first of all, want to thank all of you for being here today. thank my ranking member carden and his staff and the flexibility they have. it's kind of interesting, ben cardin and i were maybe three of the last remaining of the class of what was -- yeah. 1987. we're -- we have lamar smith and a couple more. anyway, it's funny. we're on opposite sides and a lieutenant of issues that we're always together in friendship as well as in infrastructure. as this week's infrastructure week, it's a great opportunity for us to highlight the critical needs we have in this country. tomorrow the full committee will have the chance to question secretary chow. the epw committee led the charge to pass the fast act, the highway reauthorization bill that i personally worked on. this was the largest one since 1998. nobody believed that we'd get it done. others thought that we'd only get an 18-month bill that senator boxer and i insisted on five years and it shows that people of different floss kiss can get along and make wonderful things happen. the act authorization over the tooif years. yet according to the united states d.o.t., it stands close to 836 beds. as administration in congress consider a potential trillion dollar infrastructure package we must keep in mind that the package will include more than just roads and bridges. it will also -- our court system, water ways, and energy needs as well. while the federal government will and should continue to be a leading partner in maintaining and building out our infrastructure ourn current investment will not meet all of our needs. what approach should we take has got to be a part of the solution and prioritize transportation. some states and locals are doing this but unfortunately, this weekend, in my state of oklahoma i learned about the effect proposed budget cuts to the department of transportation in my state of oklahoma did not properly prioritize the need for transportation and oklahoma and other states have to meet their modest match. we're talking about matches of either ten in 90 or 120 and 80. it occurred to me that they were not prioritizing that. i took my plane and loaded up with media and went around to all these construction sites. if we don't make our part of the match we're going to be stopping some of the construction. i think you know what happens when this does happen. so we also need to find responsible and meaningful ways to attract and leverage individual private investment to help close the gap. today's hearing will examine all these possibilities and what the federal government can do to help make it easier for our partners to leverage the federal investment with other opportunities. those -- not all ideas work everywhere. all options should be on the table. we should incentivize our partners. i look forward to the hearing from our witnesses. senator cartin. >> well, mr. chairman, once again thank you very much for your leadership in regards to leadership in our country. it's a pleasure to be the ranking democrat on the subcommittee to work with you on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. we've never had a problem with bipartisan infrastructure. i look forward to working with you and figuring out a way we can debt many this done. let me put on the record my conflict. i commute back and forth from bumt to washington every day. i note firsthand the problems of traffic and congestion. i started in 1987, mr. chairman, when we were both elected the round trip took me about two hours. today that exact same commute at the exact taime of the day take three hours and 15 minutes. the transportation people are telling me to expect one million more people in maryland in the next 25 years. 25 years from now when we're celebrating whatever anniversary that is in congress, that commute is going to take four hours and 15 minutes. we have to do something about it. mayor garcetti, i'm glad you're here, because the los angeles congestion is worsz than ours. so somebody i can point that has a more difficult commute than we do. wee need to address this. congestion is kogsly to our economy, to our public health. it's the circumstance that the public demands we moddenize our infrastructure. we've neglected it. yes, i agree with the charmt. we can always do things more efficiently. we can always find more ways of partnership. but the public investment must keep up with the need and we haven't done that. that's why we're here today to figure out how we can do this. so the district -- washington district has ranked anywhere from one to fourth or fifth most congested region in the country. that's why we work on ways to get people out of cars. the transit programs are important. 700,000 riders a day, one third of whom are federal employees trying to get to work is an old system. it also needs help. and it takes resources to rebuild our stations to improve our lines, to deal with the needs of additional lines and some of this is extremely expensive. we got to figure out a proper way in order to finance our infrastructure. we also need to deal with the flexibility issues. i preach that and senator carpenter's here and he's the ranking member of the full committee and a company on infrastructure. i'm bold in saying he's going to pay for it. he is very much in the leadership saying we've got to pay for what we need and let's figure out a way to do it. i appreciate his efforts on this. we've got to give some of this to local government. baltimore was designed by olmsted. olmsted connected all neighborhoods together gi green space. over the years that green space got developed and communities got isolated. literally people were trapped in their neighborhoods. only way they could get around was