increased the federal diesel tax. the gas tax and this is what i was going to say, has not been increased since 1993. cars are more fuel-efficient and trucks are much more fuel-efficient. i know something about that you remember. people are driving less and inflation is eating into purchasing power and as a result the highway trust fund is simply going bankrupt. we are already borrowing billions of dollars from the general fund. next year will be a 13 billion-dollar cash shortfall in by 2020 it could be as much as 100 ilion dollars and even here that's a lot of money. a modern increase in the gas tax phased in over time would provide the necessary funding to serve the important user pays principle and provide needed

stability. how do we do that? first let's start by having some courage and showing some leadership. for once let's do what's right, not what his expedient. second, let's educate the public and your fellow lawmakers. polls show opposition to gas tax increases are significantly overblown. a san jose university researcher you'd recently found 50% of 8% of the public would support a gas tax increase if they knew where it was going and how it was going to be spent and if it was going to be applied to building roads and bridges and transit systems. voters want to know where the money is going and that it's not going to be wasted. far too many people are unaware of the important reforms that eliminated earmarks and pork barrel spending long associated with an infrastructure funding.

let me say parenthetically occasionally it helped get a vote but with that not here we are going to have to have some really good arguments. let's also be clear, i often thought after the committee decides what all of the issues they are going to fund then the members ought to be able to pick one out in order to go home. but let's get into that another day. let us also be clear about the consequences of decreasing these investments. it means higher costs for goods, more congestion and increased accidents as well as reduced mobility and reduced competitiveness. business is absolutely committed to aggressively pursuing this effort. and third let's get dizzy building political support. on this panel you have the combined support of business, labor, construction, shippers, regulators and in addition to

rockers and yesterday i had a meeting with the leaders of the american trucking associations and the leaders of the aaa. they would significantly support a modest than thoughtful increase in the gasoline tax and to the people that are here this is getting to be a rather supportive group. it's interesting to note that last year six states three with republicrepublic an governors and three with democratic governors in acted bill to increase their overall state fuel taxes. the sky didn't fall and their economies have not collapsed. both republican and democratic presidents have approved modest gas tax increases including ronald reagan so it can be done. increasingly the gas tax and the fuel tax is the right answer. it's tough but it's doable and let's keep in mind that public money is only part of this equation. we must increase private

investment as well. the private sector is prepared to pump as much as $250 billion into public-private partnerships or p3's if only certain barriers would be removed. we also must continue to aggressively root out waste in the system which members indicated is underway, much of it caused by permitting to blade blade -- delays and obstacles as well as to make sure funds are spent on genuine priorities. long-term the chamber's willing entertain different proposals for new and additional public funding mechanisms. however currently we don't see any way to support any proposal that eliminates the federal rols principle or unfairly singles out specific industries to foot the bill. very quickly a couple of quick thoughts in conclusion.

we know that won't work, scaling back or eliminated a dedicated source of federal funding means greater congestion higher transportation costs, more accidents and poorly maintained roads. if we give up on the highway trust fund and rely on the general fund we will never be able to execute long-term capital projects. we would have to cut other programs and engage in more deficit spending and we would have to debate funding every single year. i believe madam chairman that the responsibility of the states means we will lose our national system. none of these approaches the ports a growing sustainable source of funding and we need to pass a long-term authorization and the people at this table are ready to help me. thank you very much. >> we greatly appreciate that ends my honor to introduce mr. richard trumka president of the afl-cio.

>> thank you for having us appear before your committee today. three years years ago tom and i appear before this committee asking for a reauthorization of the surface transportation bill and sends them he and i have spent more time than either one of us would like to admit trying to get this done. while we are not quite ready to schedule vacations together yet we really are willing to come together and anxious to come together to get this important issue solved for the good of the country. reauthorization of the surface transportation bill has been the most important jobs legislation that congress considers and it's a very big priority for us. while the economy has improved job creation remains sluggish. the construction sector alone is

down 1.6 million jobs from prerecession levels so we not only need jobs but good jobs. it is estimated that each billion dollars of federal investment in transportation creates 35,000 well-paying jobs. the type of career and jobs that can support a family, a child's education, a secure retirement and the middle-class life. these investments not only create jobs spur economic growth and ensure our country's long-term economic growth competitiveness and improve the quality of life of our citizens. for those in congress still pushing the austerity agenda when it comes to infrastructure, let me just say this. if your house has a leaky roof not fixing it won't save you any money and like a leaky roof, delayed needed infrastructure

