of the federal government to encourage development in an area that historically has been undeserved but which has the potential to be explosive in terms of the growth and the use of public transportation. could you talk a little bit about that? and the role that the congress can play in partnership with the department of transportation to continue to advance it and what role do you see that in terms of it being built into the legislation that we're considering? >> well, thank you very much. it's a very exciting project in boston. you know, what's happening in boston and across many of the metro areas around the country is population is starting to concentrate there. if you go to some cities i was with mayor garseti in los angeles, actually, and me mentioned to me they literally don't have more highways they can build. they need to integrate transit choices into what they do. and when you build a station like rugels what that does is

it captures the imagination of real estate developers and they start to build dense developments and bring amenities into communities that traditionally may not have them. i think the challenge for us is that right now if we look at the amount of money we're putting into transit, i think the demand for it is going to increase substantially over the next several years because of shear population movements. that's why i would urge a more robust investment in transit, first of all. and secondly urge that we do more to partner with local communities, whether it's mpos, or mayors or even governors in some cases to help them develop the tools to utilize the land use opportunities that come about as a result. >> yeah, boston had 800,000 people who lived there in 1950s. and it drifted all the way down to about 600,000. but now, with increasing transit

oriented development boston has gone back up to 640,000, and the arrow is straight up in terms of the number of people who now want to move back use public transportation, live closer to all of the amenities of a city but also the jobs that are being created around these transit projects, which has reduced, as you know the number of vehicle miles driven by automobiles all across the country over the last five, six years. it's just going down and down and down because people want to live and work closer to their mode of transportation. and increasingly it's public transportation. so thank you for all of your work on that. could i talk with you a little bit about the complete streets program as well? >> sure. >> that i also find to be very very exciting where pedestrians, bikers children, seniors, everyone is included in a kind of a project approach

that ensures that all of these facilities can be used by everyone. can you talk a little bit about that? and again, the role that the congress could play in the authorization in partnership with the department of transportation. >> through our transportation alternatives program we've been able to be a bit of a catalyst in helping communities develop best practices around the greater use of complete streets. and what that really means is, creating ways in which all users on a roadway to safely use those facilities. so you'll have a lane for vehicular traffic, you'll have places for pedestrians that are safe, and bicyclists as well. and we found that it not only helps with safety, but people actually use the entire roadway in different ways. it's healthier, it's cleaner in some cases. i think that continuing to support the transportation alternatives program, and helping us build additional

tools to support states as they measure safety of bicyclists and pedestrians and really bringing bicycling and pedestrians up to the standard that we expect of every other mode of transportation. >> so right now, we're seeing upwards of three-quarters of pedestrians who are killed, are killed in urban areas. >> mm-hmm. >> so the more that we can work together to create strategies that reduce those numbers and make the streets safe for everyone, i think the better off we're going to be. and i'm looking forward to working with you. i think it's a very exciting area. by the way, i think you're doing a fantastic job. i think you understand cities having been a mayor. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. recognize now senator rounds for his first introduction in this committee. and how delighted we are oh to

have him serving on the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thanks for the opportunity to visit with you just a little bit today. coming from south dakota it strikes me that we were -- in our home state, we're between 800 800,000 and 900,000 except during the time of the sturgis rally, then we bump up considerably. it seems that as a former mayor of boston, the discussion there in terms of you've had the opportunity to work on transportation projects from a different point of view. a large metropolitan area. and yet one in which you're dealing with the federal guidelines and rules that are required in order to qualify for federal funding. in south dakota we have similar challenges but on an agricultural basis, and in a rural area basis. just curious as to your thoughts with regards to the projects that as you've indicated earlier in your statements and so forth

that need to be modernized. and we have to be more efficient if we're going to expect taxpayers to put more dollars in at some point in the future. how do you move forward from the federal side now? when you're working with communities, large and small, states large and small, differing expectations in terms of equality, and yet at the same time the need for modernization of different projects. what do we do to convince and gain the confidence of the individual taxpayers who look at a federal operation here that under traditional operations take a huge amount of time just to get a project ready to go, approved and then actually built. what do we do to convince them that we have modern ways and more efficient ways to actually deliver those projects in a timely basis. have you got some ideas? would you share with us a little

bit your thoughts in terms of what we can do to actually deliver, a simple way of saying it, more bang for the buck of the dollars we're going to be expected to invest in order to maintain the infrastructure today? >> sure. we've had some conversation already about project delivery and things that can be done to improve it. and there's another idea that i haven't mentioned that i think is worthy. but essentially, i think we can greatly accelerate the delivery of projects, speeding them up in other words, by having more concurrent reviews occurring at the federal level. i would also urge creating tools that incentivize the states to do the same thing. because sometimes the delays that occur are not just federal delays, sometimes there are state reviews that have to take additional time and giving the states more tools to be able to accelerate is also useful. in addition to that there's a quirky thing in the federal

