    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: HIGHWAYS AND
                       TRANSIT STAKEHOLDERS' PERSPECTIVES

    =======================================================================

                                    (115-28)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                              HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 11, 2017

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    28-114 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,      ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
      Vice Chair                         Columbia
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  RICK LARSEN, Washington
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    JEFF DENHAM, California              ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            Georgia
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 DINA TITUS, Nevada
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Vice Ranking Member
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JARED HUFFMAN, California
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan              MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JOHN J. FASO, New York
    A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    JASON LEWIS, Minnesota

                                      (ii)

                      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

                         SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       Columbia
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DINA TITUS, Nevada
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    JEFF DENHAM, California              ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JARED HUFFMAN, California
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  Georgia
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania, Vice    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    Chair                                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
    PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan              Officio)
    JOHN J. FASO, New York
    A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
    Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                                   WITNESSES

    Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri Department of
      Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
      Highway and Transportation Officials:

        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
        Response to request for information from Hon. Rick Larsen, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Washington....    65
        Responses to post-hearing questions for the record submitted
          by Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Ohio..............................................    66
    James Roberts, President and CEO, Granite Construction, Inc., on
      behalf of the Transportation Construction Coalition:

        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
        Response to request for information from Hon. Rick Larsen, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Washington....    90
    Brent Booker, Secretary-Treasurer, North America's Building
      Trades Unions:

        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    92
    Ray McCarty, President and Chief Executive Officer, Associated
      Industries of Missouri, on behalf of the National Association
      of Manufacturers:

        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    99
        Responses to post-hearing questions for the record submitted
          by Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Ohio..............................................   107
    Peter M. Rogoff, Chief Executive Officer, Sound Transit

        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................   108

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, submission of the following:

        Letter of September 14, 2017, from Brad Diede, Executive
          Director, American Council of Engineering Companies
          California, et al., to Hon. Kevin McCarthy, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of California....    38
        Letter of September 15, 2017, from the Transportation
          Construction Coalition, to Hon. Kevin McCarthy, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of California....    40

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Prepared statement from the American Council of Engineering
      Companies......................................................   117
    Prepared statement from the American Public Transportation
      Association....................................................   123
    Prepared statement from Debra Lee Ricker, Chair, Board of
      Directors, the American Traffic Safety Services Association....   128
    Prepared statement from Brian P. McGuire, President and CEO,
      Associated Equipment Distributors..............................   131
    Prepared statement from the National Parks Conservation
      Association....................................................   132
    Prepared statement from the North American Concrete Alliance.....   134
    Prepared statement from the Professional Engineers in California
      Government.....................................................   136
    Prepared statement from the Safety Spectrum Coalition............   139
    Report of the Tri-State Development Summit Transportation Task
      Force, ``Support Sufficient User Fees to Meet Federal
      Transportation Investment''....................................   143
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: HIGHWAYS AND
                       TRANSIT STAKEHOLDERS' PERSPECTIVES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves of
    Missouri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. We will call the subcommittee to
    order. The first thing, I would like to ask unanimous consent
    that Members who are not on the subcommittee be permitted to
    sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing so they can ask
    questions.
        Without objection, that is so ordered.
        I would like to welcome everybody to the hearing today. It
    is going to focus, obviously, on how we can build a 21st-
    century infrastructure. And the committee is holding a host of
    hearings to gather ideas on what Congress can do to achieve
    this goal. And today we are going to hear ideas from our
    highways and transit stakeholders.
        You know, gathering input from our stakeholders is
    essential to the process that we use to develop surface
    transportation policy. It was valuable in our efforts to pass
    the FAST Act [Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act],
    which was the first long-term highway bill in a decade, and we
    are going to continue to need your assistance with future
    legislation.
        Even with the additional resources we provided in FAST, the
    Nation's surface transportation system still needs additional
    investments. Enacting a long-term solution for the Highway
    Trust Fund is a critical component to ensuring that we can
    address those needs long into the future.
        Since passage of the FAST Act, building consensus on a
    solution to fund surface transportation programs has been a
    central priority of mine and it has always been the main
    priority of the committee. Providing Federal funding certainty
    for our non-Federal partners is vital to planning and building
    infrastructure for the 21st century. This is a bipartisan issue
    and I look forward to working constructively with my colleagues
    on both sides of the aisle, as well as our stakeholders, to
    ensure that we are going to achieve this goal.
        A modern infrastructure means a strong America, an America
    that competes globally, supports local and regional economic
    development, and creates jobs.
        And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
    today. I look forward, obviously, to the testimony.
        And with that I will turn to Ranking Member Norton for her
    opening statement.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I must say at the
    outset I very much appreciate that the subcommittee is holding
    this hearing to get input on rebuilding our highway systems. I
    think that is the right way to begin after this hiatus. And the
    four of us, in a very bipartisan way, led the Congress to pass
    the first surface transportation bill in a decade in 2015.
    Well, we realized then that we had not really begun, as
    important as that achievement was.
        It is not yet clear on where the Trump administration
    stands, or if it is really serious about real investments in
    infrastructure. I am pleased that they speak about
    infrastructure so often.
        But I think this committee is right to continue the due
    diligence that you have begun, Mr. Chairman, to highlight our
    investment needs and the critical need to actually fund them,
    stop talking about it, let's get some money on the table.
    Perhaps this hearing can help bring our committee and
    subcommittee and the administration together on what all agree
    s urgently needed infrastructure work.
        We already have a bipartisan majority on this committee
    about what needs to be done, because earlier this year 250
    Members of Congress with robust representation from both sides
    of the aisle joined Chairman Graves and I on a letter to the
    leadership of the Ways and Means Committee, urging a permanent
    solution--with an emphasis on permanent--to our Highway Trust
    Fund crisis.
        In this letter, we specifically urge, ``Any HTF solution,''
    Highway Trust Fund solution, ``should entail a long-term,
    dedicated, user-based revenue stream that can support
    transportation infrastructure investments.'' This strongly
    bipartisan letter stands in stark contrast to the
    administration's apparent view that an infrastructure
    initiative is an opportunity to begin chipping away at the
    Federal Government's responsibility to be the steward of our
    national transportation network.
        Remember, ever since Eisenhower, we have recognized that
    this is a network. You can't dice and slice it; it goes from
    coast to coast, it goes from rural to urban. That is why the
    responsibility is Federal. Based on what we have seen so far
    from the administration, we may get a White House proposal that
    contains various incentives designed to boost local, State, and
    Tribal dollars. Try telling that to the States and localities.
    Rural areas object to this, and Members and Senators
    representing rural areas are predictably strong proponents of
    keeping the funding streams as they are.
        So the administration seems to hint that some funding would
    go to rural areas and, for the great bulk of other areas, there
    would be limited Federal dollars. But there has been an
    agreement for my entire lifetime--Republican and Democratic
    administrations alike--that there should be Federal grants that
    fund the entire network. And I am certainly happy to work with
    rural areas--they feed right into the urban area I represent--
    to ensure that they are treated fairly. When one part of the
    system is not treated fairly, we all have to jump in.
        I cannot support an infrastructure bill, of course, that is
    biased against urban areas. And I suspect that there would be a
    huge number of Members with me on that. I doubt that such a
    bill could gather a majority from either party.
        So, as an example of what a region looks like, I represent
    the District of Columbia, which is, of course, a densely
    populated city in a densely populated region. Well, you see all
    kinds of construction trades, building more offices,
    apartments, condos, amenities, and collaboration with the rest
    of the region. Maryland suburbs, Virginia suburbs, the Federal
    Government provides a transportation network for over 6 million
    people.
        Now, within this microcosm of our country, congestion,
    transportation problems, deteriorating bridges are challenges
    that we face no matter where we live. No part of the region is
    immune. So I may represent the District, but I believe I
    represent the entire region and, for that matter, the country
    when I speak of this region.
        These same challenges, the challenges I have described in
    this region, are replicated in all our major urban areas across
    the Nation. Maybe we should stop calling them urban areas,
    because the rural part of our region feeds straight into these
    roads and bridges, because that is where they come for the
    jobs, because that is where the jobs are.
        So, parity in a transportation bill is essential. The top
    20 urban areas contribute 52 percent of the total GDP of our
    economy. American population is expected to grow by 70 million
    by 2045. And by 2050, three-quarters of Americans are expected
    to live in 11 megaregions. We can no more leave behind urban
    areas than we can leave behind rural areas. It is pretty hard
    to disassociate one from the other.
        Our urban areas, of course, are the economic engine of the
    Nation. That is why the rural areas need them. If we leave
    urban areas to fend for themselves largely, then we are
    ignoring our constitutional mandate to assure the free flow of
    commerce. Allowing bottlenecks to build up and traffic to grind
    to a halt in major population and commercial centers is
    backwards and would hurt urban and rural areas alike.
        Some of our witnesses today support the repeal of the
    Federal ban on tolling interstates. Originally enacted to
    protect drivers from double taxation, a Rasmussen survey found
    that just 22 percent of Americans favor polling tolls on
    interstate highways for infrastructure maintenance. Three times
    as many, or 65 percent, are opposed to turning the Nation's
    interstate into tolling roads.
        We should think seriously about the impact on drivers if
    the Federal Government incentivizes Federal lanes tolled that
    allow drivers to avoid the congested general purpose lanes.
    Such schemes, sometimes referred to as Lexus lanes, allow those
    with disposable income to avoid congestion, yet leave the great
    majority of drivers stuck in traffic.
        Just a few miles from here in Virginia are the 495 express
    lanes. Perhaps some Members use them. These lanes use
    congestion pricing with no price cap to ensure traffic flow
    remains at least 55 miles per hour in express lanes. No traffic
    reduction requirement exists for the general purpose lanes that
    most people use, meaning any congestion benefits reside with
    those who can afford to pay more.
        In the same vein, the 495 express public-private
    partnership contract discourages carpooling, of all things,
    that directly relieves congestion. While HOVs [high-occupancy
    vehicles] are exempt from tolls, if HOVs exceed 24 percent of
    total vehicles, the Virginia Department of Transportation would
    have to subsidize the lost toll proceeds. This means that the
    Virginia Department of Transportation is incentivized to
    discourage carpooling, which is a major instrument for
    relieving congestion.
        Finally, this is a particularly bipartisan committee, as
    our recent transportation and infrastructure legislation shows.
    However, any adverse treatment to transit investment in an
    infrastructure package would surely break up this partnership.
        Perhaps we all remember when there was a bill that failed
    to get to the floor some years ago because it virtually zeroed
    out transit. Transit is critical to moving workers efficiently
    and minimizing congestion in urban areas. We need more, not
    less, of it. Yet the administration in fiscal year 2018, in its
    budget, continues the false and shortsighted myth that cutting
    transit funding will somehow solve our transportation funding
    woes. Their opposition to transit is a recipe for congestion.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today's
    witnesses, and I thank you for calling this hearing today.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Ms. Norton. I now turn
    to Representative Shuster, chairman of the full committee, for
    his comments.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Graves. And thanks to all the
    witnesses for being here. I am looking forward to hearing from
    all of you. None of you, I think, are strangers to the
    committee. From Mr. McKenna, who is actually out there doing it
    day in and day out in Missouri, and Mr. Roberts, and Mr.
    Booker, your folks are building the infrastructure of this
    country. Mr. McCarty, your folks are using it every day. And,
    of course, Mr. Rogoff, your great and distinguished career down
    at DOT--it is a really fabulous panel to have before us. We
    look forward to hearing what you have to say.
        To me, building a 21st-century infrastructure is about
    jobs. It is about efficiency, moving products, moving people as
    efficiently, as low-cost as we can, ensuring that America is
    competitive, and making sure we pay for it. Stop kicking the
    can down the road so that my children or grandchildren or
    great-grandchildren are going to be stuck with a bill for a
    road that has been built in the next couple of years.
        I certainly believe that President Trump is a builder. I
    think this is certainly an area that he understands. He knows
    how to build things, he knows how to finance things. And we
    have been working closely with the administration, trying to
    figure out the outline, the principles, and we hope to see that
    soon coming out of the White House.
        But again, hearing from the stakeholders on your policy and
    funding priorities is absolutely key to all of this.
        One thing, as I said, I think we all can agree on is we
    need to fix the Highway Trust Fund, making sure that there are
    solutions on the table. Fixing the trust fund will help our
    non-Federal partners--and if you look across the country, 29
    States have dealt with it over the last 4 or 5 years, and I
    don't believe any State legislature has been wiped out, either
    party, for dealing with the funding stream. I know my State of
    Pennsylvania itself, with a Republican Governor, Republican
    house and senate, dealt with their funding issue.
        And one of the things I think in--just following up with a
    little bit of--Ms. Norton was saying about, you know, urban,
    suburban, rural--the gas tax is a regressive tax, and rural
    American does pay more. But in the Pennsylvania experience--and
    I think this is true all over the country, I am certain it is
    true all over the country--although rural folks may pay more in
    their gas tax, they get back a lot more. You can't build a
    roadway in rural America, you can't build a road in my district
    that isn't subsidized to the tune of 50 to maybe 80 percent.
        So my folks are going to pay more when they fill up,
    because they use their cars more. But what they get back from
    the taxpayers, or the folks--the users in Philadelphia and
    Pittsburgh, I think it comes back to them, and it is a
    balanced--balance what they get back. So that is something we
    have to keep in our minds as we go forward, because that will
    be the cry. It is regressive.
        But rural America, those folks that have to travel more to
    get to work, they benefit greatly, I believe. And my district
    is an example of that. And I think if you go to any rural
    district in America, you will see you can't build an interstate
    highway through rural Pennsylvania or rural Wyoming unless the
    folks from the urban areas, their dollars are coming out there
    to make this country connected.
        So again, I look forward to hearing from you folks today,
    and I appreciate you spending your time and your experience
    with us here.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, and we will now turn to
    Peter DeFazio, who is the ranking member of the full committee.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
    this hearing, and thanks to the witnesses who traveled here
    today.
        I didn't bring my poster, but, you know, the poster of 1956
    Life Magazine, where the brandnew interstate in Kansas ends at
    the Oklahoma border in a farmer's field because Oklahoma
    defaulted on their promise to build their section, until we had
    a national highway program, and they got 80 percent of it paid
    for by the Feds.
        We are talking about linking America together, a vision
    that Dwight David Eisenhower had 70 years ago, with a national
    transportation policy. Transportation does not end at State
    lines. So we need the Federal investment, as the chairman
    said--in fact, it is 24 States, not just 21--24 States have
    stepped up, and they have increased revenues, principally with
    a gas tax. A couple of areas went with wholesale taxes, RAC
    taxes, but they are stepping up. They need a Federal partner.
    It is not enough that they did that.
        And yes, no one lost their election, no one was recalled.
    So why are we sitting here, jawing again today, 9 months, 10
    months into the year after the first hearing on our
    infrastructure needs with no proposals, other than a few
    introduced by people like myself on a bipartisan basis? Two of
    my bills for infrastructure have Freedom Caucus sponsors and
    the other has Lou Barletta on it. We can do this in a
    bipartisan way, but all we are doing is talking. That is all we
    are doing around here, is just talking while the country
    crumbles.
        I mean, seriously, let's get to work. Actually, the
    Republicans took a very substantive step last week on
    transportation and infrastructure. They cut it $25 billion in
    their budget. So why are we even here, pretending? I mean if
    that is their priority, and they are going to cut it $25
    billion, why are they holding a hearing to talk about our
    needs? You can't meet our needs without investment.
        We haven't raised the Federal gas tax since 1993, when a
    guy named Bud Shuster brought a bunch of Republicans to vote
    with the Democrats and we raised the gas tax. Twenty-four
    States in just the last couple of years have recognized the
    need and done it. And there has been no action here. We are
    promised $1 trillion downtown by the White House, and then they
    come out with an outline of $200 billion, maybe, sort of, and
    you know, that might just be PPPs [public-private
    partnerships]. But then the President says he doesn't like
    PPPs.
        It is time for someone to take the lead, and this committee
    should take the lead. It is time to put proposals out and push
    the House to act.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. I would like to welcome our panel.
    And first we've got Mr. Patrick McKenna, who is the director of
    the Missouri Department of Transportation. He is here on behalf
    of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials.
        We have also got Mr. James Roberts, who is president and
    chief executive officer at Granite Construction, and he is here
    on behalf of the Transportation and Construction Coalition.
        Mr. Brent Booker, who is secretary-treasurer of North
    America's Building Trades Unions.
        Mr. Ray McCarty, who is the president and chief executive
    officer of the Associated Industries of Missouri, and he is
    here on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers.
        And Mr. Peter Rogoff, who is the chief executive officer of
    Sound Transit.
        And with that, I would ask unanimous consent that our
    witnesses' full statements be included in the record.
        And without objection, that is so ordered.
        And since your written testimony is going to be included in
    its entirety in the record, the committee would request that
    you limit your summary to 5 minutes.
        And, with that, I will start with Mr. McKenna.