investments will only cost us more in the long run, not less. i recently traveled to china and i was stunned at the speed at which our largest competitor is progressing. china has been investing heavily in its infrastructure and the results are pretty dramatic. during my trip to shanghai i visited the deep water port, the world's largest and busiest container shipping port. the port like the high-speed trains that took me quickly and efficiently between china's cities is a key investment in china's efforts to upgrade its infrastructure and it helps them keep up with the country's growth of exports. to get to the port, i traveled on a six lane bridge that is 20 miles long connecting shanghai to the islands where the port is located and the ridge was completed in two and a

half years. 20 miles of a six lane bridge over the china sea to an island in two and a half years and it employed literally thousands, thousands of workers. prior to the project nothing was there but a sleepy fishing village with some islanders off in the distance. the first phase of the project opened in 2004 and it 2013 china had accomplished its goal of having the world's largest port. it might say the same thing about high-speed rail. we both agree that we would do high-speed rail a few years ago. right now the u.s. has not one single mile of high-speed rail and the chinese move more people than our entire domestic airline industry by high-speed rail right now. so america can do it. we can do it and we can do it better.

now i didn't come here today to rehash all the nations infrastructure needs. quite frankly the facts have been reported. they have been studied and they have been discussed to death. the conclusions are always the same. infrastructure investments are vital to job creation, economic growth and global competitiveness. what remains to be determined is whether the information will be acted on and what kind of country we will leave to our children and our grandchildren. the highway trust fund is at a crossroads. failure to act will mean our transportation system will decay further. construction workers will stay on the bench, supply chain and transit workers will lack steady work and our economic and global competitiveness will be diminished. now many funding ideas have been

proposed that few of them have been acted on. other proposals have limited application. that leaves the fuel tax or some variation of it as the main source of funding. raising the revenue will not be easy regardless of where it comes from. but to be blunt, we can't afford to bury our heads in the sand. a bridge that is deficient today will not ian a better tomorrow. congress must come together to enact a robust and a long-term authorization. if business and labor can come before you, united on this issue and we are united on this issue despite our sharp disagreements on a variety of other matters, i think that should tell everybody and tell them very loudly. we need to be the america that

can, not the america that can't. we are ready to help in a bipartisan way get that done because it is so absolutely essential for the well-being of our country and its economy. thank you very much and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much mr. trumka. our next speaker i want to say congratulations as the new president of the american association of state highway and transportation officials and he is also the secretary of the kentucky transportation cabinet so we are very pleased to have you mr. hancock. >> good morning chairman boxer ranking member vitter and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity on behalf of aashto in the state d.o.t. to share our views on the importance of robust federal investment in surface transportation here the potential near-term impacts of the cash shortfall the trust fund of the longer-term impacts associated with the uncertainty

and instability of the highway trust fund. i will have to say i'm very encouraged by the remarks that i have for this morning. i would like to share two points with you. first the threat to the states the construction industry and the overall economy is real and it's even closer than originally estimated. we could face serious economic disruptions as early as this summer if u.s. d.o.t. delays reimbursements to the states for active projects already underway. second unless congress acts to either increase the highway trust fund revenues or provide additional funds support the states will be unable to obligate any new federal funds in fiscal year 2015. in both cases there will be immediate and direct impacts to the states economies who have lost jobs and permanently shuttered as this is. there'll be substantial additional economic social and environmental costs associated with canceled or delayed projects. if congress does not act the

states with local and try to partner simply cannot generate sufficient funds to fill the infrastructure funding gap. the federal highway program apportions $40 billion a year to the state d.o.t. for roads and bridges however actual federal dollars are not provided upfront but rather when the work is completed in the state submits a request for reimbursement reimbursements to the states are made daily. on january 15 u.s. d.o.t. secretary fox announced the highway trust funds highway account is likely to run out of money in august. to prevent insolvency insolvency at its wa may stop reimbursing states on a daily basis and begin reimbursing them once a week, once every two weeks or even once a month. a similar slowdown in reimbursement it happened in 2000 is forcing the states to delay payments to contractors. while congress took care of the issue five years ago with the general fund transfer states are concerned with the impact in the same situation happening again as early as this summer.