government when it comes to multimodel projects ones that involve potentially highways or rail or transit. and that is that the reviews are sometimes -- they require separate reviews. so even within our own department on a project that has different modes involved, sometimes we have to have two different sets of reviews occur and it doesn't make sense to me that we do that. but it's a requirement that comes -- that i think could be fixed by legislation. so i think cleaning some of that up would be useful and it would also allow us to move forward without compromising the environment and ensuring project integrity. the other thing i would say, though, is that, you know, i think the public has gotten used to a deteriorating system. and i would urge that if you give us the tools to help speed up projects, which i would urge in the way that i just

discussed, that we also look hard at making sure that we have the resources to make the kind of impact on folks' commutes and their ability to get goods from farm-to-market, or whatever, and make sure that this counts. if you're going to go through the brain damage of trying to figure out how to get this done, make it count for america. make it so that people actually see it and feel it. i think the other part of the big bang for the buck issue is that if we are essentially managing a declining system, folks are also going to lose confidence even if we speed up projects. >> mr. secretary, thank you. thank you, sir. >> thank you. senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. and thank you very much, secretary foxx. thank you for the steady hand and detailed presentation, and the points that you're hitting on certainly resonate in oregon regarding movement of freight urban transit, innovative finance, support of

transportation for manufacturing, the connection between rural communities and markets, all of these. so well done. and thank you for coming out to oregon to take a look at our crossing that certainly the federal government was a huge partner in. and the network of light rail and street cars and rapid bus transit that is being utilized to try to address some of those job-to-work, or home-to-work challenges, the lost time that my colleague from new jersey was talking about. something that has really struck me and certainly resonated in my town halls across oregon is the low percent of our gdp that we're investing in infrastructure. and i think that's just a point worth reiterating. and the numbers i have generally seen, but i have a feeling you

have better, more detailed insights into this, is that the u.s. is now spending less than 2% of our gdp on infrastructure that europe is spending 5% china is spending 10%. and i was struck in two trips to china ten years apart watching beijing going from being basically a bicycle city to having a bullet train running 200 miles per hour and to be on that bullet train was more the surreal experiences of my life given what i had seen just a decade previous. massive changes due to a huge commitment to infrastructure. are those numbers in the ballpark? and how does that reflect on the difference between the foundation we are building for the economy of the next generation, and what our competitors are doing? >> that's a great question. those numbers are in the ballpark. and, you know here's -- there's

several challenges. some of which you've pointed out. one of them is that our global competitors have the benefit of picking and choosing from the things that we've done with our system, and figuring out which of those things they're going to engage in, whether it's rail or highways or ports or whatever, and improving upon what we've done. and it then becomes a matter of for your manufacturer, if you can get things from shop to port faster someplace else it creates a competitive disadvantage for us. so one thing is that the rest of the world's looked at what we've done, and they're building new stuff that in many cases is better than ours. secondly we have an aging system. you know some of this stuff that you're talking about in china is relatively new.

we have two problems. we have new things we need to build, that we're not building, and we have old things that we built a long time ago that need to be fixed up. and both of those problems create a huge challenge for this country. the third issue that we have is that -- and i mentioned this before -- but i think that we have allowed our system to be stovepiped. and the reality is, if we're going to improve our ports, we need to improve our road systems and our bridges and our rail systems. if we're going to do all that, we also need to make sure that we are taking care of our intercoastal waterways and ensuring the free movement there. and so our system is a system of systems. but we can't starve it and expect it to perform for us. to your point we're underinvesting. >> thank you very much. thanks. >> senator carper?

>> thank you. i want to thank you and senator boxer in the spirit with which you approach this work. it's an inspiration to me, and i think to all of us and i hope an example to our colleagues in the senate and the house. >> and we'll make it work. >> mr. secretary a lot of nice things have been said about you this morning. some of them really over the top. you've been named the mayor of charlotte, boston i don't know what else you have in your background. there's an old saying in our state, flattery won't hurt you if you don't inhale. so nice things being said about you, don't breathe too deeply and you'll be fine. one of the major takeaways for me from the election last november was the notion -- really, three things. one, people want us to work together. in the spirit that senators boxer and imhoff bring to these proceedings i think is what the folks are looking for.