a car. some had no cars. we need to use transportation money to reconnect neighborhoods so people can walk and bike between neighborhoods without using cars. itle improves the quality of life. the that's what we did together, giving the flex fwlilt our transportation program so local governments can make the their own decisions rather than us dictating from washington what should be done. i would hope we continue those types of efforts as we look at additional tools to give to our local officials so they can do what is best for their community in order to restore their communities. this is an area we should be able to get done, mr. chairman. we have the president of united states making transportation one of his top priorities. we've got bipartisan proefls coming out of congress on revenues to deal with trump administration and this committee is dedicated to working together, listening to every member of this committee. we come from different areas. oklahoma and maryland have different transportation neerksds but we agree that we need additional help. working together, i think we can get this done. i look very much to our hearings and to working with the chairman. >> thank you very much, senator carden. let me suggest we're going to go ahead and make some introductions here. i want to get into the record all five important people we have here to testify. and senator harris, why don't you start off by introducing the mayor? >> appreciate that, chairman. as you know, i'm on the senate intelligence committee meeting at this same time but thank you at that time. los angeles mayor garcetti is a long-standing friend. here's here to talk about our nation's transportation needs. in los angeles freeways are infamous. the intersection is known as the biggest parking lot in america. but it's not just our roads that are overstretched. in 2015, 45.5 million visitors travel to los angeles. 6.7 million arrive from other countries. los angeles international airport is the second busiest airport in the country and l.a. county has the top two biggest container ports in the country. having quality infrastructure in los angeles is not just important for those who call it home as do i. it is important for the entire country. when los angeles is moving efficiently, that means it is easier for the products, goods and people that we all need to move around the country and the world, that they are able to move in an easier way. mayor garcetti has a front row seat to the transportation challenges and needs of southern california while looking at challenges and hopefully a city that will also host the olympics. los angeles is investing in new highway and surface street fracture while it is expanding rail transit and looking how to impact dedicated bus and bike lanes. laug residents just aproved a measure to invest their own money in the infrastructure that helps keep los angeles and its region growing. it's time for the federal government to do its part. residents need federal resources in order to provide businesses and tourists the experience that they deserve. the city and county of los angeles have angling r age r always had a history of working with the government in an effort to accelerate infrastructure projects. the effort riergs innovation combined with support from local, state, and federal government, and i look forward to hearing my mayor's testimony today. welcome, mayor garcetti. >> thank you. we couldn't with the interjectionings, i'd like to ask senator harper if he has anything to add. >> thank you so much. welcome one and all. i'm proud to be a member of this committee. i've been on it for about 18 years. i've thought about these issues as well. want to thank the leadership with the sib committee for holding this hearing today. want to thank all of you for coming and joining us and sharing your perspectives on an issue hopefully we can find bipart sedan agreement on. i'd like to say one of the major roles of government is to provide a nurturing environment for job creation and preservation. i say that several times a day. it's hard to have one if you don't have good transportation system. and you folks know that from the work that you do. t thele measures to allow agencies to partner with private investors, want to make sure they have what they need to be successful. in delaware we have useful partnerships. right now the state is working on an agreement with a private development to build mixed use in wilmington delaware where my family and i live. but if we're successful in this one endeavor, it will be the first transportation-related p-3 for delaware, the first. although our state has big projects on these other private partnerships in the past, they have never proceeded because lack of investor interest, i suspect. they 23igd out they couldn't make the kind of investment they wanted to make. the support eegts that are interesting in partnering with private firms to transfer project risk and potentially build projects more quickly. we restructured the department of transportation's finance programs into a single one-stop shop to streamline and improve the process for agencies and investors. we reduced the minimum cost for the transportation infrastructure, finance innovation act in order to expand access to ho loans. i believe that the private sector can play an important role. however, i also know that public-private partnerships and other financing tools are not the complete solution to our funding shortage. although sometimes we imply that they would be. we need to be clear that it's not a replacement for public funding. it will not solve our public transportation sol je. we'll face an insolvency crisis. the crisis will be a crisis