situation. the long lines issue, how widespread is it? is it a national problem or is it extremely localized? you mentioned in one district, it was 1% of the precincts or something like that. are we searching for a federal solution to what is really a very isolated local problem that needs to be dealt with by local officials? mr. bauer, you want to tackle that? >> he aren't realming a federal solution but realming a series reforms by state and local governments can keep the wait lines down and comply with the 30-minute standard that we have articulated. condly, it is a problem -- obviously, it is going to be scattered throughout the

country. long lines, some have some real problems with long lines. but the best data indicates that in the united states, five million americans waited more than an hour to vote and another five million between a half an hour to an hour and 10 million americans is significant number of people and other jurisdictions who haven't had that experience could be significantly at risk if there are not if they are not ajudgments to the electoral process to address problems, like for example, weak voter rolls or inadequate voting machinery and then you would have lines where you didn't have them before. >> is this a truly national problem or is this something that is very localized? >> i think in our experience, it was pretty localized. any time you have 10 million people voting for long periods

of time, that would suggest you need a solution to that because it shouldn't happen. we had 130 million voters roughly in the last election and that is a significant number, but it is localized. and what we saw is there is not one reason that there are long lines. in fact in different jurisdictions there are different places. you know some jurisdictions will have 100 polling places and put 10 in each precinct and not take into account a rush to registration in a couple of precincts so you have machines in one place standing idle and a line at another. place where people are voting is too small and creates a line. there are a number of commonsense solutions to the problem that we heard about from both our friends in the private sector and from election

administrators and bob discussed them in his testimony. and we lay out solutions that can be used on the local level to solve the individual problems that will occur. >> i'm particularly concerned about something that you mentioned, phrase was impending crisis in election technology and you went on to mention about federal certification. could you expand on that, what the issue is and what we can do about it. >> yes, there are a couple of points to be made and i suspect bob will want to add some as well. the current certification system is using standards that were developed in 2005 and 2007 to approve new technology. well, that was before anybody had an ipad or tablet or many of the devices we use today. because the standards have never been updated largely because of the election assistance

commission. e whole thing that a machine manufacturer has to go through to get new equipment passed so it can be used by the different states has become extremely time consuming and extremely expensive. so it's a federal certification process? >> it currently is, yes. but there are two jurisdictions, los angeles county and travis county, austin texas, that have decided that they are going to build their own systems because things aren't working on the federal level. before the process of certification became federalized, it was handled by the state election directors, and that seems to have been a process that worked better and in fact, may be a solution going forward. so it's not necessarily a federal solution that's needed to the problem, but something ertainly needs to be done.

>> is it to undo the prior federal solution? >> perhaps. it would not be the first time. >> mr. bauer, your thoughts. >> i agree, we did not choose to be prescriptive, we didn't say it needs to be addressed a particular way, but we did point out -- and this by the way, is t intended as an adverse reaction to the commission. our report is replete with references to the top flight work they have done developing best practices and december imnaturing them to the jurisdictions. but here, knowing there is going to be continued conflict about its role, there is a structural blockage that needs to be addressed and we can't wait for someday we might hope for when partisan fevers will subside and the the commission will experience a new dawn in this

particular area. the problem that ben has identified is too urgent and some answer has to be found. >> senator roberts, second round. coming back o me at this point that as usual, you have focused on the very questions that i was going to ask and our witnesses with their expert knowledge have already answered them. so the question is, do i simply repeat the questions you have asked and have them do it over ain or simply ask permission o put this article by norm ornstein, early voting necessary but toxic in large doses.

not going to read it to you but commend it to the attention of everybody. i think it is still very viable today. and i thank the witnesses and everybody concerned with this and since my questions are a duplication of the questions already asked, i yield back. and i thank you, sir. >> senator klobuchar. >> i have a few more questions about some actual individual recommendations you had. first i thought that was interesting was the internet feed idea. we put a camera on rising waters on the river and everyone in the community tunes in to see what is happening so they can see it or we use this all the time for weather. people are constantly checking today, right, when the storm is coming in tonight and the simple idea that people could with simple technology check to see what is happening with voting lines in their precincts.