across the country. they want us to get something done. something real done. not just talk about it. i just bemoan the fact actually able to get things donl. the other thing they want us to do is find ways to strengthen our economic recovery. which is going on into its sixth year. still people hurting. still a good deal that needs to be done. one of the best things we could do, and others have referred to this, a lot of people are sitting on the sidelines would like to do construction work. i understand they're fully funded, the transportation plan 600, 700,000 people back to work for a lot of people who haven't worked for a while. we've heard any number of studies from people a lot smarter than me that talked about and computed what happened to the growth of our gross domestic product, if we actually do a robust transportation plan for america. and it's not just a tenth of a percentage point it's likely

between 1% and 1.5% gdp real growth. i think it was used the term, the 800 pound gorilla in the room. i would go back to those. there is an 800-pound gorilla in the room and it's our unwillingness to pay for things that we want or pay for things that we need. an energy policy we have in all the above approach includes generating electricity from gas, coal nuclear, wind hydro and other sources. i think what we need is maybe all of the above approach in terms of providing transportation funding. not just financing. there's a lot of ways we can finance stuff, which basically means we're borrowing money but we need to fund it as well. the publish/private partnership there's room for that infrastructure. repatriation could be helpful, especially for getting one-time projects out. i think that, for example, the

tunnel i came down through baltimore, under baltimore, was built in the civil war. that's an example of a one-time project that needs a lot of money. and funded by something like repatriation. vehicle miles traveled, very slowly advancing, but that's a good example. all of those are available. but the idea that we've not talked about a whole lot here is user fees. we've paid for our transportation infrastructure for years through user fees, the gas taxes that we know was adopted 21 years ago. the diesel tax was adopted about 21 years ago worth about 15 cents. meanwhile, asphalt, concrete, steel, labor they've all gone up. and we need something like -- when we talk about base load for energy, you know coal, nuclear gas, we need some base load here for transportation funding.

there's others that are going to be introduced in bipartisan legislation in the house and senate, probably next month. it would use that user fee, for four years indexed to the rate of inflation. raising about $175 billion. it would be a real infrastructure investment. on top of that, we still need to do a lot more. there are other items that i referred to that would be very helpful. you and i have had some good conversations as of late. some of my republican colleagues talked about why don't we just offset the user fee by reducing personal income taxes for lower income people or others. the problem with doing that, we have a $480 billion budget deficit. to the extent we're reducing the personal income taxes we make the budget deficit bigger. one thing we've talked about is finding savings with the way that we do transportation projects. you have shared a couple here today that would actually save some money to offset any

increase we have in user fees. if you could just talk about two of the three most important, what we should focus on and what we could do to help. >> well, i think the project delivery work is an opportunity, if done right, in a way that doesn't compromise the environment. i think it can be done very well. and it would save money, and not just money at the federal level, it would actually work downstream at the state and local levels as well. in addition to that, you know i think we -- in terms of saving money, i think the more we work to accelerate projects that move through the system at any given point, whether it's designed environmental review, or as we work on becoming better with innovative financing tools, like private activity bonds and so forth, those are places where i think we can also stand to

accelerate and get projects done a little faster. we worked very hard to make the tiffia program move better and faster. i think that's been a success. but rif still needs some help. and i think the private activity bonds could use some as well. we'll continue working on those things. >> i would ask you to help us build that list, and be real partners in this. to the extent that we raise money, i hope through user fee increase, phased in over several years, modest, but real and to find ways to offset those increased user fees through savings. how we're doing transportation projects, to not do away with degrading the environment, but help us to define this. and i know you're going to have some of your people do that. and we're grateful. thank you. thank you. >> thank you carper. >> thank you very much for being with us mr. secretary. in your statement you talked

about must expedite high priority projects, and i agree. in wyoming, we have high priority projects which can be as small as replacing a single-lane bridge, as big as replacing a segment of interstate 80. can you share your recommendations on expediting project delivery will benefit rural areas rural states like wyoming? >> well, what we would like to do is operationalize the concurrent review process so that we're doing that on a morrow teen basis. it's not just some of the high-profile, big ballot projects. but it could be on a morrow teen basis for virtually all projects. i think that with -- working with congress to develop those tools, again, to do it in a way that is environmentally sensitive, i think we can get that done and actually move the ball forward a good bit. >> thank you mr. secretary. mr. chairman, in light of the fact we have a number of governors waiting to stand by i'll defer until they get here. >> thank you, senator barrasso.