if a similar scenario happens this year the contractors who many rely on palms payments from the state may be unable to pay their employees subcontractors and suppliers. for some construction businesses and suppliers who survived the recession who are still operating on the slimmest of margins this could simply be the last straw. when aashto testified for this committee last september we thought the highway trust fund would stay solvent through the end of year 2014 but it now appears that congress will have to act before the august congressional recess to ensure that the highway trust fund will have enough money to reimburse the states for past commitments. if congress considers the short-term projects it should also consider a long-term solution that keeps the highway trust fund solvent well into the future. without a long-term solution states may not deceive any additional federal highway transit funding in fiscal year

2015. new federal highway funding is not available or federal funding is not available in 2015 much-needed highway and transit projects in virtually every community and every congressional district will either be delayed or canceled outright. these are projects that underpinned economic development and improve the quality of life. cutbacks on contract will mean reduced opportunities causing a negative effect on the construction industry and employment exact the wind the ,-com,-com ma at a time when industry is beginning to rebound after one of the hardest hit segments in the recent recession. their sample of us including what you heard today that shows infrastructure investment is critical for long-term economic growth increase productivity and employment household income and overall quality of life. congress can address the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund by substantially reducing spending for surface transportation or by

boosting revenues or by some combination of the two. we and others have a long list of potential revenue options. we believe at a minimum we didn't approach that will allow us to sustain map-21's investment levels. we believe it's possible to reach his level about placing unreasonable financial burden on the traveling public. without action there will be dead this -- there will be devastating economic impacts from the virtual elimination of the federal surface transportation funding in 2015 and there will be further funding reductions in the years beyond. therefore we believe the only solution is to find a set of revenue solutions that will prevent this cash shortfall and ensure the long-term solvency from the highway trust fund. aashto looks forward to working working with you to address this critical situation we very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in the

door to your questions. >> thank you so much and now it's my pleasure to introduce dr. peter ruane president of the transportation builders association a key ally of ours as we worked through the last funding. >> thank you madam chairwoman, chairman boxer senator vitter thank you for inviting artba to participate in a searing and i thank you for your leadership on map-21 as well as the current legislation. one number alone provides ample evidence of the value of the federal surface transportation program. today tracks carry freight worth more than $11 trillion over the nation's roads every year. and more than three-quarters of that truck travel occurs on roads that comprise of federal aid system. without the federal investment of these roads that $11 trillion

in manual economic activity are at risk. we believe one of the federal program's biggest problems is that government at all levels, all levels is a poor job of telling the american public how their federal gas and diesel tax dollars are invested each year. we believe the public would be impressed and widely support this federal program if they knew the full story. i asked her economic team to find out how the public's federal gas tax dollars were put to use in 2012. a year that did not include any stimulus money. unfortunately it took the freedom of information request and computer analysis of literally millions of data points to provide the project information detailed in our written testimony. here are the highlights. and it's high time the public starts hearing about them.

in 2012 the federal program helped fund 12,546 capital improvement projects, 7000 some road, 24 and a bridge 2800 road the all focused on the system that moves most of that $11 trillion in economic and two that he that i just mentioned. the 12,000 does not include right-of-way or engineering projects. these are projects in every state i can be identified by name, location and how much was invested. all the public knows is that the system is not nearly as safe as it could need. they waste precious time in traffic congestion and car truck damages or costs every day to two are unacceptably high percentage of war road conditions. the major reason for the system's problems is we have a 2014 program that is operating on 1993 value dollars.

as you have already heard the highway trust fund will be unable to support any investment in new projects. of 2012 is -- that means more than 12,000 highway bridge and safety capital projects across the nation most important to our economy could be lost. arpa continues to advocate new recurring user revenue to support highway trust fund investments is the most straightforward solution or congress could find additional resources elsewhere in the federal budget to stabilize the trust fund that it is done to support map-21. cbo data shows that will require by the way on average 16.3 billion annually just to preserve existing levels of highway and transit investment. by comparison over a two-year period the recent bipartisan budget act of 2013 the murray

ryan budget deal reallocates resources to increase the non-defense discretionary spending cap by an average ironically of $68 billion a year. here is where the announcer would say spoiler alert. that means as illustrated in figure 4 and our testimony fixing the highway trust fund without generating new revenues would require the equivalent of congress passing and the president signing a 2013 level murray ryan budget deal every year, every year just to keep the highway and transit program where it is now. that is one painful alternative scenario. thank you very much. >> thank you so much and it's my pleasure to welcome the president ceo of the national