    TESTIMONY OF PATRICK K. MCKENNA, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT
      OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
      STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; JAMES ROBERTS,
    PRESIDENT AND CEO, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE
    TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION COALITION; BRENT BOOKER, SECRETARY-
    TREASURER, NORTH AMERICA'S BUILDING TRADES UNIONS; RAY MCCARTY,
    PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF
          MISSOURI, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
     MANUFACTURERS; AND PETER M. ROGOFF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                             SOUND TRANSIT

        Mr. McKenna. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    provide the perspective of the Nation's State departments of
    transportation. My name is Patrick McKenna, and I serve as
    director of the Missouri Department of Transportation.
        Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great
    State of Missouri and AASHTO, which represents the
    transportation departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC,
    and Puerto Rico.
        As Members of Congress and the President consider building
    a transportation infrastructure package, please consider the
    following.
        The future of the Federal Highway Trust Fund must be
    secured through long-term, sustainable revenue solutions.
    Direct Federal funding is needed, instead of relying solely on
    incentives that encourage the use of private capital or
    borrowing.
        Wherever possible, traditional Federal authorities should
    be assigned to States to expedite and streamline project
    delivery.
        Priority should be given to transportation investments that
    secure our Nation's future for the long term, instead of
    shovel-ready projects.
        And the existing Federal program structure, including
    highways, transit, and rail, should be utilized. This would
    enable investments to flow to every region of the country.
        The FAST Act was the first long-term funding legislation
    since 2005. This allowed for funding certainty and planning. It
    also increased the amount of Federal funds available that can
    be matched with State dollars. Prior to the FAST Act there was
    Federal funding instability, and Missouri was in the difficult
    position of considering abandoning maintenance on 26,000 out of
    34,000 miles of roadways. Since the passage of the FAST Act,
    Missouri has taken on more financial risk as a State, and
    increased our capital budget by $3 billion over 5 years.
        I want to thank Chairman Graves and members of this
    committee for your work to pass the FAST Act and to appeal for
    your continued action to create funding stability.
        The United States Department of Transportation notes in
    2015 that State and local governments provided 80 percent of
    funds invested in highway and bridge programs, and 74 percent
    of funds invested in transit programs. I cite these numbers
    because AASHTO and its members disagree with any notion that
    Federal transportation funding displaces or discourages State
    and local investment.
        As my example of FAST Act funding stability shows, Missouri
    increased its budget alongside and as a result of Federal
    investment. The Highway Trust Fund has provided stable,
    reliable, and substantial highway and transit funding for
    decades, but this is no longer the case. According to the
    Congressional Budget Office, annual Highway Trust Fund spending
    is estimated to exceed receipts by about $16 billion by 2021.
    Without your action, Missouri will be right back in the
    position we were prior to the FAST Act.
        Missouri could see a 40-percent reduction in funds, $400
    million less for the State. Critical maintenance and
    improvements will stop. AASHTO believes that an infrastructure
    package must focus on direct grant funding, rather than Federal
    financing support. The State DOTs continue to support a role
    for financing and procurement tools such as public-private
    partnerships.
        We also maintain that financing instruments such as
    subsidized loans, tax-exempt municipal and private activity
    bonds, and infrastructure banks are insufficient to meet most
    types of transportation investment needs.
        Any new infrastructure plan should focus on the needs of
    rural America. Rural areas remain critical to the Nation's
    economic success through the production and movement of goods
    such as agriculture and manufacturing products.
        AASHTO believes that we can improve program delivery by
    assigning some authorities traditionally assumed by the Federal
    Government to States that wish to participate, including
    Federal funds obligation management, project agreements, and
    right-of-way acquisition, just to name a few. We ask Congress
    to consider establishing a project delivery pilot program. This
    program would develop innovative practices to streamline
    delivery and achieve a positive environmental outcome.
        Missouri has more than 1,000 miles of the Mississippi and
    Missouri Rivers; $12.5 billion in cargo travels up and down
    those waterways each year.
        We have seen firsthand how investments can pay long-term
    dividends. In the past 5 years, $13 million in State investment
    in ports has led to $53 million in investment from the private
    sector. Missouri's cost-share program enables us to leverage
    contributions from local communities with State and Federal
    funds to advance construction priorities. Since inception, $450
    million in State participation has led to the delivery of more
    than $1 billion of construction projects.
        We urge Congress to build on the partnership that has
    flourished between the Federal Government and State DOTs. The
    flexibility to let State and local governments select projects
    based on public input allows local partners to work together to
    meet the unique needs of both urban and rural areas.
        Please take the necessary steps to ensure that all modes of
    transportation--rail, airports, transit, and ports--have access
    to additional Federal resources that will keep our citizens
    connected and provide economic growth.
        I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify
    today, and I am happy to answer any questions.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thanks, Mr. McKenna.
        Mr. Roberts.
        Mr. Roberts. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, thank
    you for convening today's hearing. My name is Jim Roberts, and
    I am the president and chief executive officer of Granite
    Construction, Incorporated. We are a full-service
    infrastructure solutions provider performing as a general
    contractor, construction management firm, and construction
    materials producer. Headquartered in Watsonville, California,
    Granite teams are proud to have built American infrastructure
    across our great country since 1922.
        Across America our work improves public safety, and it
    improves the efficiency of the gears of commerce. Whether
    representing a routine maintenance of Alaska or Arizona or
    California roadways, or represented by airport runway
    expansions, or even in the form of infrastructure projects of
    regional and national significance such as the Tappan Zee
    Bridge replacement in New York, we are part of the communities
    in which we build.
        I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the
    Transportation Construction Coalition, or TCC. The TCC is a
    partnership of 31 national associations and construction
    unions. The full TCC roster is included in my written
    testimony.
        Some 60 years after the visionary investment in our
    Interstate Highway System that still supports our economy
    today, the country once again is ready to rally behind a bold
    Federal infrastructure vision backed by a significant
    commitment to fund this vision. Taking the cue after decades of
    chronic Federal inaction, more than half of the States in our
    country have increased funding commitments to their
    transportation programs in the past few years. Now is the
    perfect time for leadership to reemerge at the Federal level.
        Mr. Chairman, let's begin with the Highway Trust Fund,
    which has a well-known permanent revenue shortfall that impedes
    the ability of State and local governments to plan, fund, and
    construct transportation projects. While the FAST Act was
    passed in 2015 and enacted last year, it is still not fully
    funded. If States follow past practices, as expected, then some
    will start scaling back planned projects as early as 2019, due
    to Federal funding uncertainty.
        The FAST Act reformed the highway and public transportation
    programs in a manner that emphasized meeting national goals
    while providing States additional flexibility. The policy
    improvement was significant, but the funding commitment has
    paled in comparison.
        We encourage Congress to allocate and leverage the
    investment of any new resources among existing programs in a
    way that emphasizes big-ticket outcomes such as improving our
    Nation's economic competitiveness. The longer we wait to
    invest, the further we fall behind both the developed and,
    sadly, also the developing world in the safety, quality, and
    efficiency of our transportation, power, and water
    infrastructure.
        We strongly agree with the 253 Members of the House of
    Representatives who have urged the Ways and Means Committee to
    include a Highway Trust Fund revenue fix in any tax reform
    legislation. Stabilizing the Highway Trust Fund in tax reform
    would provide a foundation and a platform for a broad-based,
    transformative infrastructure package.
        Increasing and indexing the Federal motor fuels tax, which
    has lost nearly 70 percent of its purchasing power since 1993,
    is the simplest and most efficient short-term fix. However,
    given the pace of both mobility and technological change, we
    believe that all potential funding options should be on the
    table to create long-term solutions that stabilize and
    reinvigorate Federal investments. Any Highway Trust Fund
    revenue construct must include permanently protected and
    dedicated revenue streams and resources sufficient to eliminate
    the shortfall and to support increased investment.
        While resources and structure are central components, so
    too is ensuring the timely delivery of projects. In my written
    testimony we suggested some practical reforms that begin with
    merging the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean
    Water Act 404 permitting processes with the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers.
        We also believe a reasonable and measured approach to
    citizen suit reform is appropriate to mitigate today's all-too-
    common misuse of environmental laws. These reforms would ensure
    the promise of incremental infrastructure investment would be
    realized in a timely manner, and not held up in redtape.
        Our society's decades-long underinvestment in
    infrastructure highlights and puts a human face on our very
    real need to improve America's infrastructure. Now is the time
    to act, as the work and the investment of previous generations
    is beginning to crumble right in front of our eyes.
        We look to you, our country's leaders, to guide and to
    promote the vision for critical overdue infrastructure
    investment in cities and in rural areas across America. Delayed
    maintenance and investment in transportation, water, and power
    systems continues to hamper the wellness of our country, and
    decrease our global competitiveness.
        It is time to address infrastructure issues that have been
    ignored for decades. As inaction exacerbates our current state
    of disrepair nationally, I urge you all to take action and to
    be strong leaders, just like your predecessors from over 60
    years ago, whose visionary actions we are still relying on
    today. Now is the time for our country's leadership to once
    again commit to real, long-term solutions.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting the TCC to
    participate in today's discussion, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Roberts.
        Mr. Booker.
        Mr. Booker. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
    Norton, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. My name
    is Brent Booker, secretary-treasurer of North America's
    Building Trades Unions. On behalf of the nearly 2 million
    skilled craft construction professionals that I am proud to
    represent across the United States, I would like to thank you
    for allowing me to testify before this subcommittee.
        Building America's infrastructure is literally what our
    members do every day. Whether it is roads and bridges,
    airports, waterways, power plants, and other energy
    infrastructure, municipal water systems, public buildings, or
    skyscrapers, our members apply their unique skill sets to
    building infrastructure in every corner of our great Nation.
        For many of our members, the strength of the construction
    industry and the strength of their job opportunities is
    directly tied to the strength of public policy and advancing
    the building of public infrastructure. As such, I would like to
    thank the leadership of this subcommittee in helping move the
    most recent highway bill, the FAST Act.
        Highway bills are the single largest job-creating piece of
    legislation affecting our members, and they provide certainty
    to our members that opportunities will be available for years
    to come. While the FAST Act made important strides in improving
    our Nation's surface transportation, I believe no one can argue
    that more can and must be done to further repair our Nation's
    infrastructure.
        North America's Building Trades Unions believes a big,
    broad, bold infrastructure plan is a necessary step our country
    must take in order to solidify economic opportunities for
    workers and businesses across the United States. The question
    before this subcommittee and the Congress, as a whole, is what
    should a plan include.
        For our members, a big infrastructure plan would reflect
    the overall investment level consistently reiterated by
    President Trump of $1 trillion. We believe such an investment
    will not only allow us as a Nation to meet many of our pressing
    infrastructure needs, but will lay the foundation for sustained
    economic growth in communities large and small.
        In spurring this economic growth, a plan of this magnitude
    should--and I say must--increase the standard of living for
    Americans across the Nation. In order to do so, the immense
    buying power of the Federal Government must not be used as
    leverage to depress wages in local communities, especially
    construction wages, which, adjusted for inflation, have
    actually been in decline since the late 1970s.
        Therefore, North America's Building Trades Unions' members
    remain insistent that such a plan include the prevailing wage
    standards enshrined in the Davis-Bacon and related acts that
    our members have fought for over the course of generations.
        For our members, a broad infrastructure plan will encompass
    not only surface transportation infrastructure, but all modes
    of infrastructure, such as schools, municipal water systems,
    aviation, rail, waterways, broadband, and our energy
    infrastructure through new, modern power generation facilities,
    grid upgrades, and investments in energy transportation and
    distribution.
        To address the wide variety of infrastructure needs
    effectively, we must address them efficiently. In order to do
    so, we believe it prudent to address our challenges through
    currently existing programs. Efficiencies should not breed
    duplicative programs designed to achieve the same goal.
    However, Federal programs should be created to meet
    infrastructure needs that do not have existing public
    mechanisms to deliver projects.
        For our members, a bold infrastructure plan is one that
    tackles the tough challenges and lays out a vision for a
    brighter future. I would argue, and I am sure most if not all
    of the members of the panel and the subcommittee would agree,
    that there is no greater challenge facing surface
    transportation than the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust
    Fund. We support a variety of measures to fix the trust fund,
    and are open to a variety of proposals to ensure its solvency.
    We believe Congress should not squander such an important
    opportunity to address this issue.
        A bold infrastructure plan should also continue to tackle
    the challenge of major projects that have regional and national
    economic impacts. One such project is the roughly $4 billion
    Tappan Zee Bridge replacement in New York that, to date, is
    responsible for roughly 7 million hours of work, installing
    nearly 220 million pounds of U.S. steel and 300,000 cubic yards
    of concrete.
        What those numbers do not tell you is that projects such as
    these--and, in fact, all public infrastructure projects--are
    critical to ensuring a consistent pipeline of skills training
    that North America's Building Trades Unions, in conjunction
    with our industry partners, provide through our privately
    funded registered apprenticeship programs.
        Spread out over our 1,600 formal joint labor management
    training centers across the country, as well as over 120
    apprenticeship readiness programs, our unions and our
    contractor partners invest roughly $1.2 billion of our own
    capital into training our current and future members. Industry
    and labor, as well as community partners like the National
    Urban League and YouthBuild, are working in partnership to meet
    the workforce challenges presented by a large investment in
    infrastructure.
        Former President Ronald Reagan once said--and I quote--
    ``The bridges and highways we fail to repair today will have to
    be rebuilt tomorrow at many times the cost.'' He went on to say
    that rebuilding our infrastructure is simple common sense, and
    that it represents an investment in tomorrow that we must make
    today.
        President Reagan was correct in his assessment over 30
    years ago. Unfortunately, his words are just as prominent
    today, due to continued inaction when it comes to substantive
    investment in our infrastructure. Continued inaction will only
    exacerbate our challenges and place unneeded negative pressures
    on the American economy.
        It is time once again for the infrastructure of the United
    States to be the envy of the world. The men and women of North
    America's Building Trades Unions are ready, willing, and able,
    and anxious to build it right and build it now, so that the
    rebuilding of America begins as soon and as best as possible.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Booker.
        Mr. McCarty.
        Mr. McCarty. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
    Norton, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on such an important topic to
    Missourians and manufacturers across the Nation.
        My name is Ray McCarty. I am president and CEO of
    Associated Industries of Missouri. We are Missouri's oldest
    business association, and our mission is to promote a favorable
    business climate for manufacturing and industry in Missouri.
        AIM is also the home of the Missouri Transportation and
    Development Council, which had its roots as the Good Roads
    Federation, which was formed, interestingly enough, by a guy
    named Harry B. Hawes who went on to be elected to Congress and
    then to the U.S. Senate. And he--we did pass that. That was to
    get Missouri out of the mud and build the first hard roads in
    Missouri, a very bold proposition for the early 1920s. But it
    is interesting that he also sponsored the bill that formed the
    Missouri Department of Transportation.
        We believe the transportation system in Missouri and across
    the Nation demands continuing care and attention, because it is
    vital to the State's economic welfare and quality of life.
        AIM is also the official State partner of the NAM, or the
    National Association of Manufacturers, in Missouri. The NAM is
    the Nation's largest industrial trade association and the
    unified voice for more than 12 million men and women who make
    things in America. Manufacturers appreciate your focus on
    building a 21st-century infrastructure system because modern
    transportation and infrastructure systems are necessary to
    support modern manufacturing.
        We applaud your bipartisan work in 2015 to successfully