>> thank you for holding this hearing. this is an incredibly important issue for new york state. mass transit is vital to not only new york but every state in the country. on an average week day, nearly 8.5 million americans ride the trains, subways and buses in new york city which generate significant economic revenue. would you agree it is critically important for mass transit to continue to receive designated funding through the mass transit account through the highway trust fund? can you discuss some of the negative effects if congress were to cut funding for public transit? >> well, absolutely i agree that we need to maintain resources for mass transit. it is vitally important, of course, in the state of new york, and many other parts of the country. there's also a very substantial rural transit program that we have that is also vital to many rural communities as well.

if congress were to eliminate that funding, what would happen is that our roadways in high-use areas of the country would become inundated with traffic. and freight movements and commutes would actually stall. and that would be a disaster for the country. what we really need is a nation that moves for towards multi-modal movement, in which the users have choice. and the more choices they have, potentially you get more cars off the road. that enables more bandwidth for trucks and other commercial activities to occur. so i -- this is all symbiotic. and if we lose the transit piece, i think we end up creating other problems. >> superstorm sandy resulted in a whopping $8 million of physical damage to the transportation infrastructure and affected nearly 8.5 million

public transit riders 4.2 million drivers and 1 millionaire travelers. nearly two years after sandy new york city has not only worked to repair and restore its transportation infrastructure from the storm's damage, but is also taking steps to improve the resiliency of its transit network. however, there's much more work to be done. can you speak to some of the challenges with regard to constructing a more resilient transportation network? what has been effective so far? and what positives would be most helpful to make sure that the d.o.t. -- >> the rail, transit, maritime et cetera, we've learned a lot when we got involved with the hurricane sandy recovery. and we're taking the learnings

we've derived from that and tried to built into our programs, routine resilient construction. so, for instance we found that stop lights needed to be wedged in the ground deeper to be more resilient. we found that in the subways in new york where the wiring -- the electrical wires had been under the trains, putting them above the trains and encasing them in a thicker material would provide more resilience. so these best practices aren't being left in the northeast, we're actually trying to, you know, see those get implemented in other parts of the country, so that we're building more resiliently going forward. but having said that, one of the challenges we're going to keep running into is, we're underinvesting in our infrastructure overall. so in terms of actually building a more resilient america, the less funding we have available, the less we're going to be able to make an impact. >> my last question, i know you

addressed it already, but i'll ask it, improving pedestrian safety is a critical issue in new york, and one that local leaders in my state are working very hard to address whether it's in new york city or projects to improve sidewalks and crosswalks in upstate new york building pedestrian infrastructure into how we design our streets saves lives. as this committee works to reauthorize 21 we want to protect the safety of pedestrians, including children and elderly and those with disabilities. what would be the failings at the federal level? >> it's an incredibly important question, senator. between 2009 and 2013, we actually saw an uptick in pedestrian and bicycle deaths, as well as accidents. and it's one of the few areas in our entire department that we're actually seeing that uptick. so we have to attack this. as a country. and we have to use a multi-tiered strategy.

our transportation alternatives program which provides resources to help support bicycle and pedestrian programs has been useful. we've also made significant investments through tiger to help promote best practices including new york city's vision program. finally, we're working with mayors across the country now to encourage them towards best practices, and information sharing, because a lot of the capital expenditure for road assets across the country are at the local level. >> all right. thank you. thank you, secretary foxx. we're going to really enjoy this ride with you. and i think you're the right guy at the most difficult time and we'll make this happen together. thank you for your service. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member boxer. >> i would like to ask the second panel to come in. i believe they're all in the ante room. our first introducer will be senator sessions.

he's trying to get to another committee hearing. if our witnesses would please come in and sit down. >> mr. chairman, i think the senate is trying to get busy today. we have four major committees at this exact time going on that i'm a member of. >> on top of that something like 16 votes. so we're going to be busy. at this time, i would like to welcome our panel. we've had a little bit of

movement around. i'd like to first introduce senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i am honored to introduce governor bentley robert bentley, the 53rd governor of the state of alabama. he's a long-term practicing physician. it's reported he finished at the top of his medical class. i haven't asked him that under oath. but i would not be surprised. in fact, i'm sure that's accurate. i served in the air force, and he made job creation a priority with automobile, aerospace and manufacturing industries in alabama. showing some real growth. he's vice chair of the economic development and commerce committee of the national governors association. he has a great understanding of fiscal challenges facing our states. he was just reelected despite having to make real tough decisions to control spending. and a big victory in this past

election. he understands the fiscal challenges we face. what our states need to do to save taxpayers money. he's leading a host of efforts to extremeline and reduce unnecessary costs and spending. governor bentley, thank you for coming. it's been a pleasure for me to work with you. i have the highest respect for you. and i would say this, mr. chairman, i won't be able to participate in the questioning, i don't think. we'll see how that works out. i hope to get back. but i share your view, and that of senator boxer, that we need a highway plan that we can pass that is soundly financed and paid for that allows our governors to rely on the future. so they can plan for their future. and it is costing money, reducing the value of the money we spend, because of the uncertainty that's out there.