association of manufacturers. >> thank you chairman boxer's senator vitter and other members of the committee. infrastructure matters greatly to manufactures. it matters during every step of the production process from receiving inputs to shipping our products to markets at home and to our customers abroad. in addition manufactures are vital suppliers to the transit and road building industry providing rolling stock engines concrete machinery aggregates barriers signed safety equipment and other materials. every dollar spent and i know there has been a lot of statistics here today but they all do matter, every dollar spent in construction generates 39.5 cents and in manufacturing. for manufactures infrastructure is indeed a competitiveness issue. but unfortunately our nation's 20th century infrastructure and some of it is in fact even older is not meeting the needs of the 21st century economy.

i hear concerns about the state of our infrastructure from members constantly and consistently. from the world's largest multinationals to family businesses up and down main streets across the country they all recognize their aging infrastructure is a significant impediment to our nation's competitiveness and their ability to maintain our mantle of economic leadership. last year dam partnered as the chair noted with building america's future to survey manufactures about their perspectives on the state of the infrastructure the united states and is the chairman reference in her opening statement some 70% told us america's infrastructure is in fair or poor shape and needs a great deal or quite it hit of improvement. manufactures recognize the federal government's critical role in funding the nation's infrastructure as well. 67% say infrastructure is so important that all options to fund it must be on the table.

two-thirds doubt that it is positioned to respond to the competitive demands of the growing economy and that's important because manufactures rely on a reliable and efficient infrastructure to reach growing markets abroad. as our survey demonstrates reaching these new markets is not easy for manufactures in the united states. roads bridges ports in more are in dire need of repair and modernization. on behalf of our more than 12,000 members bam urges lawmakers to address these challenges and adopt a multiyear fully funded surface transportation bill that offers certainty and support for infrastructure projects that improve safety facilitate trade and create jobs. equally as important we believe congress must bring the federal highway trust fund to improve condition of solvency and long-term sustainability. we need to keep the highway trust fund solvent beyond state

department of transportation road builders. funding for roads bridges and transit systems provide great value and represents an investment in our economy and our global competitiveness. manufactures have frankly been frustrated with the way policymakers meet goals and increase investment is growing skepticism. as we have seen with previous infrastructure bills delays and multiple extensions are commonplace and send a message that the united states is simply not serious about growth and competitiveness. i know it's a tall order but america's manufactures need bipartisan leadership to help fix the problem and frankly we are very encouraged by the signals we are getting from this committee. we need to move past the debates about the federal government's role in infrastructure investment to the states alone cannot address the deteriorating condition of the roads and bridges or remedy the 101 billion-dollar cost associated with traffic congestion. manufactures are counting on congress to fulfill its

well-established responsible of the the facilitating commerce in the united states. chairman boxer no pun intended that we have a long road ahead of us and we really appreciate the committee's attention to these important issues. >> thank you. i cannot thank you enough. i'm going to ask unanimous consent to place in the record letters one from the associated equipment distributors. they urged immediate action to ensure the highway trust fund's long-term's solvency and the second is the economic importance of maintaining federal investment in our transportation infrastructure from the international bridge tunnel and turnpike association without objection i will put those in the record. we are going to each have six minutes to ask you some questions. my first question is really an unusual one because it's just a yes or no from each of you but it's not a trick question.

we'll each of you be willing to speak directly with senators wyden and hatch whether it's on the phone or in person as soon as possible? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes, already have. >> absolutely. >> okay second round. i can't tell you how important it is because they have so much on their plate. they want to be helpful but i'm not so sure that they have scheduled a hearing because we have the change in the leadership there. so that would be fantastic. would each of you agree that what mr. timmins said is right that we need certainty with a multiyear bill. would each of you agree that we need certainty in a multiyear bill? >> yes. >> absolutely. >> yes. >> unquestionably -- unquestionably.