    reauthorize surface transportation programs for 5 years in the
    FAST Act. In October of 2016, the NAM released its
    infrastructure blueprint, ``Building to Win,'' and urged
    bipartisan action to revolutionize the infrastructure that
    makes the American Dream possible.
        For too long our Nation has relied on the transportation,
    water, and energy infrastructure that we inherited from
    previous generations, as other speakers have alluded to,
    weakening our economy, threatening our communities, and putting
    the safety of our families at risk.
        For example, in Missouri we rely on Interstate 70, the
    first highway to be built in the interstate system in 1956,
    along with several in other States. Interstate 70, along with
    Interstates 44 and 55, provide a critical conduit for raw
    materials and manufactured goods for manufacturers across the
    Nation because of Missouri's location in the heart of America.
        As Ranking Member Norton suggested, congestion is a big
    problem. Already, traffic is increasing the cost of moving
    freight on our Nation's highways by $63.4 billion per year.
    That is the equivalent--picture this--of 362,000 commercial
    truck drivers sitting idle for an entire work year.
        As modern manufacturing evolves and becomes even more
    productive, manufacturers rely on complex supply chains and
    just-in-time principles, where parts are ordered, made, and
    delivered, sometimes within hours. One large manufacturing
    company in Missouri recently lost an afternoon shift of
    production due to an accident on I-70 that closed that highway
    for just a couple of hours. The cost to that manufacturer was
    more than $1 million. Such delays can be devastating,
    especially for smaller manufacturers.
        Manufacturers also rely on transit to help get our
    employees to work. And if you think transit is limited to the
    urban areas, you must think again, because we have
    organizations like OATS in Missouri that provide vital services
    to rural Americans.
        There is no excuse for delay. Manufacturers believe the
    Nation must undertake an infrastructure effort that seeks to
    modernize our aging systems, and makes a long-term public
    commitment to infrastructure. Manufacturers believe Federal
    leadership and funding are needed to address bottlenecks in
    both rural and metropolitan areas that will improve the
    systemwide movement of freight throughout this country.
        Addressing the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund
    should be a pillar of a 21st-century infrastructure proposal.
    The NAM urges Congress to shore up the fund with a reliable,
    user-based, long-term funding stream.
        In 2015, the average cost of congestion cost per truck
    vehicle mile traveled was $.23. That was up 25 percent of what
    it was in 2014. This is really a hidden tax, but it is not a
    tax that we can invest, it is just being wasted. It is being
    wasted on idle labor hours and unnecessary vehicle wear and
    tear, instead of being invested in the Highway Trust Fund to
    help build a 21st-century infrastructure system to improve
    America's economic competitiveness.
        Manufacturers need Federal policymakers to preserve and
    grow the funding and financing tools for States and localities.
    Tax-exempt municipal bonds should be protected as policymakers
    consider ways to expand the funding and financing toolbox with
    public-private partnerships and leveraging opportunities.
        Also, good governance improvements to better deliver 21st-
    century infrastructure such as expedited environmental reviews
    are critical to the success of any effort.
        For decades, this committee has modeled bipartisan
    governance that puts solutions and progress before politics.
    That bipartisan leadership is needed now, more than ever, to
    deliver a pro-manufacturing infrastructure package that will
    include a vision for modern 21st-century infrastructure. This
    is the right opportunity to address neglected projects that
    make a systemwide difference, and improve manufacturers' supply
    chains, as well as develop long-term solutions to chronic
    funding issues in infrastructure programs such as the Highway
    Trust Fund.
        And I will be happy to answer questions.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. McCarty.
        Mr. Rogoff.
        Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
    Norton, Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio. While I
    have appeared before this subcommittee in the past in other
    roles, I am particularly pleased to join you today to bring the
    perspective from one of the Nation's fastest growing regions.
        In his first address before Congress, President Trump
    declared--and I quote--``Crumbling infrastructure will be
    replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, and
    railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land.'' And
    we at Sound Transit, like rail transit agencies across the
    Nation, are prepared to deliver on the President's vision for
    gleaming railways.
        While we are encouraged by the President's goals for
    infrastructure, we have been deeply disappointed by budget
    proposals from his administration that appear to undermine
    those goals.
        At the same time, administration officials have made other
    statements regarding the infrastructure initiative that we can
    applaud and endorse, including the value of overmatching
    Federal funds, the value of an expanded TIFIA [Transportation
    Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act] program, and the
    importance of training a skilled workforce.
        It is clear that this committee will be key to driving this
    effort. And, as such, I would offer the following
    recommendations.
        First, I would echo what the other witnesses have already
    said in arguing that funding in a new infrastructure initiative
    must not substitute for base-level funding authorized through
    the FAST Act and provided in annual appropriations acts. This
    is critical for rail transit agencies who must expand to meet
    population growth. Under the administration's budget request
    for 2018, the funding levels sought for major new transit
    expansions is effectively zero, ignoring the authorizations you
    put in the FAST Act.
        At Sound Transit we have been working with the FTA [U.S.
    Federal Transit Administration] for years to secure grant
    agreements for two extensions of our light rail spine, one
    running north from Seattle to the city of Lynnwood, the other
    running south to the city of Federal Way. We are joined by many
    similar projects around the country that seek to meet expanded
    demand with a strong, reliable Federal partner.
        Regrettably, the administration's proposal to terminate
    that partnership attempts to rekindle a decades-old ideological
    debate over the value of transit projects to our national
    mobility. Smartly, States and municipalities across the
    political spectrum have long since moved beyond that old
    ideological debate. We were all together heartened to see
    bipartisan and bicameral congressional support for rejecting
    the administration's proposed funding cuts for transit
    expansions for fiscal year 2017 and are hopeful for a similar
    outcome this year.
        Second, any new infrastructure plan must include transit
    expansion funding in major metro areas. The most recent census
    tells us that our population and economy will be increasingly
    urban. I won't repeat the data that Ms. Norton cited in terms
    of the 70 million more Americans that will be overwhelmingly
    located in urban areas, but in the Puget Sound region
    congestion has nearly doubled in just the last 5 years. And we
    are expecting 1 million more citizens by 2040. Without new
    mobility options, this growth threatens to choke off our own
    continued prosperity.
        Our major urban megaregions will increasingly serve as an
    economic engine. And I would use the example of Amazon's recent
    announcement that, while continuing to expand in Seattle, they
    are looking to open a second national headquarters. It is not
    an accident that Amazon is insisting that all cities bidding on
    their second headquarters provide detailed data on the
    availability of direct access to rail transit services. It is
    one of just four identified site requirements in their RFP.
    These are the infrastructure requirements for a 21st-century
    economy.
        Third, we do believe the administration may be on the right
    track in highlighting the importance of States and localities
    providing robust matching funds to access new Federal dollars
    above the base level of funding. The Federal share of Sound
    Transit's voter-approved capital plan is just 16 percent, and
    we have already taken two major light-rail expansion projects
    with zero FTA capital investment grant dollars. The taxpayers
    of Washington State have demonstrated remarkable levels of
    self-help to meet their surface transportation needs. The
    ballot measure that we passed just this past November called on
    the median voter to increase their own taxes by $169 a year to
    expand our mass transit network. The same legislation that let
    us go to the voters also increased the State's gas tax by 11.9
    cents, bringing us to the second-highest gas tax in the Nation.
        The point is we are doing a remarkable level of self-help
    to meet our surface transportation needs. Any Federal
    infrastructure policy should reward this level of local effort,
    not penalize it, as is proposed in the administration's
    proposed budget.
        Lastly, I would just say that we are very supportive of
    efforts to streamline the Federal environmental process.
    Transit projects are inherently environmentally beneficial, but
    these efforts must be done with great respect for the core
    environmental protections in Federal law.
        In the Pacific Northwest, the economic health of the region
    and our quality of life go hand in hand with the protection of
    our environment. Streamlining the environmental review process
    should not mean short-circuiting the process. Federal agencies
    will do us no favor if hastily produced environmental documents
    give project opponents an opening to delay our projects in the
    courts.
        And, in that regard, we need to remember that litigants in
    this space often don't care one whit for the environment.
    Instead, they try to use the environmental process to slow or
    kill a project because it is their last best chance of
    thwarting the will of the voters or reversing the plans of a
    State or a local government. This is not limited to transit
    projects or highway projects or water projects. It is the way
    the process works.
        So I would just summarize by encouraging this committee to
    take care as we do environmental streamlining. There is further
    progress that can be made. But please also look at the staffing
    levels at the agencies, the natural resources agencies and at
    DOT, to make sure there is staff on hand to produce quality
    environmental documents so our projects are not stopped in the
    courts. Thanks very much.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you all. We are now going to
    recognize each Member for 5 minutes for questions, and I am
    going to start with Mr. Shuster, followed by Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman Graves. As I said in my
    opening statement, I think one of the key components that we
    have to figure out is a long-term funding stream--I know my
    colleague, Mr. DeFazio, was very passionate about that, as am
    I. He has come up with a funding plan that seems reasonable to
    me. There is probably, I don't know, 10 or a dozen of them out
    there.
        And when you come up with a new plan, to try to educate
    Members of Congress on it, it is very, very difficult. I am
    trying to do that on a bill right now, an FAA bill, that--some
    Members that don't seem to understand what I am trying to do.
        But again, when you are moving forth a funding stream,
    long-term, sustainable, let's keep it simple. We have one in
    place now; we ought to be looking at that one very closely
    before we start going off on different new ideas, because it is
    very efficient. The math is pretty simple and straightforward.
    But I am open to everything. And that has to be a priority for
    me on how do we fund this so, as I said earlier, we don't kick
    the can down the road.
        But I think we also have to be thinking outside the box of
    ways to bring dollars in. Public-private partnerships are not a
    silver bullet. Let me say that again: public-private
    partnerships aren't a silver bullet. But it is a hell of a good
    tool to have in the toolbag, and there are some new ones out
    there that we ought to be looking at.
        And I am going to ask the question about asset recycling.
    And some of my colleagues on the other side say you want to
    sell all our assets. If you look at the Australian model, what
    they did, they hardly sold any assets; they leased them.
    Leasing is far different than selling. Leasing is you still
    retain the ownership of it, you allow somebody to come in, turn
    that asset into cash over time, and the idea is to have a bonus
    payment to do that.
        And again, the Australian model--we met with Ambassador
    Hockey, now the former--or the architect of this program in
    Australia. And the first question of a group of Republicans
    was, ``The Chinese are going to buy all our assets.''
        And the Australian said, ``No, they didn't. We wouldn't let
    them.'' Now, they are investors, but they don't control them,
    they are not on the boards. So again, it is money. And money is
    around the world that is out there.
        There's trillions of dollars they would love to invest in
    America's infrastructure projects. And they are not looking for
    an 8- and 10-percent return if you are doing a 30- or 40-year
    deal. They are good with 3 and 3\1/2\ percent, some of these
    pension funds, even our own. Even our own unions in this
    country are looking at that. I was talking to a building trades
    union the other day and they are investing their money in
    Canadian infrastructure. That is heresy, isn't it, building
    trades investing in a foreign country? Now they are doing it
    because it is making money for the folks that they are
    responsible for their pensions.
        So I think asset recycling is something we ought to
    consider. We ought to look at what the Australians have done
    with it. And to all accounts, they have generated over $20
    billion in just a very short period of time, on top of what
    they spend.
        So again, I would ask Mr. McKenna and Mr. Roberts and Mr.
    Booker to respond to that first, just your thoughts, if you are
    familiar with asset recycling, and what you think the prospects
    are.
        Mr. McKenna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. In fact, the way
    we look at this to look at these things on a project-by-project
    basis. You have to look at the benefit to the taxpayers, the
    cost of capital, and do the analysis on a complicated project
    to determine if advancing the construction on that particular
    facility is not available through other means, what is the
    benefit to the taxpayers, in terms of reduction in congestion,
    enhanced facilities--asset recycling has been done at a number
    of airports. We are looking at it in Missouri at a couple of
    airports, as well.
        And then make sure that you are playing out those costs and
    benefits. Like you said, it is a tool in the toolbox, and I
    think that is appropriate for us to have all the tools we can.
    This is a large problem we have to solve all over the country,
    and we need all the tools we can to do so.
        Mr. Shuster. Mr. Roberts?
        Mr. Roberts. Just briefly, we have been involved in a few
    projects where we are actually handling the financing
    mechanisms of them.
        I would suggest that they not be considered just a short-
    term issue. We need to look at the long term also. And I think
    that some of the times, when we monetize some assets from a
    short-term benefit, we also pay a bigger bill in the long term.
    So the--what I have seen, both in the private sector and the
    public sector, long-term DCF models, financial models are
    imperative, but knowing what you are getting rid of before you
    get rid of it I think is the imperative number here.
        But privatization and the 3P [public-private partnership]
    program is absolutely another tool in the tool chest for all of
    our individual DOTs and agencies in the country.
        Mr. Booker. And not to be repetitive--however, I would look
    at it, you know, and lump asset recycling along with PPPs. They
    are not all created equal. And, you know, there are some really
    good public-private partnerships out there that are doing
    really good things out there. There are some that aren't so
    good.
        And I think, when you look at the asset recycling program
    based on, you know, what the project is, what the long-term
    gain is--and, you are right, talking about our pension dollars,
    we invest our pension dollars in projects that make sense. Our
    first goal is to put our members to work. And you also have the
    fiducial responsibility of a trustee on a pension fund, to make
    sure you are getting returns that are comparative to the
    market. So when those things add up, and those things match up,
    we would be in support of them.
        But you would almost have to take a look at it case by case
    to see what the investment strategy is and what the standards
    are for the workers that are going to be doing that
    construction.
        Mr. Shuster. Well, I thank you, I appreciate that answer.
    And I agree, we've got to look at it case by case. But there
    are some things out there that could be absolutely home runs,
    and some we walk away from.
        I know I have gone over my time, Mr. Chairman, if you would
    indulge me for one more second.
        The only reason I didn't include Mr. Rogoff, because I knew
    I was going to run out of time. But if you could, in writing at
    some point, give us your views on it, or in 10 seconds, if you
    could just sort of give us a----
        Mr. Rogoff. You know, transit has the challenge of not
    having excess revenues to actually entice an investor. Colorado
    has done it through availability payments. We ourselves, being
    financially strong, are looking about whether it makes sense
    for us.
        I think the important point is really the one you made at
    the beginning. It should be a tool in the tool chest. It
    shouldn't have a leg up on everything else.
        Mr. Shuster. Right, absolutely.
        And just one final point, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge
    me. The State of Connecticut--I don't know if there is any
    State bluer in the country than Connecticut. And I don't know
    if Ms. Esty knows this--she probably is aware of it--several
    years ago they had all the roadside plazas, travel plazas on
    the interstate were owned by the State of Connecticut.
        According to all reports, they were run down, service was
    terrible. They leased them to the Carlyle Group several years
    ago. The Carlyle Group came in, refurbished them all. They put
    competition so--you know, McDonald's versus Burger King bidding
    to get--Starbucks versus Dunkin' Donuts. And now, by all
    accounts, I am told they are gleaming, beautiful travel plazas
    with great service, and they are paying the State of
    Connecticut money back into the coffers, instead of it going
    the other way. So it can be done, has been done. That is
    probably a fairly small scale, but--and a State like
    Connecticut can do it, my goodness, Texas can do it and
    Pennsylvania, I hope will do it.
        But again, thank you all very much.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You know, we did have a
    special select committee of members here appointed by the
    chairman 4 years ago. We met for more than a year, heard from
    many people in a real hearing and interchange format about P3s
    [public-private partnerships]. And we put out a bipartisan
    consensus report.
        And the conclusion was that if you look at America's broad
    infrastructure needs, P3s with the best facilitation through
    law can deal with somewhere between 10 and 12 percent of our
    infrastructure needs. So that still leaves a hell of a lot on
    the table, 88 to 90 percent.
        So, yes, P3s, fine, well-regulated P3s, great. But that is
    not a solution, and it is not even the major tool in the
    toolbox, and it can't be.
        There is a really interesting new statistic, which is that