even though you know, i'm a frugal budget person somehow we need to make this one work. and i'll try to be positive in that regard. thank you for your leadership. and thank you for inviting governor bentley. >> thank you very much, senator sessions, for that fine introduction of the governor. and recognize senator rounds for his introduction. i believe i met your guest when i was up in south dakota. >> that's entirely possible mr. chairman. ranking member boxer. my opportunity today is to first of all introduce the secretary of the department of transportation in south dakota darren burkquist. i've known darren for years, and i had the opportunity to actually appoint him as a secretary of transportation when i was governor. and so i can just share with all of you, he has seen the ins and outs and challenges of trying to work with limited funding, and in a rural state in which there's always a challenge in terms of how you take the

dollars and spread them out and literally deliver the best you can. and yet come back to a legislative body who was always questioning how you were spending the money. if i could, i just want to share with you in south dakota we've got challenges like everybody else does, but it's a rural state where 200 miles up and down and 400 miles east and west local governments own 50% of the highway miles within the state, and 91% of the state's structurally deficient bridges. the federal highway program is vital to ensuring south dakota has the funds that we need to manage our state's highways and bridges, and thereby providing for economic growth and ensuring all south dakotans can travel safely throughout the state every single day. i look forward to working with the other members on this committee, and chairman and ranking member boxer. we do need an infrastructure bill, we need a highway bill, one that delivers for transportation needs across the

entire united states. i just hope that as we move through this process, we find an appropriate way to fund it on a longer term basis. and we also recognize that we've got to do this as efficiently as we possibly can. and that means cutting through as much red tape as we can, when it comes to delivering these services. something else and that is that we work through this in a positive way, rural and urban areas, recognizing that our needs are truly different in many cases, but we're going to have to find a way to keep all of us in the same game, and recognizing the needs of both the rural and urban states in this methodology. so with that, mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you for a very fine introduction. senator sanders? >> thank you very much, senator imhoff. i apologize for not being here earlier, but i was in another committee. thank you very much for inviting

governor peter schumlan of vermont for being here with us today. as senator rounds mentioned, i think everybody on this committee understands our infrastructure is in many ways collapsing. and we used to lead the world in terms of infrastructure. and according to the world economic forum, we are now in 12th place. and that's not anything that anybody on this committee should be proud of. in vermont we have the same infrastructure problems that every other state in the country has. we have a lot of potholes we have congestion we have bridges that are in disrepair. some years ago and the governor played an active role in this regard, we were hit with hurricane irene. devastation to our infrastructure in parts of the state. and we worked very hard to rebuild that infrastructure. so i appreciate your efforts, mr. chairman. i know you're going to be working with senator boxer.

there is a lot of division in the congress today, but i would hope that on this issue there is a common understanding that we are doing our kids and grandchildren a great disservice, if we don't own up to the infrastructure problems we have right now that we work with the governors around the country to go forward on this issue. so mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. let me just make this comment. we're very proud to have all of you here. i appreciate very much your coming. it's important. and i do believe, when i look at this politically, it's going to be necessary to have a lot of pressure from the states in order to get the support necessary to get this through. so it's not going to be -- it's going to be heavy lifting, but we know you guys are available to do that. let's start with opening statements. governor bentley, will you be recognized first. >> thank you, sir. and good morning, everyone.

it's a pleasure for me to be with you. senator imhoff, and senator boxer, and i appreciate senator sessions' great introduction of me. good friend. and i appreciate all of you, all the members of this committee. i'm here on behalf of the national governors association and also the people of alabama. governor tomlin and i are on the national governor association economic and development and commerce committee. we served together on a bipartisan basis. and all the governors of the states have basically the same problems that have just been mentioned today. i'm here today to highlight some of these problems. and some of the situations that we have. the first priority when we look at priorities, is to really continue to maintain a strong partnership between the federal government and the state governments.