would you be turning a camera on the people or just giving reports? >> i think what we had envisioned is that the administrators would be continuously assessing wait times and posting reports that citizens could result if they sort of plan out, when it would be most reconvenient for them and efficient for them to vote. and as you pointed out, this is fairly straightforward. it is one of the ways in which we believe we have to be continuously thinking about the introduction of technology to support the voting process. >> put election administrator saying no wait time -- >> half an hour, 45 minutes, correct. >> then you have another one on poll working and training and discussed the importance of that and professional workers operating in the polling places and training standards for poll

workers. how would this work? >> again, it's something that really can be talked about by the state but implemented by either the state or local jurisdictions. poll workers are the point of contact for most voters. so having well trained poll workers 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. one of the laments we heard is how difficult it is to recruit poll workers, to find enough 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 in showing up than 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 have sufficient training. >> your report talked about the importance of access to information and languages other than english, including ballots in other languages, outreach to language outlets, there would be some efforts. we made efforts in minnesota with asian and pacific islander groups and why is access important to these groups so important? >> we want to say 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 find there is nobody there to help them who can speak their language, not

consistent with offering the same experience to all of our voters that all of our voters deserve. and there is support that by federal law, this congress has tendered to these voters and the statutes that provide for this protection are not drawn compliance. in a variety of ways in the localities recruiting poll workers with language capability and then on the more -- on the next scale, next point up the scale, devoting their efforts to comply with protecting language minorities. it is absolutely critical to have respect for the voter. >> one of the things you talk about in here is people serving overseas in our military and having online registration materials would be so helpful to them. i think it makes a lot of sense. do you want to explain that. >> we found inconsistencies among the states in the sort of usefulness of their web sites

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 morrow bus sites than others. websites is 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 web sites to be enhanced in the states. >> ok. thank you very much. >> i want to follow up again on the question of certification, because you have both identified -at-us s a kind of coming wave of replacement machines with new technology and if the certification system is broken, that could be a real problem in

six to 10 years. is the problem the structure and lack of functionality of the e.a.c. or the idea of federal certification itself? i see those two separate issues. if the e.a.c. tomorrow became fully functional, would this open the process and we would take care of this in an expeditious manner or should we consider saying this is a state and local responsibility, why do we need federal certification? thoughts.rg, your >> it's an area where federal certification makes sense where the states desire it. there needs to be a central body to be able to judge machines and give the states some comfort in the quality of machines. >> like u.l. underwriters laboratories for

appliances. >> the state directors forming a group was the model before the e.a.c. i would agree that the e.a.c. and its functionality is a complete separate question wrapped up in a lot of other different regs. >> but it's a question that's important because if it doesn't get fixed, then we don't get the certification, correct? >> yes. i'm partial to the state election directors' solution for it. i think that could happen much more expeditiously with a greater need. there would be a federal rule in terms of the expertise and 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 correctly and it is possible to confuse the issues.

we would not have arrived at this conclusion i don't think and made this recommendation if the e.a.c. in this particular area hadn't been in some what in a state of paralysis and this never developed and the e.a.c. was correctly functioning could it discharge its role? the answer is yes. that may not prove to be the case and can't wait for a solution that may not be available to us in the political atmosphere and other alternatives have to be developed. >> would it take legislation for those alternatives, the certification is just behind the dam, right? it can't happen. what do we do? this is a problem that is going to come at us in the next two to four years. >> i think that is part of the discussion that needs to take

place right now which is what steps should be taken and how could they 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. >> the state directors created a certifying agency would be acceptable alternative. would that be acceptable to you or is this a federal responsibility? >> i would be prepared to consider all the alternatives. i wouldn't want any position that we take -- one of the ncerns we have had, be a damning conclusion about the e.a.c. and that's not my attention. but any alternative that is an alternative is one i would consider. >> even if the e.a.c. is functional, does this need to be a federal responsibility, i guess is the question i'm asking? >> i don't know i would define it as a federal responsibility

by necessity but i'm not prepared to say there is an alternative. i'm not prepared at this point because you i have not reached a conclusion which of the alternatives, the one ben suggested, potentially another, with more federal involvement might be the most effective. what we need to do is focus on what would be the most effective and i don't have a conclusion. >> we have to do something. the alarm bells are ringing. >> if i might, senator. the way the system works 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. there's 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 or cannot be a federal function that group that is judging the quality of the machines. >> or if i may, senator, it could be a function that is not federally supported. >> well, thank you both for your thoughts on this. and if you have additional thoughts on this important issue, please file them with the committee. any other questions? on behalf of the committee, i would like to thank both of you for your important system and particularly for your work on this commission. it is important -- it's important to the people of america and important to our process and who we are as a country and i really appreciate the work that you've done on this and thank you very much. and this will conclude today's hearing. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen,

minute public works committee hearing. >> good morning everybody. it's so good to see you all here. this is such an important issue that we are discussing today. we are focusing on the maintaining federal funding for transportation, maintaining federal funding. that is what is 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 who build, maintain and utilize our transportation system. i am so pleased to once again welcome tom donohue from the u.s. chamber and richard sub one from the afl-cio. i at least 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 ashto. dr. p. lane president and ceo of american roads and transportation builders and jay timmons president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. i want to say to all who are here that there will be devastating impacts felt across our economy if 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 d.o.t. estimate that the highway trust fund may run out of funds as early as 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

are already beginning to develop contingency plans to prepare for reductions in federal transportation funding which includes cutting pending projects from their current funding plans. this is terrible. for businesses, for workers and for our nation. according to georgia's department of transportation is 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 dates postpone 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, the pending highway trust fund shortfall must be addressed by an infusion of funds read otherwise cbo estimates that obligations for new projects in 2015 would need to be reduced to zero, zero.