    the average toll rate per mile for a P3 toll road is $.30, and
    the average rate for a non-P3 toll road is $.14. That does
    raise some questions about what we are going to do to the
    American driving public and the trucking industry if we are
    going to go principally down the P3 route. So these things need
    to be discussed thoroughly.
        Also, what we found in doing that report was that almost
    every large P3 out there is substantially funded by the Federal
    Government. They all use TIFIA for 80 to 90 percent of their
    needs.
        So, yes, the private capital puts up 10, 15 percent, and
    then they turn to the Federal Government. So I think it points
    to the absolute essential need for us to have a robust, long-
    term spending stream, and one that delivers things to the
    American public at the least cost. And direct Federal
    partnership with the States is the way to do that.
        And just to comment on the salesman down at the Australian
    Embassy who I met with, yes, they did it for 2 years. It was
    such a grand success they did it for 2 years. And most of the
    money went to two of their provinces, and one was New South
    Wales, who had been selling things off for years on their own,
    and then they got an extra bonus payment from the Federal
    Government to do yet another sale of assets that they had
    already been doing.
        So here, if we follow that model, we will take gas tax
    dollars which don't exist and are already in short supply, and
    we will go to local jurisdictions, who already have the
    authority, if they so wish, to sell off their ports or their
    airports, or whatever they want to do. That is up to the local
    jurisdiction. The Federal Government doesn't need to bribe them
    with dollars that we don't have to do that.
        It was a dumb idea in Australia. The new Government came
    in, they said, ``Hey, we are done with that. Put all the
    remaining money back into the national program,'' and directly
    distributes it back out across the country. So it didn't work
    there, it is not going to work here, and we just shouldn't go
    down that false path.
        So, Mr. McKenna, I agree with everything you said. Has your
    organization presented these ideas to this administration?
        Mr. McKenna. We have been participating with roundtable
    discussions that have occurred. We certainly support and AASHTO
    supports a robust discussion on the baseline funding. But we
    also understand that we have to have flexibility in the
    program, as well. And State DOTs are recognizing we have to
    look at procurement methods that are not just the simple
    procurement methods of the past, we have to open ourselves up
    in the case of particular projects that are very complicated
    and very difficult to structure, financially.
        We are looking at those possibilities. Design-build,
    design-build finance, those are good and they actually help us
    work even closer with our construction partners to bring
    innovative solutions to the engineering problems that we face.
        It is not a one-size-fits-all. DOTs have to open up to our
    own approach, as well, because that is part of the solution.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right, I totally agree with you on that.
    And the Federal Government should facilitate that, and not
    hobble them by prescriptive means attached to dollars. But you
    would still say that a robust additional Federal investment is
    still critical to most States?
        Mr. McKenna. Yes.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right. And one other quick question--there
    are 24 States that have already raised their gas tax, or raised
    funds in one way or another, and yet, the administration is
    talking about providing incentives to States that raise their
    revenues in the future.
        I think--and if you have ideas on this, some States have
    already gone up to the bar, taken the risk. I would say that if
    we are going to provide an incentive it should have a look-back
    provision. Would anyone disagree with that, because these
    States already did what was right, and then they could--if they
    want to do yet even more, they could get more incentive. But
    there should be some sort of a look-back, and not reward the 26
    States who haven't done a damn thing.
        Anybody disagree with that?
        Mr. Rogoff. I would just add one other option, Mr. DeFazio.
    There has been legislated in the past level-of-effort
    requirements. So that doesn't necessarily look back a set
    period of time, but sees what a State or municipality has done
    historically. But it does take a look at the self-sacrifice
    they have already made before they come to the Federal well,
    and that would certainly make sense.
        Mr. DeFazio. Could you provide some information on that,
    or--my staff probably can----
        Mr. Rogoff. There is a Byrd amendment in ISTEA [Intermodal
    Surface Transportation Efficiency Act]. I will have to go dig
    it out. But yes, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, great. Anyone else have a comment on that?
        Mr. Roberts. Well, I would just make a quick comment on
    your opening statement, as well. I want to thank you for your
    passion on the subject, and I can't agree with what you said in
    your opening statement any more so, that this is--and I think
    that Ms. Norton mentioned the same thing--this is a network
    system, this is a Federal issue.
        And, you know, there are a lot of tools in the tool chest,
    but the Federal issue and the Federal funding is the single
    most important portion of this. The alternative procurement
    methods can get more efficiencies in how we procure the work.
    We have got construction manager, general contractor
    associations today. We have got at-risk jobs, we have got 3Ps,
    we have got design-build finance. Those alternatives are great.
    But I think you hit the nail on the head relative to the
    primary force today is that we need additional funding from the
    Federal Government to get all those programs enacted.
        And I want to thank you for your passion.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I yield my
    time to Mr. Shuster.
        Mr. Shuster. Well, thank you, Chairman. I won't take it all
    up. Four points, very important points.
        One, Mr. Roberts and Mr. DeFazio, I agree with you. There--
    for more Federal dollars. We got to figure this out. That is
    the number-one priority. But we got to look at other ways also,
    to try to beef that up.
        And three points on the Australian example.
        Number one, it was a 2-year program. So it did end in 2
    years because they wanted to force the issue to say if you want
    in this program, you got to get into it quick. And that is what
    it is. So it did end in 2 years.
        New South Wales opposed this program in parliament to the
    bitter end. And when it was passed, they were the first ones in
    line to get this first--based on a first-come-first-served
    basis. So if--now they tell me, if you go to New South Wales,
    they are boring four tunnels under the harbor, they got more
    highway cranes than any other country--any State in the world.
        So again, New South Wales opposed it, until it became the
    policy, and then they were there, front and center.
        And then finally, public entities like our airports in this
    country, our water systems, do not pay local State and Federal
    taxes. When a private company comes on board and starts to run
    it, they pay local State and Federal taxes. That is the way the
    funding mechanism was done in Australia. They based it on the
    revenue they would generate by this entity, taking it over, and
    what they would begin to pay in Federal taxes.
        So, once again, if we just shut the door on something like
    this without taking a good, hard look, I think that we are
    kidding ourselves. We have got to figure out a funding stream
    that is sustainable, that is long term, and then--but also look
    at these other tools in the toolbox. And if we can take this 3P
    tool from 10 to 12 percent and turn it into 15 to 18 percent, I
    think that is a pretty good day's work.
        Thanks a lot. That is my time.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
    questions are going to center on rural America and the needs,
    and they are also going to concentrate on long-term solvency of
    the trust fund. But I will wait to the end of the hearing if
    they haven't been answered by then. And I will turn to Ms.
    Norton for her questions.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Chairman
    Shuster floated what could be called a new idea, relatively new
    idea. If you think about our transportation network, it has
    suffered from having relatively few new ideas. And all of this
    time that we have had this network, we have--until recently,
    when we didn't do very much until we were able to pass a long-
    term bill in 2015, we have been running on the same grid.
        So I am interested in the answer to Chairman Shuster's
    question about exploring new ideas, because it is a very
    different country where--some things in a toolbox may work in
    some places, but not other places.
        But, Mr. Rogoff, you really made me think about this notion
    of overmatching, or self-help. You would think, particularly
    with my colleagues on the other side being in charge, we would
    want to incentivize that. Out of desperation, of course, we
    have seen with the gas tax, local governments just step up
    without the full Federal match.
        But you describe what some would call overmatching, because
    you have gone back to your taxpayers not only for the gas tax,
    but for your infrastructure, generally. And you are concerned
    that the administration, which says it wants to reward such
    States and regions, in fact cut your funding. In the District
    of Columbia, we wanted desperately to have a subway stop, which
    is now the New York Avenue subway stop, because it would help
    develop an entire area of the District of Columbia. It was
    funded by business taxes, by the District of Columbia, and by
    the Federal Government. It may be the only one of its kind in
    the country.
        But this notion of incentivizing, rather than de-
    incentivizing, is of great interest to me, particularly given
    the dearth of new ideas.
        I wonder if you have given any thought to how to encourage
    more jurisdictions like Sound Transit to overmatch or to move
    ahead on infrastructure, while being assured that it wouldn't
    be punished by the Federal Government.
        Now, I am looking for an incentive, because apparently you
    have done it, perhaps because there was no other way to do it.
    I am looking for a positive way to encourage people who want to
    invest in their own local infrastructure or transit for their
    own local reasons to, in fact, receive some award or--let's
    call it encouragement--some incentive from the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. Rogoff, have you given any thought to that? Because it
    is you who put the thought in my head in the first place.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, thank you, Ms. Norton. I have given it
    some thought. And it has been talked about in the past, when
    you talk about these major transit expansions we should first
    recognize that, unlike the classic 80/20 split of an 80-percent
    Federal investment to a 20-percent local investment, by law we
    are capped at 50 percent.
        For the projects that we are seeking assistance for from
    the FTA right now we are looking for 40 percent Federal funding
    to get to Lynnwood and just 25 percent funding to get to
    Federal Way. These are efforts we are making because we are
    determined to get there, and the region, congestion being what
    it is, needs it very badly----
        Ms. Norton. So, I mean, are you saying, for example, if you
    wanted to do something new, perhaps take less of a Federal
    match?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, we are being backed into that approach, I
    think, in part by Federal budget policy. When I talk about
    being penalized for overmatching, there was a specific writeup
    that came out of OMB when the President's budget came forward
    that called out by name the Puget Sound area, Los Angeles, and
    Denver, and pointed out, as a rationale to eliminate the
    Federal partnership, the fact that we had gone to our voters
    and raised our own taxes for transit expansions.
        Ms. Norton. Now, this is what I mean, Mr. Chairman. You
    know, if you want to encourage what Sound Transit did
    elsewhere, then I am very interested in discussion with you--
    how can we use that, rather than punish that at a time when it
    is so difficult to get funding?
        I did want to ask Mr. McKenna a question, because he
    represents the whole State of Missouri, and he spoke about the
    immediate crisis in rural areas. I couldn't agree more. If we
    are having trouble in what is a relatively wealthy area in this
    region, I can't image what--if we go into southern Virginia,
    for example--they must be going through.
        But you represent an entire State. And while you called
    attention to the immediate crisis in rural areas, I wonder what
    you would say about cities like St. Louis or Kansas City that
    have pressing needs at the same time.
        What I am trying to get to, Mr. McKenna, is what this
    committee has always avoided, and that is pitting one part of
    the region against another part, going back to the Eisenhower
    administration, the recognition that this was one vast network.
    So I am the first to acknowledge the immediate crisis; I don't
    see how rural areas are able to do anything.
        I wonder how you bring together, you who represent the
    entire State, big cities like St. Louis and Kansas City with
    places that can't possibly fund any of their transportation, or
    very few of their transportation needs, like your rural roads.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. If the gentlelady would yield just
    a second, too, I would like to add to that. Just the insurance
    of those rural areas across the country, how do we insure that
    they aren't left out in this process?
        Ms. Norton. Yes.
        Mr. McKenna. Thank you for the question. In Missouri we
    allocate the limited resources that we have, based on objective
    criteria. It is similar to the allocation that is done by
    Congress with the surface transportation authorization, and
    that is why we think that is so important.
        When we look at our rural areas--for instance, we are just
    now undertaking a replacement of the Champ Clark Bridge, which
    connects parts of rural Missouri with Illinois, had we not had
    that underway, our rural communities would have a 77-mile
    detour if that bridge went down. It was built originally in
    1928.
        Likewise, we have structures in St. Louis and Kansas City
    that carry 120,000 cars a day. So it all comes down to dollars
    and cents in how you allocate those. An objective criteria for
    allocating resources is critical, so neither area feels they
    have been disadvantaged over the other. We use population, we
    use employment data, we use size of the infrastructure, vehicle
    miles traveled, and square footage of bridge deck to allocate
    capital resources among the regions, so that urban areas
    receive a larger share of the pie--but they should--and the
    rural areas receive their relative share.
        It is very difficult to move the needle on large projects
    like a major river crossing. The Champ Clark Bridge is a $60
    million enterprise for us. And we do have to build up resources
    over years to subsidize that rural area to be able to fund
    that, because your point is taken that this entire system is
    connected. And if we let any of those connections go down, we
    are disconnecting the communities themselves.
        So the allocation of resources, objectively, is an
    antidote. But recognizing that there is not enough money coming
    in to the top line to satisfy all the needs in any of the
    regions is critical.
        Ms. Norton. Chairman Shuster made a very important point.
    And it perhaps wasn't beneficial to where he represents. And he
    said rural areas pay more in gas tax. But then he pointed out
    what they get back in overfunding.
        And again, if we lose the notion, that you ultimately lose
    by not funding a transportation and infrastructure network,
    then we have lost the great American transportation lesson. I
    thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Gibbs?
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question maybe go
    to Mr. McKenna or Mr. McCarty.
        We have made a lot of progress, I think, in the FAST Act,
    encouraging intermodal transportation through the National
    Highway Freight Program and other initiatives. How can we
    improve on that in an infrastructure package? Do you see that
    freight program working? And what kind of improvements?
        Go ahead, Mr. McCarty.
        Mr. McCarty. Thank you for the question. And we appreciate
    that.
        From the manufacturers' standpoint, we are not safety
    experts and we need someone to be able to tell us reliable
    safety scores. We have, right now, manufacturing members of the
    National Association of Manufacturers, who were ordered to
    trial by judge after they hired a twice-satisfactory-rated
    motor carrier because the judge was confused whether the data
    presented by the plaintiff or the two satisfactory safety
    ratings indicated that the motor carrier had been deemed safe
    to operate on the Nation's highways by the----
        Mr. Gibbs. I think you are answering my second question I
    was going to ask.
        Mr. McCarty. OK.
        Mr. Gibbs. My first question was about the freight program.
        Mr. McKenna. If I might, thank you for the question,
    Representative. We feel the freight program is actually
    focusing our efforts as a State, and it is doing so reasonably.
    We think that the provisions of both MAP-21 and the FAST Act
    that encouraged every State to put together a freight plan and
    to work with their local partners to do so as a baseline for
    further investment was important. We did so in Missouri in 2014
    and we are actually using the freight plan as the baseline for
    our primary cost benefit on our construction projects.
        We know that a secondary benefit will occur when we remove
    these freight bottlenecks to encourage commerce. There will be
    a passenger benefit, as well, and a safety benefit on top of
    that.
        So I think it is working, and I think that continuing to
    have that focus is important.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. McCarty, before I get to that, my second
    question I was going to ask you, my first one is you mentioned
    in your testimony about the importance of municipal bonds, tax-
    exempt bonds, and I don't think that is in our framework right
    now. But do you want to elaborate on how--why is that so
    important?
        Mr. McCarty. Sure. As tax reform is being considered, we
    think it is very important that we preserve the ability to
    deduct the interest from those municipal bonds, because it
    preserves another funding measure that can be used to generate
    funds that we need to fix the roads.
        These municipal bonds, right now, if you take away the tax-
    deductibility of them, that can make them less attractive. And
    so we would like to make sure that they are considered as you
    go forward. It is not something that is just a positive to the
    balance sheet; it is something that could act as an incentive
    to maintain that tax deductibility and generate more
    investment.
        Mr. Gibbs. And my question--I think you were starting the
    answer before--dealing with the--you mentioned in your
    testimony about one hiring standard for trucking companies.
        Mr. McCarty. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbs. And you know, in the FAST Act we mandated a
    review of the CSA, the Compliance, Safety, Accountability
    program. And then also do you have any comments on that, and
    the recommendations from the NAM?
        Mr. McCarty. Yes. As I started to say before, the CSA--you
    know, we think safety scores are important, but they are not
    something that manufacturers can come up with, and can be
    expected--we are manufacturers, we are not motor carriers. So
    we are--we do rely on the FMCSA to regulate motor carrier
    safety. Putting manufacturers in the middle of that leads to
    unhappy consequences for the manufacturers who can get caught
    in lawsuits.
        Currently there is no requirement for manufacturers to
    check any of those qualifications when they hire a motor
    carrier. So if we established a national hiring standard, or