you know there are selective projects across this country that are of national and regional significance. that states and the federal government can partner together on that will benefit our entire country. one such project is in alabama. it's our mobile river bridge also known as the i-10 bridge and senator sessions who had to step out he knows this very well. this is a project that reduces the congestion in the tunnels that help with the growth of our great city there in mobile. this is a project that -- this is a major project that we need to be working on. one of the second priorities that we need to look at is long-term funding, which has already been mentioned. funding certainty at the federal level is essential for planning and for budgeting for future projects. you know we as governors or ceos of the states, we understand how important

transportation infrastructure is to creating jobs in our states. certainty allows governors the ability to plan and to execute long-term multi-year transportation projects. since i took office in 2011, we have recruited 63,000 new and future jobs for the state of alabama, and good infrastructure is a key part of the environment that's needed to create the jobs in our state. in alabama we're witnessing firsthand the successful partnership of job creation and infrastructure improvement. the first week of my first term of office i met and recruited $100 million company golden dragon copper tubing to wilcox county, which is the county with the highest unemployment rate in the state of alabama. this new facility will employ 300 people, and not only will it change this community but it will change those families that

live there and it will change a way of life. the state gave $7 million of construction money to build roads to this plant. and it will make a difference in the lives of the people of that area. the third thing that i would like to mention is the flexibility that we need in federal dollars. the earmarking of federal dollars hurts the ability of governors to allocate funds within our states. and i want to share also in my testimony very quickly i want to share a program that i have been -- started, and it's an innovative program that we have started in alabama. it's something we call the a-trip program. we have put $1 billion to repair the roads and bridges of every county in the state of alabama.

we use darby bonds to do this. we have been able to borrow these at a very low interest rate, and the fact that we have ourselves used our gasoline money to back these bonds we've been able to save $35 million more. every county in the state of alabama, 67 counties will receive projects and the least any county receive is $6.6 million. and this spring, congress will have the opportunity to set a new vision for infrastructure investment in america. as a country, we must show that if we are serious about our economy, then we must get serious about investing in our roads and bridges. governors urge congress to pass a long-term transportation bill that provides the certainty needed to plan for future projects, and the flexibility needed to tailor those projects to the unique challenges that

face each state. governors look forward to working with you, congress and to the administration to authorize long-term funding. and i thank you today for the opportunity to come and testify before you. >> thank you governor bentley. governor schulin. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i really appreciate your inviting us down, and to ranking senator boxer, thank you for hearing us out, and the entire committee. i want to thank senator sanders for that introduction. i'm honored to be here with governor bentley, on behalf of the nga. governor bestley and i have worked together on opiate addiction issues lots of other issues. i think he stated the case well in saying that governors in all 50 states on a bipartisan basis want to partner with you to get this job done. because we all know that our economic prosperity, our national security and our

ability to improve quality of life depends upon fixing our crumbling and aging infrastructure. and i know that i'm looking forward to hearing from secretary berkwits as well. i know his governor wished to be here. we got whacked pretty hard in the northeast, and he would be here if he were not digging out. in vermont we got hit, too, but our southern states aren't as accustomed to snow as we are up in vermont. so he's still digging. i should say that -- that's the deep south governor bentley. i just wanted to say that. [ laughter ] i'm going to paraphrase a little bit. governor bentley basically just sent my message for me. we know that we can't prosper as

a nation unless we fix what senator sanders referred to, which is we used to be number one, we're 14th. you all together with the u.s. senate have the ability to fix this challenge for us with congress. i want you to know on the ground as a governor what this means to a small rural state. what it means to vermont is not different from what it means to north dakota south dakota, or new hampshire or wyoming. the challenge in rural states is 80% of our transportation network, 3.1 million miles of roads, and thousands and thousands and thousands of bridges, runs through our roughly states. so if you take vermont as an example, when we're talking about crumbling infrastructure, you can say, well, you know, vermont doesn't have that many people. so, you know why does it really matter in the nation's economy. well, it matters not only to vermonters' quality of life, but

we have as an example and many other rural states are in the same boat, bordering canada, we are the transportation conduit to our biggest trading partner in america. canada. projections going forward in the next three decades, we're going to see our freight transportation increase by 50%. and we have a crumbling infrastructure right now. so in terms of jobs and prosperity the rural states actually carry a bigger burden, because we've got more to maintain, and we all know that that infrastructure is crumbling. and it's got to be rebuilt. so i just want to make the point that when you look at this challenge of reauthorizing the transportation trust fund it's important to remember that the roughly states really have a special burden. now, the northeast states have an increased burden as well simply because of climate. if you look at what we're facing together, we are dealing with a

much shortened construction season. we obviously have freezing and thawing that takes an extraordinary toll on our pavement and our bridges. and we have to throw salt around like there's no end to it. which is really terrible for steel, which is critical to bridges. and it frankly, doesn't help pavement out much either. so in a sense the colder states also, i would argue, but all the rural states are in this one together. i want to just say a word about, in listening to the rural and state challenges. i thought i would be briefer by not having to read you my comments, but then i lost my notes. i want to say a word about the funding and what it really means for those of us in the challenge as we're losing the battle. for me and governor bentley