this would result in federal 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 new projects perhaps as early as this summer. it is critical for nash and to continue investing in our aging infrastructure. therefore providing, sorry preserving the trust fund needs to be our number-one priority on this committee and other committees and in the senate and the house. we must work together to find a sweet spot for the dependable bipartisan source of funding for the highway trust fund ,-com,-com ma 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 last year from the national association of manufacturers and i'm so happy they are 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. i think nam for that great 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 and i have met with almost everyone of them. it is our intention to report on the bill and i'm hoping for a five or six year bill. i've begun discussions 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 and for your

advocacy for a strong transportation system. we need you now more than ever. you have been with us through these battles before and we won those battles because of our unity. whatever our differences may be in other areas and we know we have them, we don't have them here and being partners is critical to our success. with that i would turn to my ranking member senator sub three. >> thank you madam chair and thanks to of our witnesses. all we are very hopeful about that. we increasingly turn our attention to our next big infrastructure work which is the next highway bill. we are both excited to do that and are both actively doing that thanks to our witnesses. you represent a diverse group of

interests but collectively you represent a strong and a common voice on this issue. our infrastructure is a critical component of our nation's economy and our quality of life. a first-class infrastructure is fundamental to connect people and communities and it's a critical building block for our economy. in 2011 alone the u.s. transportation system 17.6 billion tons of goods valued at almost $17 trillion. however as the chair suggested just like week -- last week cbo came out with their data updated projections for the highway trust fund and that trust fund is accelerating towards bankruptcy faster than anticipated. action must be taken broker the end of the fiscal year to avoid with the chair described a nearly 100% drop in new federal

funds in fy15. 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 extended to not only facilitate the unique characteristics of funding transportation infrastructure but also to provide funding safe guards for the highest priority, projects. putting such a structure on a sound fiscal footing will restore the stability and certainty of the trust fund that is so vital to economic growth. i have to say some believe that for some reason it's a core conservative principle to adhere strict way to our current flawed mechanism in perpetuity and that is 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 his concerns about a net tax increase for cash-strapped middle-class families and i will be seeking a solution that fully addresses are highway trust fund needs while not imposing such a tax increase. when the trust fund structure was first established it was designed to build interstate highway system and it was structured a sans on the simple principle that at first you map out its and define a finally detailed plan and come up with the cost to complete that 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 into and a 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 keep adding programs and eligibility to the trust fund that are narrowly focused that don't build or maintain the infrastructure or do very little to benefit those who pay into the system. it means a trust fund needs to be even more transparent than before to build and rebuild that

trust. we need to be able to show where taxpayer dollars are going and where future investments may or may not utilize on a project by project level. finally we must rebuild that trust by continuing to reduce the cost burden and impact of red tape and bureaucracy. this chair and i are hard at work putting significant reform ideas together in a new bill that can be dealt that trust and that can start the process and get the finance committee moving as a full partner on the finance peace. so we hope to be moving such a base bill through the committee to encourage the finance committee to take it up and address the finance peace as a full partner. i very much look forward to your testimony and very much look forward to that work of rebuilding trust in the trust fund funds so that we can fully

finance our clear infrastructure needs. >> senator thank you and i think this gives the signal that we are very much of one mind as to how to proceed which is very important. here is the situation. we have several boats at 11:30 so i'm going to ask members to keep their remarks to four minutes if you can your opening remarks and we will tend -- turn to senator merkley. >> this is a very important project that we pursue renewal of map-21. the oregon department of transportation is very nervous about the shortfall in the highway trust fund. of our states have delayed projects that results in much higher costs and it also results in an direct impacts on jobs within the state. we anticipate we would have a challenge where we would lose at five thousand jobs during 2015.