    something that would provide some protection to those
    manufacturers as they hire their motor carriers, we think that
    would be something to consider.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes, I just had problems with the way it was set
    up in 2010, the CSA, and it dings our truckers unfairly, and
    then it--you know, for the insurance rates. And then also, when
    their--when carriers like--customers, like the manufacturers,
    are looking at the truckers, or the trucking companies, they
    are unfairly treated. And that doesn't give a real snapshot of
    what is really going on. And they get penalized unfairly. And
    so, hopefully we can get that fixed.
        So I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Esty.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to
    note and thank some of my colleagues here, that we have
    launched a bipartisan Congressional Infrastructure Caucus, and
    that includes Mr. Graves and Mr. Duncan and Sean Patrick
    Maloney.
        So we will be working to get our colleagues from all
    different committees, not just this committee, because, as we
    have been discussing here today, the revenue aspects are
    incredibly important--that involves Ways and Means--and Energy
    and Commerce, as well, as we look at how technology is rapidly
    changing the needs and demands. I wanted to let you know that
    and urge any of my colleagues who are not yet members, sign up
    today.
        We are facing--OK, so Mr. DeFazio is starting the bidding,
    thank you.
        We are being out-competed by China and other countries that
    are robustly investing in their infrastructure, and we don't
    have 20 or 40 years to wait to get on with it.
        Mr. McCarty, you encapsulated the remarks of many of the
    manufacturers in my district who are looking at us and saying,
    ``How can I possibly compete when I can't get my goods to
    market, I can't even get my workers here to the factory.'' That
    is the number-one complaint in my State of Connecticut, is
    actually transportation, more than taxes, more than anything
    else.
        And so, this problem has been brewing for decades.
    Everybody here has mentioned it. We need revenue. We need
    revenue--when you can do financing--and I think a lot of us are
    open to creative ways of financing--but we have a serious
    revenue problem.
        We have relied historically on user fees. The world is
    changing. Cars are more efficient. We didn't index the gas tax.
    We are having alternative fuels, many--a number of Members of
    Congress here drive vehicles that don't pay any gas tax,
    whatsoever. We need to look down the road. My kids never take
    cars. They use a car-sharing service. We are looking at
    autonomous vehicles.
        So I would like all of you to help with us, think about how
    are we going to look at those aspects. How are we going to be
    evaluating projects, based on future infrastructure needs, when
    we have such rapidly changing technology, rapidly changing
    usage patterns, increasing urbanization, which Mr. Rogoff
    talked about? We are going to be needing to do a lot more
    transit, if you look at the demographic patterns.
        So that is happening very fast, and we are going to need
    your help in thinking that through. So, that is one question.
        Another one is on the P3s. One of the concerns I have--and
    I think they need to be part of the mix. But that prioritizes
    making revenue, not necessarily what is in the public's
    interest in meeting those needs. So it meets certain kinds of
    projects. It may be very smart for something like high-speed
    rail in the Northeast, where you know that actual high-speed
    rail would have a revenue stream, and you need massive
    investment. Maybe that works. But for a lot of things it
    doesn't.
        I would love to hear your thoughts on life-cycle costs and
    fix-it-first. A lot of my concern, again, with creative
    financing mechanisms are they tend not to deal with actually
    fixing current infrastructure. It prioritizes something that
    can create a new revenue stream. And living in an older part of
    infrastructure in the Northeast, you know, we are concerned.
        And I do want to point out my State is one of those States
    that has continued to raise the gas tax. And yet some of the
    proposals on the table--and Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Davis and I
    were at the White House 2 weeks ago, and they are talking about
    incentivizing States to step up. Well, my State has been
    stepping up for some time now. So I think it is really
    important that we not punish States who have already taken
    those steps to award ones that have not.
        So just a few questions, and anyone who wants to get
    started. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I might quickly take the question on
    life-cycle costs, because, as you pointed out, especially in
    the Northeast and areas like Connecticut, you have got systems
    like Metro-North and others that have been deteriorated over
    time with age, and have struggled to recapitalize and rebuild
    what they have got.
        I think it is right for this committee, in crafting a new
    initiative, whether it is highways, transit, or water, to ask
    project sponsors to identify and evaluate the merits of their
    proposals, based on not just their ability to build it, but
    their having the revenue streams to maintain it. It is
    something we started at the Federal Transit Administration when
    I was there. The question was if we are going to invest in
    expanding your footprint, shouldn't we at least know how you
    are doing in maintaining your current footprint?
        We have a mechanism in Sound Transit in our ballot
    measures. The voters adopted a capital plan and they voted to
    increase taxes. The taxes are then rolled back to the level
    necessary to operate and maintain it, so we have a revenue
    stream for maintenance. A great many other systems don't. We
    are now paying the price for that. And this is certainly a
    question, whether it is highways or transit or water, people
    should be asking.
        Mr. Booker. And if I may, just to answer on the fix-it-
    first, or--I mean we certainly are proponents of new
    construction, and certainly feel that there is an unbelievable
    need in this country for new rail, new water, new bridges, new
    roads and highways.
        Take a look at the American Society of Civil Engineers'
    most recent report of where we currently stand with our current
    infrastructure of a grade of D-plus. We have over 50,000
    structurally deficient bridges that our citizens are driving
    across every day.
        So, as we try to develop these new revenue streams to build
    new construction, we have to focus on what is currently
    deficient in our country today. Many bridges and tunnels that
    are decades old, 50, 60, 70 years old, that we are putting
    ourselves and our fellow citizens at risk every day by them
    driving over those bridges, by them driving through those
    tunnels, by getting on that Amtrak train and riding on rail
    that is deficient.
        So we have to come up with a way to fix our existing system
    as we also continue to meet the challenges of today's society
    of the growing needs of what we have.
        Mr. McKenna. And if I might, with regard to looking at the
    entire capital plan, we have to look at this whole bill like a
    company would look at an investment portfolio. There is not a
    particular solution that is going to meet the needs of every
    region of the country uniformly.
        From a standpoint of AASHTO and from a standpoint of a
    State DOT, opening up the flexibility of the surface
    transportation authorization so States can meet their local
    needs is important. We have a planning framework utilizing
    metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning
    commissions that prioritize the needs of those communities.
    They know best what their needs are, whether it is new
    construction, expansion for capacity, or fixing the existing
    system. And the flexibility to utilize Federal funds in concert
    with those local needs is critical.
        Mr. Roberts. I would just add one more comment, if I could.
    The maintenance issue has gotten so big in this country that,
    when you look alone in the State of California, $140 billion of
    backlogged maintenance to get the system--both the interstate
    system and the actual local systems--up to grade, that is
    almost--has to be priority. We cannot be isolating funds just
    for expansion when we haven't taken care of what we have
    already.
        And I would suggest that a lot of the States today are
    focusing on that because they understand that that backlog has
    gotten so immense that, if they don't take care of it--the cost
    basis goes up exponentially if they don't take care of it to
    begin with.
        So I would commend the legislature in California for
    putting together a $50 billion program to mostly focus on
    getting that entire infrastructure transportation system up to
    speed so that they can move forward from this point on.
        So the backlog and the long term versus the short term, we
    have got to take care of the short term. Otherwise, we won't
    have a long term.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a point of personal
    privilege real quick before I get started? I would like the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to welcome back my
    good friend who just snuck in the back room. It looks like he
    is back at work right now. But Matt Mika, stand up, Matt. He is
    recovering well from the tragedy he experienced 2 months ago.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Davis. Welcome back, my friend.
        Hey, a quick question for everybody on the panel. Raise
    your hand if you think that we can stabilize and solidify the
    Highway Trust Fund by just raising the gas tax.
        Oh, you guys have listened well to the people behind you,
    because they usually get asked the same question by us. And
    that is what is great about this hearing, because we are
    actually finally talking about diversification. You know, it is
    Peter DeFazio's rage over the fact that we haven't addressed
    many issues that we listened to a few minutes ago, a long few
    minutes ago now. And Shuster talking about, I think as part of
    that diversification, asset recycling, P3s.
        The discussion here is very bipartisan. The discussion that
    Ms. Esty, Mr. Lipinski, and a few of us others had at the White
    House the other morning was centered on infrastructure and how
    do we be able to--how do we solidify and how do we stabilize
    our infrastructure dollars? Everybody has got a lot of ideas.
    Why can't we use them all?
        Now, diversification is something I have been talking about
    since I got here 4\1/2\ years ago. How do we diversify? What do
    we do to make sure that we are ready for the next generation of
    vehicles? I think we all agree--because none of you raised your
    hand--that the gas tax isn't the only answer. That how, on one
    hand, can we have our Highway Trust Fund funded by one source
    that the same Federal Government, all of us that are
    participants in--how do we tell you to burn less of it?
        I think what should scare everybody sitting at that table
    and everybody here is that we have got countries like France
    that, say, in the next 20 years, they don't want a single
    gasoline-powered vehicle on their roadway. Let's say President
    Macron is half right. What does that mean for the percentage of
    electric vehicles that are on our roadways? And what are we
    going to be able to do to actually have a--imagine when
    electric technology gets into the fleet level. What will that
    do, besides decimate our Highway Trust Fund?
        So our job is to plan. And we can sit and we can talk about
    putting these ideas together. We can talk about
    diversification. But in the end we actually got to come up with
    a plan that is going to get votes, and all sides are going to
    have to sit down, instead of just discuss solutions like we are
    doing today. What is going to get us to an actual bill that is
    going to pass?
        And that is where we need your help, because we all agree
    something has to be done. But the funny thing about Washington
    is those details are the things that kind of stick us up.
        Now, you all agree that we need diversification. Who wants
    to be the first one to tell me what plan is going to work best?
    Anybody?
        Mr. McKenna? Thank you for talking about rural Illinois,
    too. Great place.
        Mr. McKenna. Absolutely. When we talk about
    diversification, we have to recognize that as fuel efficiency
    increases, the revenue will decrease in the gas tax.
        Mr. Davis. Because the Federal Government is telling the
    manufacturers to create engines that burn less.
        Mr. McKenna. I would like to point out something that is
    going on in the State of Georgia right now. In 2015 one of the
    AASHTO members actually put an inflator on to their gas tax.
    They raised their gas tax as a baseline. Then they put an
    inflator on that, in part, using the fuel economy of the entire
    Georgia vehicle fleet. So that just kicked in this past year.
    It created an adjustment so they didn't lose any fuel tax
    revenue based on the rising fleet fuel economy.
        So we are going to have to look for things that create some
    way to adjust through to the new future, but not to forget the
    baseline of fuel tax funding.
        Mr. Davis. OK. Mr. Rogoff, I didn't see your hand because
    Westerman's head was in the way.
        Mr. Rogoff. It is quite all right. I wanted to flag, Mr.
    Davis, that actually Washington State is one of the few States
    that have stepped up and taken the invitation from Federal
    highways to study road uses charges.
        And our Washington State Transportation Commission is
    currently launching a project involving some 2,000 drivers
    across the State, also partnering with Oregon and Idaho in
    this, to look at road uses charges and how they might work. And
    some people actually have an app on their phone to measure
    their miles.
        Mr. Davis. VMT?
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes. Well, it is not necessarily by mileage.
    They are defining usage in a variety of different ways. They
    are actually looking at three different constructs, so we can
    report back to this committee a variety of alternatives.
        They are also looking specifically at how that might work
    with electric vehicles, given the--as you pointed out--the
    greatly diminished fuel consumption of those vehicles, and what
    the right charge for those vehicles might be.
        Mr. Davis. Well, and I know my time is up, and I have got a
    question I am going to send to you that I would like to get
    answered on on one of the programs, the stick apportionment.
        But anybody on the panel drive a fully-electric vehicle?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Davis. All right, no freeloaders. I yield back.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First, I want to note the relative consensus in the
    testimony for today. Several of our panelists have
    highlighted--along with Congressman DeFazio--the need to
    stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, but also to seek additional
    revenue sources to fund needed infrastructure investment. I was
    glad to hear my colleague from Illinois call for
    diversification.
        I have proposed a dedicated funding stream for freight
    transportation so that projects can address bottlenecks and
    deficiencies in our goods movement network, and that they can
    be financed by users of the freight infrastructure. So it is a
    user fee. My plan has bipartisan support, and would raise
    approximately $8 billion a year for these investments.
        There may be other solutions. I am glad to hear us talk
    about diversification. But there is a consensus that the status
    quo is simply inadequate to meet the challenges as we go
    forward in our infrastructure in the future.
        So, Mr. McKenna, I have a question for you first.
    Missouri's State freight plan notes that truck volume is
    projected to increase by over 50 percent between 2011 and 2030.
    Across the country cargo volumes are up to record highs, and
    addressing this strain on our freight network is a key
    challenge in the years forward.
        I represent the port area in Long Beach, and adjacent to
    L.A. We have had the highest amount of growth in L.A. in years.
    Long Beach recently had the highest 1-month total.
        The question I have to you is do you feel like States like
    yours are--key freight corridors will have the resources they
    need to meet the increased volume without a dedicated freight
    infrastructure funding from the Federal Government?
        Mr. McKenna. Thank you for the question. I do not believe
    we have the resources required to meet that need. I don't
    believe we have the resources required at present to meet the
    current need. So we welcome the focus on freight. It is a
    critical aspect of our economy in the State. And we are focused
    on that element. We will be bringing an INFRA grant application
    forward as part of the discretionary program in the coming
    couple weeks, and we are focused on freight.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. Next question is for the entire
    panel. The FAST Act in 2015 created a new program to direct
    Federal investment to critical freight infrastructure needs.
    However, the administration recently announced changes to that
    that would reduce this program's emphasis on the most worthy
    projects, and instead advantage projects with a low Federal
    cost-share.
        How does this new emphasis affect our ability to invest in
    critically needed freight infrastructure improvements, now that
    we are just going to go to those that have the lowest Federal
    cost? I would like to--anybody to say. How are we going to deal
    with this issue?
        Mr. McCarty?
        Mr. McCarty. Yes, thank you. You know, as you start
    prioritizing things, what we have done in Missouri--and I am
    sure it is done in other places--is we have had--as the
    director mentioned, we had these MPOs [metropolitan planning
    organizations] and these regional organizations that tried to
    prioritize what their needs are. We don't have the luxury of
    trying to even analyze how much money we are getting back, or
    what the match is. We are looking at where the needs really
    are.
        And really, the needs are really all over the place. From a
    manufacturer's standpoint, we want to make sure the entire
    system is connected. And I think that is important. So you have
    to look at connectivity, as well.
        Dr. Lowenthal. But the question--and I agree with you
    completely about connectivity, and I believe a multimodal
    approach that really deals with connectivity is critically
    needed. So I concur with you. But I want to ask you about the
    administration's approach to now prioritize freight
    infrastructure by looking at those that--advantage programs
    that have a low Federal cost share versus what was done in the
    FAST Act to look at the most worthy projects. That is a quite a
    bit of difference.
        Anybody have any thoughts about what the administration has
    recently done?
        [No response.]
        Dr. Lowenthal. So it doesn't make any difference to you
    that we are going to just target those projects that have the
    smallest amount of Federal cost sharing?
        Mr. McKenna?
        Mr. McKenna. What we are looking at is that they overlap.
    Those that are most significant to the State and most
    significant to the region will also draw additional support
    from local share--we have a cost-share program in our State.
    And that is playing out.
        So we are acting on a discretionary basis to look for those
    projects that align both, that we can bring local resources to
    bear where we can, and try to up our share.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Obviously, since the Federal Government is
    reducing its responsibility and has been, you have to look
    for--at other local sources.
        But do you agree that we should be looking at just--you
    said that you have kind of--trying to do a balance between
    those that are both locally funded, larger cost share, and also
    those that are the most worthy projects. But I don't think that
    is where the administration has gone. They have not really
    talked about the most worthy projects.
        OK, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. LaMalfa?
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Being another California Member, we