just made reference to it in his garby bonds, he's in the same boat, we rely on the funding from the federal government. when there is uncertainty about funding, or when the fund is out of money and you're literally unable to send the match back to the states we're in a terrible position of having to dig for cash that we didn't anticipate we would need. or turning to contractors and simply saying we can't do the work that we contracted you to do, because we're not sure we can pay the bill. this is the reality for governors across america. so we have to remember that when we talk about getting this done and we know that may is the drop-dead date, in my case, next month we will start letting contracts for the work to be done next spring, and remember, in a state like vermont or in the northeast, your paving season and building season runs from early april, if you're lucky, early may, to around thanksgiving, it starts to

freeze and you can't make pavement below 32 degrees as you know. so those are the challenges that we face together both timing and funding. i just want to make a comment about funding. there's sometimes the perception that states can kind of go it alone. that they can figure this out without the partnership of the federal government. and i just want to remind us that particularly small rural states don't have the options for funding that some of the larger states might have. i go across the george washington bridge, you know with your easy pass and i dream of having that kind of volume and that kind of passage to get over a bridge. we're often asked when whe hit our transportation challenges, why don't you do tolls in vermont? well, we don't have enough people to pay the tolls. we don't have traffic to go through. it literally would not be a great given proposition for us in all the studies we've done. let's remember that while the small rural states have a more intense infrastructure, more miles and bridges to maintain, we have fewer funding sources to

do it. so i really appreciate the opportunity to be before you today. and we would love to answer any questions that you have. i just want to make four quick recommendations if i could. >> i'm afraid we can't do that governor -- >> all right. carry on. >> thank you very much for your presentation. and secretary burkwits. >> thank you, chairman imhoff, ranking member boxer, and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here in front of this committee this morning on behalf of south dakota. governor dugard really wanted to be here himself to tell our story, because he understands and appreciates the importance of a strong transportation investment to our state. he sends his regrets that he was not able to be here today. but on his behalf, i would like to highlight the key points of his written statement. first of all, we thank you for holding this hearing early in this congress. it tells us as a committee, it appreciates the prompt action to

pass good federal transportational legislation that will benefit the nation. the nation needs strong federal transportation funding, and long-term financial stability for the highway and transportation program in order to strengthen the economy and the nation. we believe the transportation program should continue to distribute the vast majority of funds to states by formula. it should further simplify regulations and program requirements providing states with additional flexibility to meet their unique individual needs. the federal transportation program must connect the nation including rural areas like ours. a rural state like south dakota is far from markets and population centers, but our contributions are important to the national economy. south dakota and other rural states are the source of products resources and recreational opportunities that help define us as a nation. our highways connect cities like chicago to the west coast, moving agriculture and other

goods to markets and allow people to visit great places like mount rushmore and attractions located in rural areas. short-term authorizations are a is apparent and states are taking action. in south dakota governor dugard just this week introduced a proposal to our legislative session that would significantly increase state investment in transportation in south dakota. while we are trying to do our part states cannot do it alone. we need a strong federal program. large rural states like south dakota have very few people to support each mile of federal highway and to be able to maintain our portion of the

national highway system. the world population of 7 billion people is expected to grow by 70 million a year and we need to export our crops and products to help feed them. 65% of the truck traffic in south dakota is through commerce, meaning it does not originate in or have a destination in our state but it certainly serves the destination. before closing mr. chairman we'd like tone courage you to do what you can to simplify the transportation program and make it more flexible. we know there necessarily must be some requirements for the federal program but this is an area where for the public interest less is more. as it turns out this includes gravel and dirt roads which make up the majority of the roads in our state. this is not a priority use of scarce funds. so we urge the congress to simplify the program. where it can.

so that program dollars can provide more transportation investment in projects that improve our system. in summary strong and stable federal funding along with flexibility that reduces requirements will help states provide the transportation system that the nation nooeds needs. congress should continue to distribute the vast majority of program funds by formula and of course federal service transportation legislation. must continue to recognize significant federal investment in highways and rural areas like ours is in the national interest. again, mr. chairman thank you for the opportunity. i'd be glad to answer any question. >> thank you, secretary berk wift. excellent state. the chair's going to take the prerogative and 125r9 with governor bentley who has a particular scheduling problem. so i recognize you at this time to respond to questions. and i would only make this one comment. government bentley. you talk about certainty. this is always a problem you have when you're dealing with