for investors who similarly rely on uncertainty of public funding from the highway trust fund. partners with public investors can help agencies complete large complex problems more quickly. that is of value particularly with the regional projects that need to be completed today. where i live and frankly where we all live. there's a small number of complex and transformative construction projects where finance ears are interested in investing. they were all $700 million projects. they've not been as useful for routine maintenance. this was a shock to me but more over, a third of our states do not allow the use of private-public partnerships. in texas, the legisla. there are a number of questions that should be asked when and where public-private partnerships are a useful tool, how we can make sure they're making good use of funds. usually for -- when we come to plooning transportation across the country, there's no sill verl bullet. there are a lot of silver beanies, some bigger than others. the -- but there are other ways that we can use that money top help leverage other money and we should do that. thank you so much. >> thank you. let me introduce the next witness, tim guest is the executive director of the oklahoma turnpike authority. he worked for the department of transportation for 25 years. at oklahoma department of transportation, he is -- was actively involved in developing the project management methodologies as well as their eight-year construction work plan which guides the department's project development and delivery strategies. with his new role as executive director of the turnpike authority, he will oversee the continued implementation of nearly 900 million driving forward plan which he will bebe sharing. it's great to have you here. let me just say that we've got so many people right now really into this issue. i mean, i often sometimes -- these guys have heard me say it -- there's an old worn out document that nobody reads anymore. it's called the constitution. it talks about what we're really supposed to be doing here. we have a new president. he's made this a commitment a long time ago. people say wait a minute. a trillion dollars, that's not going to work. it's time to think of what happened eight years ago. eight years ago we had another president-elected as president of the united states. he came out with an 800-plus billion program that was supposed to stimulate. it didn't stimulate anything. we tried to put amendments on there. also i was visited this morning by the business round table and their statement of support for what we're doing today be made part of the record. >> without objection, so ordered. mayor garcetti has to leave earlier. does this altar your testimony? >> i do have to leave early but -- >> we'll start off with you and when you have to leave, appreciate your presence here very much. jeffrey urema, ok. i've talked to you before but i never did get that right. he's a partner in llp, los angeles, california. kevin degood, welcome. and aubry lane director of transportation for the commonwealth of virginia. >> i smoo explain that i asked my maryland folks who would be the best person to testify in regards to our problems in this region and they recommended secretary lane so it's a pleasure to have you here. virginia, maryland and delaware get along very well together. >> all right. your honor -- i'm going to try to encourage you folks to limit your statement to five minutes, little bit more, maybe. >> all right. >> but your entire statement will be made part of the record as is always the case. >> thank you for your friendship and thank you for -- >> i always tell you, i said i had job once. >> you did, you did. i think we bonded over that and i appreciate the perspective you brought. i want to thaeng senator harris for the introduction. i'm honored to appear before you as the maybe of a great american city but the krchlsz on infrastructure. when i heard folks talking about infrastructure a few months ago as mayor of the city with the biggest port in america, the largest municipal utility in america, most miles of road and has been stated, the worst traffic, i got very excited. contrary what you've seen in la la land we don't dance in traffic. we just sit there and stew. don't let this get out. 99% of the coverage is not going to be about how we get along. it's going to be how we disagree. the space that mayors occupy every single day. for all of us in the municipalities, the election in november when everybody was focused on 2 national election, throughout cities in america, $230 billion of infrastructure initiatives were approved by voters. a quarter of that down payment people talking about happening over a decade. my message is we can do this. we should be excited to do this. i want to share our lessons in california how we did this. we look to this in los angeles not just as an infrastructure need but really as a job and kwaultd of life initiative. we get excited about the word infrastructure but normal americans want more times with their kids. they know the billions of dollars in time taken away from us by the traffic that chokes our city. we started criss-crossing a 4700-square mile county bringing republicans and democrats. my wing man on this was our most conservative member of the board of supervisors in california. in california you need two-thirds vote to raise tax. long story short, november, we had 71% vote for the largest package in american history times two at the local levels to fix our roads, rapid transit lines and give back money for repairs. i think we each gave up a little something of who we were. as a democrat i came in skeptical as a mayor about public-private partnerships. today i'm a convert. the fiscal conservative in me didn't feel great about the grants that came in with little accountability. coming to this esteemed senate or house of representatives saying i have an empty hat in hand, please fill it up. we come to you with a habitat bill saying can we have our federal and local tax dollars to make this happen. i spent three days last week with did international olympic committee. i want to bring the olympics back home to america. $14 billion in our airport. 