>> i agree. >> around here sometimes folks don't so i think it's really great. so mr. trump that we are all aware that the recent local recession-ravaged the nation's economy and i remember being with you at a rally in los angeles where construction industry workers were i mean just so hard hit and worried about the future for their families. could you describe for us the economic environment your members currently face to help put in context the consequences of failing to address the highway trust funds pending insolvency? >> let me start in the macrosense and say six years into this so-called recovery we are still at an unemployment rate that was higher than the highest point of the 2001 recession so six years and we are still higher than it was in that recession. we have 1.6 million construction

jobs as noted in my testimony that are going from pre-recession levels and we have not build them yet. in some areas unemployment hovers in the 20% area. we still have people working with reduced hours in the result of that is a strain on retirement plans and health and safety plans and health care plans. our members are struggling and we are losing skilled workers because they can't make a living. there is no planning, no ability to plan ahead for the future. they are still hurting plenty and that is why we need this bill not just to be a patchwork or a short-term short term solution but a long-term solution so that employers can plan, so that states can plan so that we can do long-term projects that the country absolutely needs and have the assurance that the money is going to be there to be able to

complete it. >> thank you for painting us that picture and i'm going to ask dr. laying here because on the business side and you represent the builders, could you discuss how the transportation industry would be affected if no new projects over 12,000 projects using 2012 is the example that is how many projects were funded in 2012 if we didn't have that in fiscal year 2015? put a human face on the businesses that you speak for. >> the impact of that kind of scenario would be devastating. we are already at over 10% unemployment in that sector right now as we sit here today, down from where it was five or six years ago but still double-digit unemployment. the metric that is used often as 35,000 jobs per billion. we lose that program in fiscal 15 you will literally see hundreds of thousands of workers lose their jobs and by the way

that is already happening in the marketplace where a number of states have announced their intention and it was cited in the testimony. a couple of states have already said that's the people who are not hiring now are already pulling back even though we are at the height of the construction season coming up in most of the country. they're holding back back because of the uncertainty of the marketplace right now with what the congress is going to do with reauthorization and most importantly the current highway trust fund situation. >> that's extremely alarming that already we are seeing this and that is why we are working hard very quickly to restore faith out there and why it's important for us to work together with the finance committee over here. i know congressman shuster wants to move as well. so i would turn to mr. hancock.

from kentucky's perspective as well as all of the states you represent in your position how important is it for state department of transportation to have stable reliable and predictable funding levels for five years or more? >> madam chairman it's incredibly -- >> put on your mic. >> sorry, thought it was on. it's incredibly important to the states. the state simply cannot functionally plan an environment where the target changes day by day in terms of funding. as you probably know and i'm quite certain you do it takes years to get a project off the ground to construction in being built. funding is a question every step of the way that takes even longer so the states are having difficulty with adequately planning, knowing when the money is coming and when they will have the ability to put the money to work. >> thank you. my time is run out but i have to

finish with mr. donohue. why is this issue so important to the business community that the chamber would take the position of supporting raising user fees for transportation? that is unusual. could you explain why you are driven to do this? >> i don't think it's unusual for the members of the chamber of commerce to support these user fees. the people that run the trucking industry understand, they run 400 million -- billion miles or something like that with 3 million big trucks every night and they understand that they don't have the facilities to do that in a safe effective and productive way they are behind. the aaa has taken i think a very enlightened position recognizing that people are driving all over the place so as we have heard today from the panel the business community provides the

resources to build the facilities, the roads, the bridges in the ports. the business community told them. the business community moves on them and if you want to look for the single weakest improvement in my opinion in u.s. efficiency in recent time it is and what we have been able able to do in the supply chain from raw materials to finished products and everywhere in between. not only capital goods that also information, energy resources. i mean this is for the business community whether you are on the tech end, you are on the server send or the capital goods in manufacturing and, if you can't move it you can't do it. >> thank you. it's the goods movement that is so critical because we all know what happens when it takes a long time. thank you. senator vitter. >> thank you madam chairman thank you all again.

as i suggested in my opening statement we have been hard at work for some time discussing a bill to try to move out of this committee as soon as possible and the idea would he do to deal with those issues under our jurisdiction in an aggressive way and a way that helps rebuild trust in the trust fund and then to really help and sent the finance committee to do the tougher work on the finance side and be our full partner in completing that bill. so with that process in mind let me ask you a few questions. dr. ruane first of all thank you and fhwa, thank you all and your organization for producing very good data which you appended to your testimony about projects in each state impacted by the trust

fund and federal aid. one problem is you all have to spend hours and hours and hours producing that data and it seems to me that data should be readily available through the program to make it transparent and clear what the trust fund does or doesn't do. would you agree with that but there are reforms you think can be made to make the activity in the trust fund far more transparent? >> i absolutely had re-and it's really tragic that one would have to use the freedom of information act to get such information. they have that information going back and i'm not here to unfairly criticize any government agency but you would think they would want to get that information out there aggressively and tell the story. ..

