To ask questions. Without objective, thats so ordered. Can would like to welcome everybody to the hearing today. Its going to focus obviously on how we can build the 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, were going to hear ideas from our highways and transit stakeholders. Gathering input from our stakeholders is essential to the process. That we use to again surface transportation policy. Its valuable in our efforts to pass the act, which was the first longterm highway bill in a decade, and were going to continue to need your assistance with future legislation. Even with the Additional Resources we provided, the nations surface Transportation System still needs additional investments. Enacting a long Term Solution for the Highway Trust Fund is a critical component to insuring we can address those needs long into the future. Since passage of the f. A. S. T. Act, building a consensus on the program has been a central priority of mine, and its been the main priority of the committee. Providing federal funding certainty for our nonfederal 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 insure were going to achieve this goal. Modern infrastructure means a strong america. An america that competes globally, supports local and Regional Economic development and creates jobs. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. With that, i look forward, obviously, to the testimony. Ill turn to Ranking Member norton for her Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 thats the right way to begin. And the four of us have very bipartisan way led the congress to pass the first surface transportation bill in a decade in 2015. We realized then that we had not begun, 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 Investment in infrastructure. Im 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, lets get some money on the table. Perhaps this hearing can help bring our committee and subcommittee and the administration together and well all agree is 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, thats within this committee and within the congress generally, with robust representation from both sides of the aisle, chairman graves and i on a letter to 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 urged, quote, any htf solution, highway traffic fund solution, should entail a longterm dedicated, userbased, revenue stream that can support the transportation Infrastructure Investments. This strongly bipartisan letter stands in stark contrast to the administrations apparent view that an Infrastructure Initiative is an opportunity to begin chipping away at the federal governments responsibility to be the steward of our National Transportation network. Remember, ever since eisenhower, we have recognized that this is a network. You cant dice and slice it. It goes from coast to coast. It goes from rural to urban. Thats 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 private dollars. Try telling that to the states and localities. Rural areas object to this. And members and senators representing rural areas are predictably strong propone nlts of keeping strong propone nlts 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 federal and local dollars. But there has been an agreement for my entire lifetime, republican and democratic administrations alike, that they 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 insure 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 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 where you see all kinds of construction trades, building more offices, apartments, condos, amenities. And in 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 described in this region, are replicated in all of our major urban areas across the nation. Maybe we should stop calling this urban areas because the rural part of our region feeds straight into these roads and bridges because thats where they come for the jobs, because thats where the jobs are. So parity in our transportation bill is essential. The top 20 urban areas contribute 52 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 mega regions. We can no more leave behind urban areas than we can leave behind rural areas. Pretty hard to disssz one from the other. The rural areas need them. If we leave urban areas to fend for themselves largely, then were 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 that 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 resolution survey found that just 22 of americans favor polling tolls on interstate highways for infrastructure maintenance. Three times as many or 65 are opposed to turning the nations interstate into tolling roads. We should think seriously about the impact on drivers if the federal government incentivizes federal lanes, tolls that allow drivers to avoid the congestion, 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. Those with disposable income to avoid congestion and leave the majority of drivers stuck in traffic. Just a few miles from here in virginia the 495 express lanes perhaps some members use them. These 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. Most people use meaning any congestion benefits reside with those who can afford to pay more. In the same vein the Public PrivatePartnership Contract discourages car pooling of all things that directly relieves congestion while hov vehicles are exempt from tolls if they exceed 24 of total vehicles Virginia Department of transportation has to subsidize the lost toll proceeds. This means that the Virginia Department of transportation is innocentviscentivised to discou pooling 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 fy 2018 in its budget continues the myth that cutting transit funding will somehow solve our transportation funding woes. The opposition to transit is a recipe for congestion. Mr. Chairman, i look forward to hearing from todays witnesses and i thank you for calling this hearing today. Thank you ms. Norton. I turn to representative shuster for comments. Thanks for all the witnesses being here. Look forward to hearing from all of you. None of you are strangers from the committee mr. Roberts and mr. Booker you folks are Building Infrastructure in this country and you folks are using it every day. Your great distinguished career at d. O. T. A fabulous panel. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. To me building a 21st century infrastructure is about jobs, efficiency, moving products and people as efficiently as we can, insuring that america is competitive and making sure we pay for it. Stop kicking the can down the road so that my children or grandchildren are 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 and finance things. 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. 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 fixing the Highway Trust Fund making sure there are solutions on the table. Fixing trust fund will help our nonfederal partners. 29 states have dealt with it over the last four or five years and i dont believe any state legislature has been wiped out either party for dealing with the funding stream. I know my state of pennsylvania itself with the republican governor dealt with the issue. Urban, suburban, rural, the gas tax is a regressive tax and Rural America does pay more. In the pennsylvania experience and i think this is true all over the country and true all over the country rural folks may pay more in their gas tax they get back a lot more. You cant build a road in Rural America that isnt subsidized. My folks are going to pay more when they fill up because they use their cars more. What they get back from taxpayers i think it comes back to them and its a balance to balance what they get back. That is something we have to keep in minds as we go forward. That will be the cry. Its regressive. Rural america, those folks that have to travel more to get to work, they benefit greatly, i believe. My district is an example of that. I think if you have any rural district in america you will see you cant build an interstate highway through rural pennsylvania or rural wyoming unless the folks from the urban areas, their dollars are coming out to make this country connected. 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. Thank you. We will turn to Ranking Member of the full committee. Thanks for holding this hearing and thanks to the witnesses who travelled here today. I didnt bring my poster, but the poster of 1956 life magazine where the brand new interstate in oklahoma ends at the arkansas border in a Farmers Field because arkansas defaulted on their promise to build their section until we had a national Highway Program and they get 80 of it paid for by the feds. We are talking about linking america together, a vision that Dwight Eisenhower had 70 years ago with a National Transportation policy. Transportation does not end at state lines. We need the federal investment as the chairman said 24 states not just 21. 24 states have stepped up and have increased revenues with the gas tax, a couple of areas went with wholesale taxes. They are stepping up. They need a federal partner. Its not enough that they did that. No one lost their election. No one was recalled. So why are we sitting here jawing again today nine months, ten 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. We can do this in a bipartisan way but all we are doing is talking. All we are doing is just talking while the country crumbles. Seriously. Lets get to work. We have 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 in here pretending . If thats their priority and they are going to cut it 25 billion why are they holding a hearing to talk about our needs . You cant meet our needs without investment. We havent raised the federal gas tax since 1993 when a guy named but shuster brought a bunch of republicans to vote with the democrats and we raised the gas tax. 24 states have recognized the need and done it and there has been no action here. We are promised a trillion dollars by the white house and they come out with an outline of 200 billion maybe sort of and you know that might just be ppps. Then the president says he doesnt 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. I would like to welcome our panel. First director of Missouri Department of transportation. He is on behalf of the American Association state highway transportation officials. We have mr. James roberts who is president and chief executive officer at grant corporation. Mr. Brett booker who is secretary treasurer. President and chief executive officer of the associated industries of missouri here on behalf of the National Association of manufacturers and chief executive officer of sound transit. And with that i would ask unanimous consent that witnesses full statements be included in the record. Without objection that is so ordered. Since your written testimony is going to be included in its entirety limit your summary to five minutes. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the perspective of the nations state departments of transportation. My name is patrick mckenna. Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great state of missouri which represents transportation departments of all 50 states, washington, d. C. 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 funding is needed instead of relying solely on incentives. Wherever possible tradition federal authority should be assigned to states to expedite and stream line project delivery. Priority should be given to transportation investments that secure our nations future for the long term instead of shovel ready projects. This would enable investments to flow to every region of the country. The first long term funding legislation since 2005. This allowed for funding certainty and planning. It also increased amount of federal Funds Available that can be matched with state dollars. 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 passage of fact act missouri taken on my financial risk and increased capital budget. I want to thank members of this committee for your work to pass and to appeal for continued action to create funding stability. United States Department of transportation notes state and local governments provided 80 of funds invested in highway and bridge programs and 74 of funds invested in transit programs. I cite these numbers because members disagree with any notion that federal transportation funding displaces or discourages state and local investment. My example of funding stability shows. Highway trust fund provided stable, reliable and substantial funding for decades. This is no longer the case. According to the Congressional Budget Office annual Highway Trust Fund spending estimated by 16 billion without your action missouri will be