the government. right now there's always the uncertainty of all these regulations that are out there that are creating hardships on people. certainly it's true in this area too. is there anything you'd like to elaborate concerning the certainty issue you'd like to expand on? >> certainty is probably the most important thing that we're asking for on a state level. and if we have the certainty, whatever that certainty is, we can deal with it. it's so difficult for us as a state to not know whether or not we'll get funding. if this ends in may, which it supposedly will, it makes it difficult for awful us. and one of the things that i have put in place in alabama that i've talked about is we put a billion dollars into the repair of our roads and bridges. we need to repair what we already have. we can't just build new roads and bridges. we have to repair what we have

and make sure they're functional. we have borrowed a billion dollars, and we've gotten it at such a low rate. simply because we have such a high rating, bond rating in alabama. but we need $69 million to pay off those bonds over the next 18 or 19 years. so we just need certainty. whatever that certainty is. whatever the federal government can help us with. and we appreciate that partnership. that's one of the things it is a partnership. all states connect, obviously. so it is a partnership. the certainty to me is the most important thing and that's what we need most. >> senator boxer. >> i just want to thank our panel. i'm going to make a quick point and then i'm going to ask the governor. i am so for a simplification of flexibility. i work with senator inhofe, and he will tell you i came a long way on that point.

but we do have to protect taxpayers here. so i think for me i want to make sure i'm protecting taxpayers. so just keep that in mind, that we have to find that sweet spot. and that sweet spot may look different to you than it does through my eyes. but we are going to work together on this. governors, thank you. i know how hard it is to get to here and take you away from your states. governor bentley, i was so interested in your alabama transportation rehabilitation improvement program. it's a billion-dollar program. am i right about that? >> yes. >> billion-dollar program. and the reason you can do it is you're counting on future federal dollars. you have the garvey bonds. is that a correct explanation of how it works? >> yes, it is. >> yes. and so i just guessed because i think your point about certainty is so key. i would like you to in another

way, in a very eloquent way, explain to us why certainty is so critical. and if you didn't have the certainty of this federal bill how it could impact you back home. again. i know it's repetition because it's important. it's the message i would like to see go out of this hearing. >> again let me say i think certainty is the most important thing we have to deal with. over the last five or six years we have not had that certainty obviously. and so we need it to plan. if we don't have -- we need five, six -- whatever the number of years that you decide, we just need to know what those are. and we need to plan accordingly. and this program that i have put in place and was able to put in place without legislation because the people of alabama have allowed us to borrow the garvey bonds. so we're using future federal

dollars. >> right. >> so the certainty is so important for me because i've signed a billion dollars in bonds. and i want to make sure we pay it back. and we can pay it back in two ways. number one is if the federal government will help continue to give us some certainty about what they're going to give the states plus the fact that we can do it better because in alabama we have such a great bond rating. we have a better bond rating than the federal government. so we are able to borrow this money at such a low rate certainly lower than the inflation rate for delaying the repairs on these roads and bridges. certainty, it's essential to us. >> thank you, governor. i know you speak for both governors here. my last question is it's interesting to learn about the i-10 bridget project. and you noted there are some projects of national and regional significance that are

too large to be funded without specific federal assistance. do you believe a federal program to allow these types of projects to compete against one other in addition to core formula funding would be popular among the states, these projects of national significance? >> well, i'd rather have them to compete than not have it at all. >> i hear you. >> because i think competition is always good. >> i think as a federal government -- and i'm not speaking about the federal government because i run the state of alabama. i think you do have to look at what is the most important for our security, for our economy, for our safety. all of those things we have to look at when you look at these types of projects outside of the normal funding stream. >> thank you so much. >> thank you senator boxer. senator bozeman?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you all for being here. in relation to this can you tell us the impact of the two-year bill versus a five-year bill? what that does as far as certainty. the necessity of the longer bill versus the two-year bill. the other thing i'd like for you to think about along with that is one of the frustrations is you mentioned we were number one in infrastructure. i think when you look back at when we were number one, probably the percentage of what the states were doing is more thanes it now. as opposed to the what feds are doing. and i think one of the frustrations we have is when we put money into the states because of the fiscal constraints of the states with things like prisons and medicaid and education and things like that, the states have a tendency sometimes to shrink back and things stay the same as opposed to increasing.

you mentioned, mr. shumlin, about your small state. arkansas's a small state. to our credit we passed a half-cent sales tax to try to overcome the problems that you have. i wish coming across the 14th street bridge every day that we could different you some of our traffic. that would make my life sxm other commuters' a lot easier. but comment on the two versus the five-year bill. and then also the problems how do we ensure that as we try to do the very best that we can do to get money into the states that that's actually an improvement versus the state shrinking back? >> in terms of the two to five the more certainty you can give us the better. five's better than two. governor bentley served in an environment where we'd love to have two. we've both been governors for four years. needless to say the more certainty you can give us the longer period of time, the happier all governors will be.