mid unfortunately they have a response to the report yet. we need that greater transparency. mr. hancock, i'm real concerned, as are many of my republican colleagues about the epa and a

new proposed rule about federal jurisdiction under the clean water act, i think this poses the threat of dramatically increased permitting requirements, and decreased flebility on transportation project. also concerned that the rule making may proceed before peer reviewers review. it it's supposed to be a key part of the process. are your members concerned about this? you have any thoughts about this? >> we have not actually seen the 404 permitting rule making yet, but we are very much concerned about it. because it is -- we been told it effects roadside ditches as sources of run yaif area to be controlled or whatever. most of the ditches were built as we built our road system. they're not intermittent streams, per se.

we are very, very interested in that and looking forward to hearing from federal avenues. >> great. mr. tim monos thank you for your testimony. can you expand on it just a bit via have a other nations related to infrastructure, and what path are we on regarding that? i presume it's going to be a cost-disadvantage in terms of of global competitiveness. >> i don't have a specific number for you, senator. i can tell you antedotely there is certainly a disadvantage when some of the other folks have been talking about what our major competitors are doing with regard to infrastructure projects. those projects do allow more goods to make it to market more e forget -- efficient. there is, in general, a 20% in this country versus our major

partners around the country. because of several factors. infrastructure is not one. 20% disadvantage after you take out the cost of labor. taxes and regulation, going back it your question on the proposed rule from epa on water ways as well as other factors response anything that detracts or adds to that disadvantage, obviously, hurts manufacturing in this country. >> thank you. a final question for many mr. hancock. it's one of the first organizations out with your reauthorization priority. thank you for that. i assume you mean that you think there is room for improvement reform greater transparency to build, rebuild trust in the program. can you expand on that and mention a couple of your prior toties? >> sure. we believe there is room to improve. will i say on map 21 we felt was a major step forward. we are pleased with the reform we saw there.

there are some tweaks that likely need to be made. part of the issue right now we haven't completely seen the rule making from federal highways regarding those. we'll be eagerly awaiting those and have some comments, i'm quite sure, that will tweak not significant -- >> we'll look forward to those. thank you. >> thank you very much. i believe senator bash sew is next. >> thank you, madam chairman. which makes things more costly doesn't create the meaningful jobs we're trying to create. can you talk about recommendations you might have to further accelerate project delivery. there are a number of activities underway.

they have an everyday accounts program we are working diligently with them to see brought forward. also, we have sharp tooth programs. degreic highway research program that involve project at the same time. get things done faster. i prompts we're sticking to our guns in that regard. >> anyone else want to respond? how we can get the money moving more quickly? they have made great changes to the legislation to the bill. it's part of the implementation. they're on the way but they could be accelerated. >> you talked about in your testimony in highlighted a 20 mile six-lane bridge i think in china took two years to build

kind of from pen to pavement. you know, the vice president made a statement about going to la guardia airport. if you take if you -- in the best case scenario to do a project like you outlined like you saw in china successfully completed in a swift manner. it might take over 10 years to get the whole process done here. from your experience in travels, what can we do in the united states to accelerate project delivery. we can have long-term protectability planning. we need a long-term bill so people can plan, start the process, have some confidence it's going to be followed through. if you are talking about

private/public partnership that are out in that offer some real potential. it's not going happen without the ability to plan and be predicted and going forward. i think as a nation when we decided to go the moon we have a deficit we need to fill. the d.o.t. said a third of our roads are now in poor or mediocre condition. we need, as a nation, to say we're going to be the most competitive the investment today

is going to reap tremendous benefits down the road. the nation coming together everybody up here come together to say we need it and have the political will to go forward. i think is what we need. it is just the determination to say we'll do it and then get together and do it. i applaud this committee. you understand the importance to this country and the infrastructure and maintaining the infrastructure. whether it is a bridge or a road. i urge you to go further and think bolder and talk about high speed rail and other things. a grid system that doesn't waste electricity. delivery system where you don't have leaks and seeps that drain gas and water and oil in to the environment. all of those things can create jobs and makes competitive. i think the most important thing is for us to have a vision and a

will and make a decision to do it. when we decided to go the moon; nothing could stop it. same thing here. it if we decide we'll have world-class infrastructure to compete in a global economy, i have no doubt we can do it and do the best in the world. to build a major project proceeded by permitting and zoning i have no problem looking critically at the environment

but repetitive lawsuit after lawsuits have been resolved we're talking years and years and years. and i think we all went to school, we studied we had three parts to our government.