1 # 20 billion, as i said, in public transportation and roads. another 2.6 million dollars for the port. there's no equipment manufacturer in the united states. the there's no rail car manufacturer in the united states. not just to talk about the needs for infrastructure but the needs for middle class jobs in america. what leads to success policy wise? i hope that laid out in our last minute here. three things. we're calling this the i-3. this is the infrainfrastructure initiate active. one is coverage. two is think about the life of projects and three is ijovation and technology. i just came from a kugs discussion with members of the house and snetd and a few mayors. they were talking the same thick, you need-to-leverage localities. if you have local money you have a better chance of getting federal money. we've seen this in denver where in 75% of the time and seven years less they got a transit line from downtown to the airport. leverage has to be the central principle. two of those think about life and projects. we've seen this not just in washington where people were killed or yesterday you saw the mine shut down. in the bay area people are trying to get maintenance on the ballot. we all love ribbon cuttings, but think about the maintenance. both in the process as well as the technology itself. we're looking at changing american tunnelling technology. leon musk who you know in my city is looking at boringing technique. machines haven't changed in 50 years. he thinks they can increase the drilling speed by as much as 10 times. we don't know what we don't know. but put some funds aside for new, innovative technologies. we can get around in different ways five, ten, and 20 years. our plan to help assist you. i'll close with this. i will work my tail off to help you get republican and democratic mayors from every single town and city in this nation to help get this passed. there is no better thing that we could be doing for jobs, for the quality of life of all americans. it's the one thing that unites all of us. i would say on behalf of american cities. we have stepped up. we can't wait till you join us, too. thank you for your support. >> thank you, mayor. tim getz. >> thank you for the opportunity to come and testify this afternoon. i serve as executive director of the oklahoma turnpike authority. today i want to emphasize several points. the deficiency of a long under funded transportation system cannot be resolved by the states alone and will require an increasing and congressionally influenced federal investment combined with a long-term national transportation strategy. the focused investment of federal resources is necessary you be should in no way be restricted from use as leverage from financing opportunities. the advancements in equipment and toll tag equipment by toll authorities across the country indicates that tolling should be recognized as a long term financing mechanism. in 1947, construction of a link between oklahoma city and tulsa was created. today more than 270 miles of the turnpikes carry the interstate 44 shield and are part of a combined network of 605 miles. oklahoma has utilized a balanced investment strategy to meet the transportation needs of our citizens. to be clear, long-term consistent federal funding remainsvitally important. states must be able to anticipate the availability of resources in order to properly plan, design, and construct projects. recognized and documented critical needs and our clear understanding of long-term resource availability factors heavily into our investment decision making. in 1956 the federal highway act prohibited tolling. with tolling allowed under only very specific circumstances. private partnerships and other debt financing options requiring long-term revenues are encouraged. tolling can be a flexible and effective revenue component in a bold new transportation strategy and is the purest representation of an equitable user fee. that being said, three ps, innovati tolling options will knots be held at the federal government's best or only solution of stemming the further deficiency of our national transportation system. recognizing that a 3-p project b must be sufficient lickedity, we believe carefully is important in oklahoma, the gill crease expressway was part of the master plan created more than 50 years ago, including a segment to serve north and west oklahoma. it's been funded with limited traditional state and local money streams including a five mile leg of the expressway between u.s. 44 and u.s. 12 with a bridge over the arkansas river is vital to providing access for business activity in the region and to provide a reliever route for growing congestion concerns for travel into downtown tulsa. after many years of discussion discussion, the oklahoma turnpike authority, the city of tulsa, tulsa county, the indian nations, and the federal highway administration have crafted an innovative partnership. the turnpike authority will leverage the work that has been accomplished to complete the sessionment as a federalized toll facility. it is anticipated that it will build a process to solicit interest into limited public-private partnership. the proposed partnership will