    have a lot of issues over--we are trying to overcome there. The
    recent gas tax and vehicle registration tax have really--has
    been really controversial. Some are seeing it as a windfall of
    dollars for these projects.
        But when it is written in such a way to not add a new lane,
    no new capacity, and a lot of that money is being diverted for
    other things, as well as the continued effort to invest in the
    high-speed rail system in California, which tripled in price
    from its original form and is still bound up by delays and all
    that, I think the people of California--when you talk about a
    gas tax increase of any sort, whether it is a statewide one or
    a Federal one, the taxpayers will get fed up because they don't
    believe or trust the dollars will actually get to the highways.
    And that is what I am very concerned about with California. The
    small percentage of what is being foisted upon them will
    actually end up getting to the roads, with none of it being new
    capacity.
        So, that said, the--part of the area that isn't talked
    about enough is how do we make dollars that we already have in
    the stream go farther. We--and my--one of my other committees,
    the Natural Resources Committee, we worked a bill through
    called H.R. 1654. It is the Water Supply Permitting
    Coordination Act, which created a one-stop shop for permitting
    process by establishing a lead agency, the Bureau of
    Reclamation, as the lead for reviews, permits, licenses, and
    other decisions which have to do with surface water storage
    projects.
        So what I am looking for from this panel here--I would
    imagine you would find that helpful for doing other types of
    infrastructure, building, and repair--so maybe let's start with
    Mr. Roberts on that.
        You mentioned it, the overlap on that was something that
    has brought frustration. What would you think? What would be
    some highlights, which, if we were able to get a lead agency on
    road construction, repair, et cetera, how helpful would that be
    on timing, as well as making dollars go farther?
        Mr. Roberts. Well, let me first address some of the
    concerns over SB-1, which would tie into some of the
    efficiencies that you question relative to the brandnew bill
    that passed in California.
        Inside that $50 billion bill there are instruments in there
    for congestion, and there are instruments in there for
    reduced--or increased efficiencies. Interestingly enough, I
    agree that an oversight group that can bring in different areas
    of the Government to create more efficiency is appropriate.
        In the State of California they just put an oversight
    group, an inspector group, over the top of the DOT to create
    more efficiencies and actually put into that last bill a
    reduction in the amount of money spent at the DOT to create
    efficiencies, going forward, to be able to enact the additional
    revenue----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, you still have to do a multistop
    alphabet soup of other agencies with permitting, with Fish and
    Wildlife, Fish and Game, EPA, whoever else might----
        Mr. Roberts. I agree.
        Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Have a piece of that.
        Mr. Roberts. I agree. So what you are suggesting is the
    next phase. There were some efficiencies put into that bill,
    and then the next phase--I would agree, having an oversight--
    and I think the same thing would be happening as we look into
    the environmental regulations that we see across the country.
    Having some significant common oversight, whether it be for--as
    I mentioned in my testimony, whether it is for the Corps of
    Engineers, with the Clean Water Act, or the EIS studies through
    the--through NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act], that
    same kind of----
        Mr. LaMalfa. NEPA definitely, or California's own CEQA
    [California Environmental Quality Act], yes, definitely,
    because there are unnecessary things that we are having to
    research.
        Go ahead, please.
        Mr. Roberts. But I agree. I think the fact that if you have
    some common oversight you could create a lack of redundancies
    and some simplicity, which, obviously, is going to be more
    beneficial and----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, what other things could we be doing in--
    you know, federally, to further streamline that would
    complement what we have been talking about?
        Mr. Roberts. Well, the number one, I thought, would be the
    environmental side. It is, by far, the quickest, most
    economical way to do it, is to tie in NEPA and the Corps of
    Engineers to get the 404 permitting process sped up and get the
    EIS system sped up.
        Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Mr. Rogoff, your--did I say it
    correctly?
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. The one-stop-shop idea that you
    were talking about, staffing up more so some of these agencies,
    perhaps--you know, I mean, we always have to find funding or
    have faith that staffing up will actually meet--the rubber meet
    the road in getting the work done. Do you think, with maybe a
    combined staffing up as well as the efficiency we are talking
    about, would we need nearly as much staff? Or would one-stop-
    shopping kind of accomplish both?
        Mr. Rogoff. I don't know that it will accomplish both. I
    would certainly agree that having a lead agency, a one-stop
    shop, would have great benefits.
        The concern is that the imperatives of the other agencies
    not be cut off by some artificial deadline or be given short
    shrift. I am talking about some smaller agencies like NOAA
    Fisheries, the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service,
    EPA, the Army Corps, that have different parts of the law that
    they must apply. Sometimes there has been a culture that the
    only way that they could get their concerns attended to is by
    throwing up a red flag or stopping a project. That culture
    needs to change.
        But I think if you are going to put people at ease that
    this could be done smartly and more quickly, we do need to make
    sure that they are sufficiently resourced to do the job. So I
    think your concept of combining streamlining with a staffing
    plan that gets funded by the appropriations subcommittees would
    be on point.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it seemed like a lot more simultaneous
    coordination with one of the smaller ones, as you mentioned.
    Telling the other ones, ``Here is what we need,'' instead of a
    back-to-back chain, making it 5 years with each one getting
    their turn at----
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, some positive steps have already been
    taken.
        For example, we at Sound Transit and other sponsors now, as
    a result of the FAST Act and some earlier authorities, are
    allowed to pay money to the Federal agencies to help them staff
    up. The staff people we pay for cannot work on our documents,
    but they can work on other documents, freeing someone else up
    to work on our documents.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I am sorry, my time has expired.
        Mr. Rogoff. I am sorry.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. No, you are good. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mrs. Lawrence.
        Mrs. Lawrence. I am impressed by the panel that has been
    assembled. I am impressed by this body displaying
    bipartisanship. It seems like all hands are on deck, but still
    we are in the same place of no action.
        Where is the sense of urgency? Where is the sense that--how
    many times do we have to listen to experts? How many times do
    we have to listen to these eloquent speeches about how
    bipartisan we are? How many times do I have to hear ``Make
    America First,'' and knowing that if we check the box on
    investment in our infrastructure, we know that we will build--
    we will make sure that we have jobs in America, creating a
    skilled workforce.
        This is global competition. I know there is an
    international bridge that we are trying to build in Michigan,
    and they are talking about bringing in workforce from outside
    the country because we don't have enough trained. How long are
    we, as this elected body who was sent here to do something,
    will continue to sit here ad nausea and talk about it, and then
    watch our administration defund and not give us the proper
    amount of money?
        Clearly, we have experts, and we are experienced enough
    here in Congress to start moving the ball down the road.
        We know that we need to raise the gas tax. Check that box.
    We know we need to have PPP. We know that that is a part of the
    success of moving and transportation plans. We know that we
    need to work together. We got that. We have heard that
    allocation of funds--and we keep playing with numbers as if we
    just pulled numbers out of the air to say, OK, today it is $1
    trillion, tomorrow it's $600 million.
        Where are we going to have that frustration that will move
    us forward and say now it is time to do it?
        I just have one quick question that--it is not really a
    question, but I need it for the record.
        Mr. Booker, you have, across this country, been one of the
    faces of building this workforce, of creating jobs. Can you
    please state for the record if we, as this country and this
    elected body and administration, keep our word about investing
    in our infrastructure, how many jobs could we create in this
    country?
        Mr. Booker. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. And
    when you do it with long-term stability of infrastructure
    funding, you are building the middle class, you are building
    skills for people that are going to last them a lifetime.
        Our training system is based on joint labor management
    participation, where we voluntarily, collectively, with our
    contractor partners, invest over $1 billion a year into our
    training system that goes on to hands-on training to our
    members. And how they get into the middle class and how they
    stay in the middle class is that they have a full-time job.
    They do their training at night, they do their training on the
    weekend. It is an earn-while-you-learn system.
        And I am here representing over 2 million American workers
    in the construction industry today, and with long-term
    commitments, long-term shoring up of the highway transit fund,
    of other mechanisms, is going to allow us to grow that to--you
    know, to maintain our baseline and then allow us to grow it--
    that we are teaching skills for people that is going to last
    them a lifetime.
        Mrs. Lawrence. The fact of the matter is the average age of
    a skilled trade worker in America is 53 years old. We are
    facing a crisis in America where we are going to see a whole
    workforce retiring, and we have not invested--while we are
    having this frustrating conversation about how we invest in our
    infrastructure, we are sitting here watching a workforce
    diminish in front of us. If we get the funding we also are
    going to have to stay focused on the fact that unemployment in
    America--minorities, veterans, women--it is this huge middle-
    class opportunity in training and the skilled trades and the
    building trades.
        And so, here it is. If we really are about making American
    great--not again, but continually on our pathway of being a
    great country--we have to build that workforce. And we are
    going to have to get serious about this debate. I am--I do not
    want another panel of experts talking to me. I want another
    panel of experts engaging, as we start putting those shovels in
    the ground, as we start employing these young people to replace
    this aging workforce, and to really invest.
        When we travel abroad it is embarrassing, the way that
    other countries that we consider not as sophisticated, not as
    advanced as us, are investing in their infrastructures, their
    rail, their roads. And here we are in America, sitting around,
    still kicking the can. It is time to go to work.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today.
        We know that all roads lead to somewhere. And there is a
    lot of talk about urban and rural, but really, the roads
    connect our urban societies and our rural societies together.
    And our urban areas--in fact, a lot of them here on the east
    coast--are highly dependent on rural roadways to get goods and
    services to the population centers, and also to move
    manufactured products out of cities and across the country. We
    all understand the importance of that.
        Mr. McKenna, your State of Missouri is to the north of
    Arkansas. You have got Interstate 49 that runs along the
    western side of Missouri, up to Kansas City. Interstate 49 is a
    connector between New Orleans and Kansas City. The remaining
    undone part of Interstate 49 happens to be in my district.
        Can you talk a little bit about the importance of
    completing these projects, and how the--even though you have
    got this beautiful highway from the--really, from Fort Smith,
    Arkansas, all the way up to Kansas City, and from Ashdown,
    Arkansas, down to New Orleans, what having that two-lane, curvy
    road undone means to the rest of the transportation on
    Interstate 49?
        Mr. McKenna. Thank you, Representative. Great question. As
    you mentioned, we have about 5 miles of interstate to complete,
    kind of a combined project between Missouri and Arkansas. And
    it shows we are not complete, even with the build-out of the
    interstate system in its original capacity.
        But the benefits to the region itself, a substantially
    growing region in that part of the country. And the movement of
    freight and the movement of people and the economic well-being
    of that region is critically tied to that particular project
    completion.
        You know, we are some $35 million to $40 million away from
    that completion point of the I-49 project. When we allocate
    limited resources, both States have--for 30 years, one State
    has had the funding and been ready, and another State hasn't.
    And we have traded places in funding a couple times. It is
    frustrating for us, I know it is frustrating for you in your
    region. But these are the types of investments that can go a
    long way to really connect the people of the region, as well as
    beyond the region--as you said, going all the way to New
    Orleans.
        Mr. Westerman. And really connecting to the rest of the
    world through the ports there in New Orleans.
        Do you believe the Federal Government gives an honest look
    at the entire system when they are designating funds for these
    new projects? Or do you think there could be improvements
    there?
        Mr. McKenna. Well, the main issue is the amount of money
    coming in to the top. You know, what we have in the region, we
    look at it and have discussions frequently that we have
    equitably distributed dissatisfaction throughout the whole
    system, that we are fair in our allocation, it is just not
    enough being allocated.
        We try to make the best decisions we can, but we are
    focused on critical maintenance and taking care of existing
    system and preservation beyond expansion at this point right
    now, and we need both.
        Mr. Westerman. OK. And shifting gears a little bit, we are
    talking about different kinds of funding streams. I know, from
    serving in my State legislature, that in Arkansas, at least,
    State and local taxes are collected on construction materials
    on projects that are funded with Federal dollars.
        Now, Mr. McKenna, I think Missouri has an exemption for
    that, where they exempt construction materials from State and
    local taxes. But since the communities where these
    infrastructure projects are built benefit from the
    infrastructure projects themselves, do you think it would be
    fair to ask State and local entities not to collect taxes on
    construction materials for projects that are funded with
    Federal dollars?
        And I would like to ask Mr. Roberts that question, as well.
        Mr. McKenna. We have a local cost share so that communities
    can actually leverage local taxes. And what we have seen are
    communities have actually invested those in the Federal system,
    in the State system, beyond their local municipalities. So we
    see a counteraction that occurs, so it balances it out.
        Mr. Westerman. But ultimately, those State and local taxes
    are being paid with Federal tax dollars if it is on a federally
    funded project.
        Mr. Roberts?
        Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. I am not familiar with a location
    where the materials that we put into our projects are not taxed
    at the local level. So that would be surprising to me. So----
        Mr. Westerman. So one proposal that I may put out there is
    to exempt construction materials from State and Federal taxes
    when Federal tax dollars are funding those projects, so you
    have more money going for concrete and asphalt and bridges,
    rather than going into State and local tax coffers.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding a hearing on the critical need to increase investment
    in transportation infrastructure. And I am proud to join you
    and Ranking Member Norton and 253 of our bipartisan colleagues
    in sending a letter to the Ways and Means Committee, urging
    them to fix the Highway Trust Fund revenue problem in order to
    provide sustained and sufficient funding for our
    transportation.
        Thank you to all the witnesses. Your testimony highlights
    the need for robust funding, both maintaining our existing
    infrastructure and new projects to address congestion, safety,
    and efficiency.
        I particularly want to thank Mr. Roberts, from California.
    I often see the crews along the highways that I go almost on a
    daily basis when I am home, and I appreciate the dangerous work
    you do, and colleagues who are in transportation and the
    building trades.
        Your testimony highlights the American Civil Society of
    Engineers report card that our Nation's roads have a D and our
    Nation's transit system a D-minus. American Society of Civil
    Engineers note that there is an $836 billion--billion--backlog
    of highway and bridge capital needs, with an additional $123
    billion backlog for bridge repair, a $90 billion backlog on
    transit maintenance.
        I am proud the California Legislature worked to address the
    transportation funding gap by passing SB-1, the $5.2 billion
    per year transportation spending package for 10 years. It
    passed on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of our legislators
    voted for it. Signed by the Governor in April. But now some of
    our colleagues are challenging in court.
        Surprisingly, they are pursuing a ballot measure to repeal
    this important transportation funding. I ask unanimous consent,
    Mr. Chair, to insert into the record letters from California--
    Fix Our Roads Coalition and the Transportation Construction
    Coalition--opposing repeal of SB-1.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The two letters follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Roberts, can you discuss the
    infrastructure challenges facing California? And do you believe
    SB-1 is needed to address those challenges? How many jobs does
    SB-1 create in California, and what would be the impact in
    repealing SB-1 on our State's economy?
        Mr. Roberts. Yes, ma'am, I would be happy to, because I
    think that SB-1 was probably one of the biggest legislative
    actions that I have seen in many, many years in the State of
    California.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Finally.
        Mr. Roberts. The backlog of work in California, as I
    mentioned before, is in excess of $100 billion, itself, in the
    State of California. It has been continually underfunded. And
    actually, in the last several years, it has been reduced, which
    is a tragedy. And I think that what is happening in the State
    of California is a microcosm of what is happening across the
    country.
        And so, I want to go on record and make clear that the
    legislature stood up and did what we are hoping our Federal
    Government will do, as well. And they used, as you suggest, a
    bipartisan approach to it, brought in discussions for several
    years. The Governor, the leader of the State of California, put
    together the program at the end.
        They used a host of fees, and I think this is the important
    part. They did not focus just on gas tax. It has gas taxes, it
    has diesel tax, it has registration fees for electrical
    vehicles, for hybrid vehicles. So it used a host of