so i am very aware that america is spending 2% of its gdp on infrastructure. europe is spending 5% in china is spending 10%. the experience of going to beijing from bicycles to a bullet train in that time period. 2% can't 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 take this project forward. it's extremely important to our economy and the infrastructure that will fuel our future economy. >> senator thank you for your support in your comments. i will turn to senator wicker. >> thank you madam chair and thank you ranking member of vitter for this important hearing. bipartisanship is breaking out all over in the congress. it continues today and as we

debate federal transportation reauthorization i hope we can build on this success. funding transportation infrastructure is the combined federal 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 committee held a hearing on the implementation of the provisions 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 -- that said we should still proceed with caution. 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 pass these increases into law. we should allow and encourage

these experiments to continue. 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. there are other issues that need to be addressed. we need to examine the rig costs of our current situation. over the last two decades the buying power of the gas tax revenues has slowly declined no room -- not only as a construction costs but also as they're sold with increasing fuel efficiency. we need to ensure that all users shoulder and equitable burden for the wear and tear on our nation's roads. finally madam chair we need to save guard the integrity of the gas tax is a user fee. we have an obligation to the users who are paying the fee an obligation to ensure that the revenues are going to their intended purpose in rebuilding and maintaining our nation's roads and highways. thank you.

>> thank you so much sir and that we will turn it over to senator whitehouse and then senator inhofe. >> thank you chairman for calling this hearing. it has not been that long since when we were able to pass map-21 in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and 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 efficiently to market. that bipartisan view is reflected in today's hearing which brings together groups that don't agree on many things but they do know that hoping roads and bridges can create jobs across the country and help our economy move forward. that is nowhere more important than a mice home state of rhode island which suffers an unemployment rate of 9.1%. we have no shortage of transportation projects that could put rhode islanders to work. the i-95 corridor runs through

capital city and the providence viaduct built in 1964 is showing its age. its debt is badly deteriorated in the steel girders are cracked. wooden planks have been installed to prevent concrete from falling off of the viaduct into cars crossing it below and similarly for the amtrak trains that go underneath it. happily with the help of the tiger grand and federal funds that project has broken ground and a replacement bridge on one way of the highway is under construction. but there is a lot more work to do on the northbound lane on routes six en route 10 converging with highway 95 there in that central location in providence is just one example of how federal transportation programs are necessary and can help put people to work. less than two years ago he put map-21 into place with important

reforms but the thing we were not able to get done is to solve the problem of the diminishing and soon diminishing and soon-to-be vanishing highway trust fund. so it's headed for zero and when it gets to see road that is going to be a real disaster for transportation and infrastructure so i'm 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 as mileage increases electric cars emerge and hybrid cars also cut into the value of the gas tax as a source for highway infrastructure. i think the chairman and i think the ranking member who i understand is next storm meeting with constituents and i appreciate the panel being here together even in some unusual pairings. >> senator thank you and in my opening statement i talked about

how we began talks with senators wyden and hatch because it is their purview to fund this and i think they are excited with the challenge, not that it will be easy. nothing is easy. senator inhofe. >> thank you madam chairwoman. i do have a long and varied opening statement to give but i will listen to you and for the record just make a couple of comments. there's one paragraph paragraph in here that i do want to actually read. as i see we have four choices moving forward one based on cbo estimates if we don't lined in a new record in the trust fund we are looking at a 90% cut in the program and some data has the figure at 100%. second we simply, something we will talk about later on transfer from the general fund and third raise revenue and for an absence of ads during the first three before a map-21

expires 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 it seems every year and i have been involved in these every year since i was in the committee on the house many years ago is not so much with the democrats but with the republicans. there is this passion for some republicans could to get conservative ratings and when something big for spending comes along they use that as an example. that is the bad news in the good news is obama how site and i was privileged to go over and you can understand this and maybe you already knew this. i got all 33 of the house republicans on the t&i committee in one room. this was after we pass this out of the senate and i told them about the guys that were demagoguing is on the floor. i know a lot of you guys are conservatives so that gave them

my pitch as to the liberal vote would be to vote for extensions. extensions that we had nine extensions cost 30% off the top. that is not something conservatives should be doing. i'm not saying it's my influence there but all 33 of them voted in favor enthusiastically supporting it so i think we are making headway there. again i look at the, i look at the trust fund and you can't tell me that maintaining unused vacant federal are pretty at $25 million a year is more important than reask arising a 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 and we may end up having to do that anyway like we did last year. if you read the constitution article section 8 says clearly the main thing we are supposed to be doing here is defense and infrastructure. my case rests. we will go after it. >> uis make a very good case.

i want to point out in addition to talking to the tea party members i had tea with, or coffee with quite a few of them and i enjoyed it actually and we did get tremendous support. remember senator wyden and hatch are going to decide how this is paid for in their committee. senator gillibrand. >> i can tell you how grateful and that you pull 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 labor and business because the united states cannot maintain our competitive local edge without a strong network of roads bridges and rail to move people and products safely and efficiently forward. it is as simple as that but with deadlines looming to reauthorize ma [ captioning performed by the national captioning institute ]