share only in the cost of construction which will be off set with cash contribution from the ota and from the sale of bonds. while many variables with the project get to be solved, it is evident that a variety of funding and financing meth ol jis can be combined to deliver transportation improvement projects that might not be financially viable otherwise. innovation to address certain well-defined transportation system needs and in-turn generate a user specific refuse knew stream in order to finance or partially finance construction, operation and maintenance should be enhanced in the federal program and not be restricted. in conclusion, any proposed infrastructure initiative seeking private investment must be equitable to provide projects in all stages of completion and in all types and sizes, not just megaprojects. likewise, state and national tolling strategies should be enhanced for the future. thank you again for the opportunity to visit with you. i'll be happy to try and answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you, mr. getz. mr. urema, you're recognized. [inaudible]. . >> no. it's not on yet. >> mechanics of the committee, thank you for inviting me. my name is jeff urema. i'm a partner in a will law firm. i have a long career in state and regional governments across the country and more than $40 billion in infrastructure projects and in my service on the bipartisan congressionally mandated national transportation financing commission. as our commission reported the nation's base of the crisis, our transportation system has detheatered to such a degree that our quality of life are at risk. that will view remains true today. thanks largely to this commit's action and mr. chairman to your leadership particularly, the last two authorization bills represented real progress. there is still much work to do which is why we are here today collectively determined to seize the opportunity. if we are to remain the leader of the global economy, we must have as chairman barrasso has repeatedly called for, infrastructure spending. what i would like to focus on today is the important of question of how to spend money in the most impactful way possible. by working together congress and the administration can achieve this paradigm shift through what mayor garr setty has auld i-3. i-3 would spend new discretiona resources. first creating specific leverage by spefrg owners to secure and commit their own revenue measures and project revenues beyond traditional federal-state funding. second. new capital kbrooichlts by incentivizing users to avoid any further deferred maintenance. third, modernizing business practices while insent vicing users to better capture the best of private sector capabilities. finally, owners designing their spending programs to maximize innovation. applying these principles to the allocation of federal fwunds move the government away from selecting what it deems to be the most worltsy projects and move that towards spurring its partners to create better program-wide enhancements. i manufacture 3 can be scaled to match whatever size funding is required and can be designed to benefit rural as well as urban areas. the recent state gas tax increases in wyoming, iowa, idaho, and nebraska, georgia, vermont, tennessee, and indiana zand beside the los angeles proposition one in austin, texas, sound transit three in seattle. to demonstrate how rural and urban regions alike can build billions of self-help dollars. these results are entirely repeat nl around the country with the right incentives. fudgeding is only part of the solution, however. we need long term solutions. for maximum -- so in conclusion, i- would have our nation be more ambitious for the outcome of its hard fought infrastructure investment than just to fund a federal packages of shiny projects. it would encourage each state to partner more aggressively in exchange for more funding. that partnership would result in outsized program responses with each area around the country selecting for itself what kind of self-help leverage to commit, what projects are worthy of completion and the types of procurement models to use. the result would be a lasting paradigm shift in the federal, state, local and private infrastructure partnership. thank you for your attention. i stand ready to assist the committee as it pursues it's legislatesive efforts. >> thank you, mr. urema. mr. -- >> thank you, chairman. ranking member cardin and mechanics of the committee for inviting me here to testify. it is an honor to contribute to this committee's work. a transportation infrastructure is essential. unfortunately investment hasn't kept pace with the needs. as a result, the united states faces a well documented infrastructure backlog. donald trump repeat ltdly vowed to spejdspend is trillion dollars on infrastructure. however, it's given way for state and local governments to maximize their funds. it's an alternative method of pro kurnlt. p-3s are not a means of closing the gap. tax revenue not a lack of access to financing. the binding constraint facing state and local governments is insuffer tax revenue. public-private partnerships and investor tax credits do not solve this problem. unlike traditional procurement models, it delivers large complex projects on time and on budget to a prooifrt entity. this transference does not come cheaply as they demand a fair price mplgt proponents of p-3. this is simply wrong. the municipal bond market is robust with more than 3.8 trillion dollars. additionally the loan program provides funding. the current interest rate on municipal bonds is only 23%. by comparison equity investors look for a return of 10 toto 15%. for instance, the