    opportunities, which we have been talking about all day here
    this morning, relative to making sure that we diversify the
    opportunity to create the funding mechanism.
        I think it would have been just absolutely devastating, or
    will be, if any kind of a repeal effort is successful, because
    today in California we are in gridlock.
        And there was a question asked earlier about the--this does
    not address congestion. Well, it does address congestion. It
    doesn't address large expansion. But part of the congestion
    problem that we have across the country is the fact that we
    haven't properly maintained the systems that we have today.
        Mrs. Napolitano. For years.
        Mr. Roberts. Which is a significant issue in itself. And
    this is why I said previously that if you don't maintain what
    you have to begin with, you should not be putting more in
    place, because you are not going to maintain that properly,
    either.
        I am excited also with Mrs. Lawrence's comment that the--
    something of this significance long term--10 years, $52
    billion--will create an opportunity for people to move into the
    business of being in that industry and create careers so they
    can put money and food on the table for their families, and not
    just a short-term stimulus, but a long-term, $52 billion
    program in the State of California that will change the
    construction industry for decades to come.
        So I want to congratulate the legislature and the Governor
    for what I think is one of the biggest and strongest acts they
    have done in years.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. That is very true.
    And we are looking forward to more funding and to expansion of
    our freeways, because some of them are, well, more than 50
    years old, and they are falling apart and not able to handle
    the type of transportation that is currently needed to get to
    work, get to deliver, and do all the other things.
        I find it sad that it took me--I was working for Ford Motor
    at the time--it took me 17 minutes from my house to my job back
    20 years ago. Now it takes me an hour and a half.
        So it is important that we address the congestion. But also
    keep in mind that we need to address the backlog, the operation
    and maintenance, so that we have enough funding in reserve to
    be able to take care of that also.
        Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Woodall.
        Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about
    what we can do to restore some taxpayer confidence in the
    system.
        Mr. Booker, I think about all your members that we see out
    there working hard every day of the week. I mean we have all
    had constituents call with those stories, ``Dadgumit, Rob, I
    see 3 guys working, I see 40 guys standing around. I just don't
    understand it.''
        I have got a little 2\1/2\-mile stretch of road in my
    district. Preliminary engineering started on that road-widening
    project back in 2005. Folks have been seeing orange cones out
    there for a decade. They want to know what in the world is
    going on. Why can't we get something done?
        What Mr. McKenna knows is that Russell McMurry, who leads
    our State DOT, presided over a project when the I-85 bridge
    burned down and collapsed in Georgia, three spans of bridge--
    not a square bridge, but a parabola of a bridge there, and we
    replaced it in 6 weeks. I didn't have one Tea Party, one
    conservative, one taxpayer advocate, I didn't have one
    constituent call and tell me they were angry about the $3
    million performance bonus that we gave to C.W. Matthews for
    getting that job done 6 weeks--not just a 6-week project, but 6
    weeks early on a 12-week project, and delivered what taxpayers
    believe was a value for their dollar.
        So you all represent a different facet of the industry. I
    tell that story all the time because it tells me what we can do
    together, a Democratic mayor, bipartisan regional commission,
    Republican Governor, all coming together to make those things
    happen.
        What is the story in your space that you would have me
    retell to tell folks, you know what? If you trust us with
    another $10 billion or $20 billion in trust fund, we are not
    just going to flush it down the toilet, we are going to get you
    real value for real money? Who has got a--who has got something
    to lift me up today?
        Mr. McKenna.
        Mr. McKenna. Yes, I will give you two examples,
    Representative.
        Number one, in Missouri we have the same circumstance. We
    had major flooding in the spring. We had 384 roads closed. Our
    maintenance crews and our construction partners had 300 of
    those opened in 5 days. We are down to just three, and those
    will be complete by the end of this month. All 384 roads will
    be opened within 6 months of being closed.
        We also have a record of achievement: 4,661 construction
    projects have been completed by Missouri DOT and our
    construction partners in the last 10 years, 94 percent on time
    or early, and 7 percent under budget. That is $1 billion in
    savings, and that has gone right back into the construction
    program----
        Mr. Woodall. Seven percent under budget?
        Mr. McKenna. Seven percent.
        Mr. Woodall. Mr. Booker.
        Mr. Booker. I would look to a project in Georgia at Plant
    Vogtle, where we are building two new nuclear units, units 3
    and 4, in Waynesboro, Georgia. Not an easy place to get to.
        We got 4,000 construction workers that go to work there
    every single day. I spent more time than I probably should have
    down on that job site. And when you go around and you meet with
    them, whether it is on that project or any other project, our
    members, the construction workers, they want to work. They
    don't want to sit around. You know, the worst thing you could
    do on a 10-hour shift is only be busy for 4 hours.
        So our partnership with our contractor partners, how do
    you--your work, how do you manage that day, how do you do that?
    And if you go down to Waynesboro, you are going to see 4,000
    people come out of the project every day. They can look behind
    them, see that they are building the future power for this
    country, and they are proud of what they are doing every day.
        Mr. Woodall. We thought they were going to be trendsetters.
    It remains to be seen, whether that comes to fruition.
        Mr. Booker. I still think they will.
        Mr. Woodall. Mr. Rogoff?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I would point to projects that are really
    transformative, and I would give you this example.
        We are surrounded by both water and mountains in the Puget
    Sound region. And, as a result, we can take a lot off of a
    person's commute by having them avoid either the mountains or
    especially the water.
        So we just opened two additional stops about a year ago
    this past March that serve a neighborhood called Capitol Hill
    and Huskies Stadium, where the Washington Huskies play at the
    southern end of the university campus. We are continuing to go
    north from there.
        The ability to avoid the waterways and the roadways that
    have to hug those waterways meant that just that two-stop
    segment meant that for many people the trip to the heart of
    downtown Seattle went from more than 20 minutes on a good day,
    and could be 40 minutes on a bad day, to 8 minutes. It has
    completely changed commuting patterns. Our light rail ridership
    spiked beyond our expectations, from 70, 80 percent with just
    two stops. It was a lot of money, it took a lot of time. But,
    boy, it has transformed that region.
        Mr. Woodall. Yes, I think about the elected officials who
    put the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in,
    over a lot of objections, 45 years ago now. It transformed the
    city of Atlanta in ways that no one could have ever imagined.
        And I see the Trucking Association sitting on the back row.
    Their members are willing to pay more, because they see the
    difference it makes in their day to maintain the roadways.
        I hope, as we go on, you all will partner with me with
    those stories. It makes all the difference in the world when
    you feel like you are on a winning team instead of on a losing
    team. And I know folks who are proud to show up to work every
    day. I want the taxpayers to be every bit as proud of that work
    that is going on. Your members deserve that, your industry
    deserves that, and I think we can do that together.
        I thank you all for being here today.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, gentlemen, for your appearance today and for your
    testimony.
        Many people voted for Donald Trump because he promised to
    make American great again by growing the economy and creating
    high-paying, middle-class jobs by rebuilding America's
    crumbling infrastructure. Isn't that correct, Mr. Booker?
        Mr. Booker. That is correct.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And, Mr. McKenna, do you believe
    that we can make America great again by rebuilding our roads,
    bridges, and tunnels, if we replace real Federal gas tax
    revenues with public-private partnerships?
        Mr. McKenna. I believe it requires we do both.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Do you believe that public-private
    partnerships alone can do it?
        Mr. McKenna. When I look to my left on this panel, public-
    private partnerships have existed in transportation for over
    100 years. States, the Federal Government, and our construction
    industry, it is already in place.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, recently the Washington Post
    and the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump
    stated that he no longer believes that public-private
    partnerships will solve our infrastructure funding needs. Do
    you disagree with President Trump?
        Mr. McKenna. I believe it is part of a tool in the toolbox.
    It is a procurement method, it is not necessarily a funding
    method. It is one of the tools that might help particular
    projects in particular regions of the country.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, my colleague from Illinois,
    my good friend Representative Davis, asked you all to raise
    your hands if you believe that raising the gas tax alone will
    take care of the problems with the Highway Trust Fund. And it
    was duly noted that no one raised their hand. And none of you
    on the panel raised your hand.
        I want you to raise your hand if you believe that the
    Federal gas tax will remain viable for fixing our crumbling
    infrastructure, given the fact that we have 253 million gas-
    powered vehicles on the roads in the country today versus only
    540,000 electric vehicles. Raise your hand if you believe that
    the tax, the Federal gas tax, will remain viable to fix our
    crumbling infrastructure.
        Mr. Rogoff. I am struggling with ``remain viable.''
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I see four out of five, with the
    transit guy not raising his hand, and I would love to ask him
    about that in a second--probably for a reason unrelated to the
    answer to the question. But I want you--so the record reflects,
    you all believe that the gas tax is going to be viable.
        Now raise your hand if you believe that the gas tax should
    be increased. And I see three--I see four--I see three, I see
    four. I see a maybe out of one of the fours.
        Mr. McCarty.
        Mr. McCarty. Yes, and the reason I am hesitant is because I
    think it has to be part of an overall solution. It can be part
    of a package----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And that is not my question. My
    question is whether or not you believe that--since 1993, gas
    tax has been at its current rate. Do you think it should be
    increased? That is my only question. And you did raise your
    hand, so do you wish to retract it at this time?
        Mr. McCarty. No. I think it has to be part of the package.
    As I said, we are looking for something that is sustainable,
    long-term. And, you know, fuel tax will be one of those things
    that we have to do.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. And so, Mr. Rogoff,
    would you please solve this mystery for us, why you did not
    raise your hand on the question----
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, it is in part policy and it is part
    parochial. As I pointed out earlier, the State of Washington
    has just increased its gas tax, the second increment of it of a
    $.12 gas tax increase. I work for a board of 18--17 elected
    officials. They do not, as I know, have a position on raising
    the gas tax.
        I would say this. Importantly, transit is funded from a mix
    of trust fund dollars and general fund dollars. And in my
    written testimony I talk about how the need for transit
    expansion in America requires that we revisit the mix between
    programs. But I don't believe that all of the problems will be
    handled by a gas tax increase, and I think we probably should
    address the problems on a comprehensive basis, perhaps some
    combination of fuel taxes.
        I have also talked about the fact that Washington State is
    one of the few States that is actually piloting vehicle user
    charges. I think the committee needs to take a hard look at
    what will be sustainable, because the one thing you will hear
    unanimously from this panel is everyone wants sustainability
    and predictability in the program.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And thank you for that response.
    But I will ask whether or not these vehicle user fees are
    sufficient in rural areas.
        Mr. Rogoff. I think the debate, actually, often goes in the
    other direction, which is to say rural users use the roadways
    more, by definition. And how long it will take a rural resident
    to get to church or a shopping center versus an urban resident.
    The concern I have heard is that vehicle user charges can work
    a hardship on rural America. So I do not know that it would
    necessarily work in that case.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being not on the
    subcommittee, but being allowed to participate, I much
    appreciate that. And under the committee rules, if you are not
    on the subcommittee, you are last. So I also appreciate what it
    was like to be a freshman once.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Larsen. So I will remember that one day, the value of a
    5-minute rule.
        Mr. Rogoff, as you know, I am one of those voters who voted
    for the variety of taxes that we raised for the Sound Transit
    3, or ST3, as we call it. And one of the issues that came up
    during that debate was about the Federal obligation that we
    weren't going to do all of it, that taxpayers weren't going to
    carry all of this, but were certainly going to carry most of
    it. There was an expectation there would be a Federal
    obligation, but it was not going to be the full burden, or half
    the burden.
        So now we are in this debate with the 2018 budget, moving
    forward, for ST2, completion of ST2. Can you just--how are you
    handling the uncertainty of the 2018 budget, then, that says
    the Federal obligation may not be there to move forward?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, in a variety of measures we are first
    evaluating for the benefit of the Sound Transit board what our
    financing options would be. We have said definitively that we
    will get to Lynnwood, just as we will get to Federal Way and
    beyond, on to Everett and on to Tacoma, on to Redmond.
        I think the concern is that the Federal partnership leave,
    thus requiring local taxpayers to pay far more and, in so
    doing, delay the project. We have already had to delay the
    delivery date for getting to Lynnwood from 2023 to 2024, and
    that was, in part, because of the uncertainty surrounding
    whether we will get a full funding grant agreement, and the
    timeframe in which we might get it.
        This recent appropriation cycle is a very good example. We
    were not successful in the House appropriations bill in
    securing dollars for Lynnwood. There is some funding in the
    Senate bill that we believe Lynnwood would be eligible for. And
    so we have to really watch the needle carefully, watch each
    step in the process, work with the FTA, work with our
    delegation, work with other transit agencies like ours.
        This is not just about Sound Transit; there are a number of
    other transit agencies around the country that similarly expect
    continued Federal partnership. It was reasonable for them to do
    so. No one expected the administration to completely turn off
    the funding spigot, as no administration has done in the last
    five that I have worked with.
        But we are looking at our financing options, while working
    very hard with Members like yourself and the rest of the
    delegation in trying to move forward with a reasonable Federal
    cost.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. So, just to put some perspective on that,
    again, the Federal Government turning off the Federal funding
    spigot, but the local taxpayers spigot is still running.
        Mr. Rogoff. Absolutely.
        Mr. Larsen. Their obligation is still going with an
    expectation that there will be some help.
        Mr. Rogoff. It is precisely what we told the voters. And,
    you know, you heard me earlier complain about being called out
    in the President's budget as reasons to terminate the Federal
    participation. They also called out Los Angeles, they also
    called out Denver, the fact that all three of our regions
    passed local tax measures to fund transit. But the reality is
    all three of those had an expected Federal component when we
    brought that to the voters.
        Mr. Larsen. An expected Federal component that you had
    actually already talked to the Federal authorities about.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, in the case of Lynnwood, we have already
    been admitted into the engineering phase, with a commitment of
    $1.174 billion. I mean this was laid out. And that is why the
    President's budget proposal came as, you know, more than a
    shock.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. You use TIFIA quite a bit, and that is--in
    the FAST Act I think we expanded the use of TIFIA as a
    nondirect Federal funding mechanism. Can you just talk briefly
    about how you use TIFIA as a tool?
        Mr. Rogoff. Sure----
        Mr. Larsen. A valuable tool?
        Mr. Rogoff. TIFIA is a very valuable tool, especially for
    agencies that have strong credit. And we pride ourselves--we
    believe we may have the strongest credit rating of any transit
    agency in the country.
        We use TIFIA to lower the cost of borrowing to the
    taxpayers. So we have, we believe, what may still be the only
    master credit agreement with the DOT for four separate TIFIA
    loans wrapped into one agreement. That, by itself, over the
    course of those four loans, will save the taxpayers at Puget
    Sound between $200 million to $300 million in borrowing costs.
        It is a great tool----
        Mr. Larsen. What portion of that is mine and my wife's?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Larsen. Just kidding, just kidding.
        Mr. Rogoff. I would have to divide it across all regional
    taxpayers, but it benefits everyone.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, great.
        And then finally, I will just note when the I-35 bridge
    collapsed--and this is for everyone, I think, for the record,
    if you can get back to us--when we had the I-35 collapse in
    Minneapolis, that sort of triggered Congress, when we did the
    next transportation bill, to write into the emergency bridge
    funding provisions in that next bill some emergency permitting
    procedures, which were first then used when the Skagit River
    Bridge collapsed in my district. And they were used in Georgia,
    as well, I think, as part of that collapse.
        Is there, from your perspective--and again, for the record,
    are there provisions in that emergency set of provisions for
    emergency bridge repair that can be maybe used as a lesson for
    some permitting streamlining as we are--you know, as we try to
    craft a bill and look at permit streamlining?
        If you can come back to us for the record on that from the
    five of you, I would appreciate it. Thanks a lot.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        [The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials' response to Hon. Larsen's request for information is on page
    65. The response from the Transportation Construction Coalition is on
    pages 90-91.]