we hear about partisanship that goes on in congress, and yet in this particular area this committee when it gets to the environment issues, there is differences of opinion. >> but is no difference -- very little difference of opinion in regard to the infrastructure. not here but in the house also. it's interesting, i look at the panel and it is the same deal. we have the chamber here. we have labor here, we have, you know, in coming together as we all are. talking about the interest. i have real concern about the harsh winter, you know, the fact jobs are being affected right now. because you simply can't get work done with the cold,

sustained temperatures. you can't do it. pretty soon it sounds like already the contracting is an issue. i know, we've had -- this is not hypothetical, in the sense we've had the same situation occur in the past and very definitely. people quit following contracts. i get concerned about that. getting it in place. get this thing done.g anything one thing i would like to ask mr. hancock, one of the

frustrations we have there is a little frustration. it seems as you push more money out, then the state backs up, you know, and they get this money. so they can divert to prisons and schools and things that are very, very necessary. but the reality is you don't go forward. you have more of the federal government shouldering the burden. can you comment? >> i would be more than happy. it's been our experience in kentucky whenever federal money has come. the state stepped up with bond issues and other things. and made additional monies

available as well. the money the states have to work with to build it is federal funding. of the 45% institutes more of the larger projects we actually build. it's a critical piece of who we are. the states are doing a lot. we see it a lot with the funding mechanism. we applaud the states who have done that. we are encouraging everyone to do what they must to find the money necessary to invest in the transportation. you're right. it's a difficult dance with state budgets and so forth. we find a lot of our colleagues that are interested in spending more on transportation. >> you made a great point about

the harsh winter. when it is over and people can go a work it is to a infrastructure more seriously effected. how long does it take? mean or ten years? >> we did a recent average of seven years. >> okay. significant project. >> you mentioned the bridge in china, and the thing that impressed me was situation we had in minnesota. the bridge -- instead of the agencies have ad aer have --

adversarial -- labor worked the together. it's the attitude we can get it done and reopened. and we essentially were able to do something that was extraordinary. i think and you can be a tremendous help in this area. we do have to with the limited resources we have, you know, not discard rules, not to get around them. but to do it but have the agencies do things. and we have put stuff in bills before but really just to make the agencies where they're talking together. they're doing it together. you know, we need have a goals as a nation to cut that time in half or whatever goal we make. tbhaw is a very doable thing. and with inflation, you know, cost increase and things like that, it is something with tremendous amount of money. so, again, thank you all. we appreciate you being here and essential i know i'm committed.

the rest of the committee is committed to do anything we can to help. thank you. >> i want to say to each and every one of you how much i appreciate your testimony today. and i know that you're singing from the same book except when it comes to environment. which is typical, and i understand it. i have to say this transportation bill, in order get out here, is not going to be one big environmental writer. let's be clear. we have to come together where we agree. it is killing business. it is -- it is killing economic development right now. according to my colleagues who. i just think what we need find is sweet spot. we need speed up, for sure. we have a lot of reforms, and

doctor pointed out in the last bill, we have to make sure they are working. and also, we have to understand that a great deal of the slow down, senator, is funding, too. because sometimes the funding doesn't come through. that's why it is important. if the idea came from really the los angeles may imror at the time, the mayor the pointed out they had the sales tax. but it was going take them 30 30-years to build all the projects. the federal government need to step up front and move the money forward. it i appreciate all of this, and i see we have a colleague -- do we have time to do another round? okay. go ahead, senator. i'll withhold and finish later. go ahead. >> had a couple of conflicts. everything happened at once.