financing charge on 100 million at 3% over the 230 years is nine million dollars. even factoring in the trump administration's plan to offer tax credits, equity capital is far more expensive than traditional debts. the average cost of p-3s is is.2le billion. projects represents the majority of the infrastructure needed across the country. for example, the 1,657 projects in iowa only two have a cost of over 100 million dollars. the average cost in ohio is just over $9 million. an infrastructure plan based on tax credits is the same as no plan at all. wall street is eager to see more p-3s. a report by uvs sums it up. the high barriers to industry mean their financial performance should not be as sense active to the economic cycle. in other words, highways behave like utility but without price regulation. this is not sufficient to defend against competition many firms push for nan compete clauses. the clause includes a specific list of projects that the state may not otherwise expand or improve. they must provide a payment for the again saturdayed firm for lost revenue. this is deeply problematic as it provides a degree of profitability that doesn't exist elsewhere. this is a new term of art. a typical deal would turn that firm has the right to turn streams of revenue over to the life of the deal. until reality they are an expensive loan that comes with contract terms often harlful to the public. in 2008, the city of chicago leased parking meters for 75 yeeshs in exchange for an up front payment. the city is substantially con explained how it may manage its roadways. if the city has simply issued municipal debt residents would face lower fees. this was a cash grab under the guice of guise of innovation. there are no short cuts. the federal government needs to provide funding to state and local sponsors. furthermore these funds should be targeted to those communities with the highest lead and the highest level of hardship. thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. >> thank you. secretary lane, you're recognized. >> thank you very much mr. chairman b b and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is aubry lane and i am the secretary of transportation for the commonwealth of virginia. my testimony will focus on my personal experience with public-private partnerships or p 3s. these deals have been praised as a solution to all our transportation problems by some. truth is much more complex and umtly depenalty on the nature of the project and the degree to which government officials recognize how these work. i've had a 30-year business career. i have a degree in accounteding and a masters in business administration. i began my career as an auds for of kpmg. i oversaw seven transportation agencies and employed staff. the toughest issues i face today involve funding projects. in a means i spend most of my time on resource allocation, financing, risk assess jmtd and operation. fortunately, my past experience provides me with knowledge in providing large scale frouks dealings. public private partnerships are transactions that can have significant implications for the public and it's important that we all understand them. bmp i get into that, i first want to be cleared that dpning, whether public or private, helps leverage resources but it is not a replacement for sustainable and stable public funding. the priority for congress should be addressing the long term solvency of the program, funds, and helping states fund our transportation needs regardless of mode. in virginia, ef we've relied on several agendas. our fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayers. we need to deliver the best results for them. p 3 is helpful where appropriate and when negotiated well. government officials should consider all options including public finance before making decisions. and we must ensure competition throughout the process and finally we must be transparent and accountable to the public and elected official. i'm unabashed capitalist and believer in private industry. both many parties entering a p 3 mu an understanding of the issues being negotiated and that's not always the case. our commonwealth has longs been recognized as a leader in p-3. we have closed five concession dealings. collectively these deals are worth more than $9 billion. more than 2.5 coming from private equity. in addition we're currently negotiating a p 3 contra$3 cont one billion right here in the i-3995 corridor. p 3s are a complex business transaction and unlike any transaction a state d.o.t. is typically involved. fergs the they're typically long contracts. the contract expires when the project is done. this provides the opportunity to evaluate outcomes and if necessary, officials can make changes. this is not true with a 50-year f-3 concession with a private partner. getting the these deals wrong within very costly. these deals are some of the largest projects we've talked about in previous testimony. the average p 3 deal in virginia compares. for these reasons, it is imperative that decision makers understand the responsibility of each party involved. private sector is responsible to shareholders and its investor. the public sector needs to make sure it is advanced. the hard far is seeing where these interests align. the governor asked me to evaluate our p 3 programs. we were not getting the results we wanted. we had some tough deals that were negotiated. found out that these bills weren't made with transparency and accountability, so we decided to start from scratch. what we found is the best way to protected stacks pairs. we don't want to give away anything. what we do is lay out our major business terms, what we want to accomplish. we develop