        Mr. Graves of Missouri. I have got a question for--it is a
    little parochial--for Mr. McKenna, but for the committee
    overall.
        Missouri has received grants for the surface transportation
    alternative funding program for 2016 and 2017, and I would be
    curious--or if you could tell the committee, too, what the
    progress is, and how that is moving along, and what your
    thoughts are.
        Mr. McKenna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we did note
    that, as part of the FAST Act, there was $95 million available
    for looking at alternatives to the fuel tax. We felt that our
    neighbors to the left and the right were doing a pretty good
    job of investigating vehicle miles traveled, and we wanted to
    look at something else. So we are looking at, in Missouri, the
    notion of a fuel economy-based adjustment to a registration fee
    as another tool in the toolbox, as another means of
    strengthening our own revenue base in Missouri.
        So the first round of the grant--we received a small grant,
    $250,000, to study the demographics of the registration
    database, and that has gone very well. We should be done with
    that in December.
        We did just get the very good news that we have received
    another grant the next round, which is about $2.7 million, and
    we are going to be taking information we have gained from the
    first round, and we are looking at the registration database in
    the State, and looking to implement that type of registration
    fee. It would be a big upgrade for the State.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. We had a lot of talk about,
    obviously, solvency of the trust fund, moving forward. And I
    know Mr. Shuster and I both believe that we are going to have
    to do something different, because the gas tax is
    extraordinarily regressive and it is going to get more so and
    more so and more so. So we are very interested in alternatives
    that we can look at, moving forward.
        Second round? I know Mr. LaMalfa has a question.
        Go ahead, and then Ms. Norton wants to finish. Go ahead,
    Mr. LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    that.
        I just wanted to clear out what a couple things meant for
    California on SB-1. It was called a bipartisan bill. There are
    120 California legislators during the assembly in the senate.
    One Republican voted for SB-1 in the senate. So if you want to
    call that a bipartisan bill, I don't have a lot to say about
    that. But--and that individual is termed out and got a railway
    project for that individual's district.
        So under what is known as ``hashtag fix our roads,'' 30
    percent of the funding of SB-1 is going to go for other things
    besides roads like rail, transit, bikeways, pedestrian paths,
    parks and recreation, university research, workforce
    development programs.
        So when we go to the well and ask--you don't even ask the
    taxpayers, because they do have a couple ballot measures they
    are looking at in California, maybe they will get asked--tell
    the taxpayers to pay more for their roads, and you have 30
    percent going for other things, and it isn't bipartisan, you
    are really going to run into more problems coming back into DC
    and telling California legislators to try and vote for a new
    deal to foist more upon them.
        You know, again, $.20 in diesel tax on top of what truckers
    are already paying, and yet truckers are not going to see any
    improvement from the new tax for their ability to move goods up
    and down the system.
        Families probably see about a $500 increase, total cost per
    year, if they are a multivehicle family and have any work or
    school to get their kids to. So, you know, there are real costs
    involved as we sit here and talk about increasing vehicle tax
    and fuel tax and--on everybody, whether it is a Federal or
    State project.
        And finally, they had to even change the ballot summary,
    because of the way it was rigged by the attorney general in
    California. He went to court and they had to change the
    misleading ballot summary of what--getting ready to qualify, or
    I think has qualified to go in front of the voters.
        So there is a lot of funny business with what is being
    placed in front of them, and they can't be honest about what it
    does.
        So, that said, when we are talking about the--who is going
    to bear the cost of the burden of paying for additional roads
    into the Highway Trust Fund or what have you, the issue of
    electric cars has come up a couple times on the panel here. In
    California's bill there is an increase for $100, because you
    can't track fuel costs for electric cars. It doesn't even kick
    in until 2020 for the electric vehicles in California--$100.
    Meanwhile, everybody else is going to be paying $175, or
    approximately that, plus the gas tax. So we can't even seem to
    even out the burden on electric vehicles.
        But let me throw this to Mr. McKenna here. You know, as
    talking about getting more into the trust fund, with the
    increasing numbers of electric vehicles and hybrids and such,
    and subsidized by State and Federal money, sometimes several
    thousands of dollars of these due to the incentives to buy
    those vehicles, they contribute a small fraction of what the
    cost is for using the same roads.
        So what do you see, Mr. McKenna, across the board, besides
    California, delayed until 2020, $100? What are you seeing in
    other States to try and have these vehicles that are wearing
    out the highways and roads the same as others, but not paying
    any part of that burden?
        Mr. McKenna. Thank you for the question. That is actually
    what we are trying to address with the grant program that
    Chairman Graves mentioned. We are looking at a fuel economy
    adjustment to the registration fee.
        So if I am receiving 40 miles per gallon on my vehicle, and
    you are receiving 20, and we both drive 10,000 miles, you are
    paying double what I am. Our attempt, through this grant
    program, is to look at the ability to create a registration fee
    that would balance those two. So, in fact, all users would be
    paying the same.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. On one hand, that is funny, because we
    have been cajoled and pushed and prodded into driving smaller,
    more fuel-efficient vehicles and all that, and then, now that
    the money is running out of the trust fund, it is going back
    the other way. So how people that watch what we do, either at
    the State level or the Federal level, wonder what the heck they
    are supposed to do, it has got to be pretty confusing.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. I
    appreciate the extra time.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves from Louisiana.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The other Mr. Graves. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I want to thank you very
    much for having this hearing.
        I want to thank you all for being here today. I apologize I
    had to step out for a good bit of the hearing, but I did hear
    your testimony earlier.
        As we move forward in building an infrastructure package, I
    think something that is really important is for us to look at
    where we are spending infrastructure dollars today, as a
    Federal Government. And I can go through and name various
    programs through, obviously, agencies like Department of
    Transportation, the Corps of Engineers, but many other agencies
    that are spending billions of dollars that I think are perhaps
    a bit off the radar, agencies like Department of Agriculture,
    FEMA, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, HUD,
    and many others.
        Do any of you have experience in using multiple funding
    streams in advancing an infrastructure solution that you are
    working on? Does that question make sense? Meaning integrating
    various Federal funding streams to build a transportation
    project in your State.
        Mr. McKenna. Yes, Representative. We actually use multiple
    funding streams for almost every construction project we do,
    large or small. So a combination of Federal, State, and local
    funds. We have a cost-share program that can leverage local
    transportation development district sales taxes.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Let me see if I can clarify my
    question. Certainly you are going to be integrating State and
    local funding streams with Federal, because there is a cost
    share on many of these programs. Have you brought other Federal
    streams to the table?
        Mr. McKenna. We do try to work with resource agencies. I
    can't think of any specific ones right now, but I know we have
    done that, and I could provide some for the record.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I would appreciate it. Could
    anyone else----
        Mr. Rogoff. Sure. We certainly have combined dollars from
    the Federal Transit Administration with things like CMAQ
    dollars, congestion mitigation air quality----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Sure.
        Mr. Rogoff [continuing]. Dollars from the Federal Highway
    Administration.
        I think what you will often see is dollars from other
    agencies pay for some of the augmentation that surrounds our
    projects like CDBG [Community Development Block Grant] through
    HUD, and the kind of redevelopment a community might do around
    a rail station. It is part of an overall build-out of a
    structure, but they might be considered segmented projects.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Yes, thank you. And, Mr. Chairman,
    as we move forward and continue having discussions about
    infrastructure, I just think it is critical that we have a
    clear inventory of various Federal efforts that are underway
    now, under all these different agencies, that are advancing
    different infrastructure objectives and, in many cases, I think
    perhaps objectives that aren't as high priority as others. If
    we are spending money and making up something, if we are
    building recreational opportunities in some States using an
    infrastructure pot, is that really advancing a Federal
    objective?
        A lot of people, when you talk infrastructure package, I
    think are expecting to see this rain of Federal dollars that
    are going to come in to States. I think one of the first things
    we need to do is get an inventory of where we are spending
    dollars now, and a better understanding of how those dollars
    are being spent, if they are truly advancing a Federal priority
    or not, and doing a better job at truly funding projects, or
    funding initiatives within the Federal Government, as opposed
    to taking more of a shotgun approach, where we sprinkle dollars
    out in insufficient amounts all over the United States.
        Let me ask another question. Mr. Rogoff, you obviously have
    a strong transit background. I have ridden on a number of your
    rail vehicles in the Seattle area. How do you do your planning?
    You talked about how you are able to project the number of cars
    coming off roads, and things like that, as a result of
    different investments you are making. How do you integrate your
    planning with your State DOT to make sure that you are making
    complementary investments with your transit dollars as compared
    to other highway dollars?
        Mr. Rogoff. It is a great question, and we are, frankly,
    rather proud of our record and how we come at this.
        So, first, as I said, we have to go to the legislature to
    get authority to go to the voters to ask for a revenue increase
    and a system plan. That was effectively the State highway bill,
    so we knew what the State's plans were before we then went out
    to the voters.
        We have the added benefit that the State transportation
    secretary is a member of my board. We work hand-in-glove with
    them, in part, because a lot of the projects we are running--
    new rail extensions are actually happening over interstate
    right-of-way adjacent to either I-5--we are also, literally,
    building light rail over a floating bridge that is Interstate
    90.
        So we are working together. In fact, a number of the State
    DOT staff will now be collocated in our office spaces so we can
    work even better together. So there are always improvements to
    make on the integration, but we only want the taxpayers to pay
    for the benefit once, and we are working very hard to make sure
    that takes place.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a couple other questions I am going to
    submit in writing. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Absolutely.
        Seeing no other questions, I want to thank all of our
    witnesses for being here today and for your testimony.
        I would also ask unanimous consent that the record of
    today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
    have provided answers to the questions that have been submitted
    to them.
        And I would also ask unanimous consent that the record
    remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information
    submitted by Members and witnesses to be included in today's
    record.
        And, without objection, that is so ordered.
        And if no other Members have anything to add, the committee
    stands adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]