mr. donahue, i noticed you call for increasing gasoline tax. the position of the chamber of commerce we need to be raising taxes to increase spending today ? >> we have not raised several user fee fuel tax in almost 20 years. >> you want to raise taxes on alabama begans who have to commute to work and you can spend it however you like to spend it. >> senator, whether you raise the tax or you seek the funds through some other means of federal expenditure, the citizens of alabama are going to pay for it. you propose raising the tax. would it be acceptable if we reduced the spending in washington and -- >> if you got the money. the my time was waste, fraud,

and abuse we get rid of it and use the money. but the money never shows up. if you got the money, took it out of other budgets and put it there. i would applaud you. you support that. that's not what you're testifying to. some of my people would probably rather increase the corporate tax rather than the gas tax, you wouldn't favor that, would you? >> the corporate tax in this country is far more than we pay anywhere else in a competitive basis. i think you should ask billy can are in i are that runs the expanded and combined chamber of commerce whether he can get his members to support a user fee i understand what you want to say. you want to raise the chamber of commerce and testifying you don't believe it is possible cut spending and save the highway program without raising taxes.

i want to get clear. >> i've done the game before. but i it would be hard to do that in the next seven months. if you can do it, i'll vigorously support it. >> good. i think that's what we should do. there are places question save money. and i just -- i just want to know that we would like to reduce the corporate rate. it is hurting america. it is hurting the employees and economic development and job creation to have virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the world. >> we certainly -- >> and we could totally support that. i would just teasing you a little bit about you supporting somebody else paying taxes but not you. in 2000, when the employment rate was around 4%, "the new york times" wrote an editorial opposing amnesty for then 6 million illegal workers in the

country. and said, quote, the aflcio's proposal should be rejected. it would undermine the integrity of the immigration law and depress wages of the lowest paid, native-born workers. "the new york times." today the unemployment rate is 6.6%. and the workplace -- the work force participation rate is lowest it has been in 40 years. wagers are lower today than in '99. you have encoressed a bill that not only tbhail grants am nest toy 12 million immigrants but provides green cards to 20million -- >> may i ask my friend, he is my friend. why are you talking about immigration? this is a hearing about the highway trust fund. i have never quite seen this type of an attack on various members. i'm confused about it. it doesn't help us.

>> i can haul out reports that it is a great boom to our economy. i'm not getting in to that. i would ask you, please, i think your question was fair. it was tough but fair it's getting off topic. if you can keep your questions to topic at hand it would mean a lot to this chairman. everybody will have less income

less economic growth. we put off to another day. [laughter] but go ahead. by the way, -- i must have -- [inaudible] i've looked at that and this legislation that leader the senate as you support it dramatically increase the legal flow and not on significant impact in reducing illegal flow. i think it is beyond what the economy can absorb a widely but an issue of different day. thank you for your testimony. woe can't tarks our way out of this. we can't keep raising taxes.

and would knock off the growth. >> madam chairman, again, you lead effectively on this. you and senator inhofe and vitter. i hope we can come up with something that strengthens our infrastructure program in a fiscally responsible way. >> senator, i hope so. i say this, this committee is going deal with the reauthorization. what we heard from every member when you were -- it's very important duties is that we need certainty here. businesses are -- they don't know what the future hold. what i'm hopeful we can get a five or six year bill out of here. it will deal with the funding. but it will waive us out. that is why it is so important.

whatever our -- i have classified views. one of them is to go after 350 billion uncollected taxes every year. i'm sure others wouldn't agree with me. there is many ways can get this trust fund going. but mr. donahue makes an important point. it has to be real. it has to be real and certain. that's why the user fund, however you use the user -- whatever it is. whether it is the gas tax or it

has a separate seat. it doesn't cause any problems for deficit. very important and i think we should keep the user fee concept. it gives that type of certainty. but that decision is going to be made by another committee. and they're very excited about us a doing our part. i can't speak for every member. i have sat down with most of my colleagues. i have two more to sit down with on the republican side. i'm hopeful we can unite and don't get in to arguments and all the other things. he focus on on what has to be done here. and i'm excited about the challenge.

he has been a friend. we don't see eye to eye on at lough things. we work well together. i respect his knowledge of the deficit situation, the debt situation, and the former member of the budget committee. i know, that in that committee you do see that big picture. there's nothing we do in this bill that will hurt the deficit. nothing. it will be self-sustaining trust fund. which is absolutely critical. with that, i want to thank you. report back to me about your conversations. i hope you will. i will ask senator hatch andwiden today and tell them you said you will call them. i think question get it done but only if we stick together. let's just find that common ground and not get in to arguments about other issues. because i think that gets us off track. thank you very much. we stand -- yes, senator. thank you. yes? [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] coming up tonight. ..