did public option. we don't go it alone. we have a steering committee help do this. we invite the public and private sectors to compete along with us. and if the private sector can beat our public option, then we enter into a p-3 process. it's important to note that we never take the public option off the table. this has worked well for us here in virginia in a deal where we ended up doing it with no public subsidy and an additional $500 million. this new process considers the users fees benefit taxpayers. as you guys consider, as congress considers infrastructure packages i would strongly urge you not to create unsfwended consequences. p-3s? closing, have real promise for expert transportation projects. according to fhwa, 42 surface transportation projects across the country that involve private financing and 60% in five states, virginia, texas, florida, california, and colorado. 35 states have never entered into a single transaction involving private financing. with that i would encourage congress to ask two questions. how will it help deliver the best deal for taxpayers and whether it will create distortions. one last and closing comment. i know you're going to hear a lot. people say there's a lot of barriers to p-3s but i strongly disagree. these are the same people who said it in our program that witte kill us, and that was not true. thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much. mpl let's start off, director getz. you didn't say much about the driving forward program. it's the project that would cover and why we developed this program in our state of oklahoma. >> mr. chairman, the driving forward program really is a consistent two parts. there are three projects that represent major reinvestment in our existing toll network to make sure that it stays in a good operational condition. one of those is a six-lane project that's about 22 miles on the east end of the turner turnpike there at tulsa. the other in the tulsa area that is an expansion project is the gill crease that i discussed in my testimony. then in the oklahoma city metropolitan area, in our efforts to try to manage increasing traffic volumes and make sure that we can continue to move people, goods, and services, we are expanding the john kill patrick turnpike on the southwest side of oklahoma city and introducing a new reliever route between interstate 40 and 44, the turner turnpike in eastern oklahoma county. and again, those expansion projects are really being predicated on developing congestion in the metropolitan areas and the increase in accidents that we see occurring as a result of that. so that's our effort to stay ahead of it, mr. chairman. >> ok. thank you. mr. urema. you've heard the attacks on p-3s. everything is on table. it's going to take a lot of imagination. it's going to take a lot of hard work and gifted people but i wouldn't hesitate taking anything off the table. is there anything you'd like to say after the attack on p-3s, your feelings about them? >> thank you mr. chairman. i don't know that i would take serious disagreement with what's been said. i agree with others and with you that p-3s are no more a silver bullet to solve the infrastructure challenges we have than conventional delivery is. we have problems with every deliv delivery device. what they do do is they're much more than financing advices. they're project delivery mechanisms in the right circumstance, but i believe there is too narrow an understanding of what that term aflies to and the potential value they offer to both urban and rural areas. let's just -- there are two main types of p-3s. those that require revenue streams and those that don't. most commentators focus on the p-3s that require revenue streams. these do raise the issues about rate setting and noncompete clauses and the limits on potential future activity by a state d.o.t. the other type of p-3 known as an availability famt contract or performance contract raises none of those issues. it does not involve toll revenues. in fact, it's the most common type of p-3 in the u.s. and the global market today, but it is not widely appreciated, so if i could take just a second to explain the performance p-3. it air force a different value proposition than consequenceal delivery. with conventional delivery, a state d.o.t. or regional transit agency tells the contractor not just what to do but how to do it. it compensates on a progress basis and there's no warrant b generally for the outcome. with a performance p-34 you compensate the contractor only for the infrastructure pmpl angs over its useful life. it's akin to a super warranty. the government generally makes no payments until the project is complete and then the payments over the life of the project are subject to adjustment downward to the extent that the infrastructure underperforms. the tool ensures that kms that design and build a project are on the hook for the long-term infrastructure performance, they're required to bid life sickle cost and they award the contractor for solutions. there is strong competition and rigorous blidings for these kind of contracts and there are numerous examples in this country, the ohio river bridges in indiana, the purple line in maryland, three major projects in florida, the los angeles world airport is delivering $4 billion of these kinds of contracts today for its major project. just as an example. i respectfully request that the outcomes in availability payment p-3 can produce are just as valuable in a rural environment than an urban environment. >> appreciate that clarification. thank you. >> thanks, mr. chairman. again, welcome. thank you for your dm, which i think for the most part is illumina illuminating. tomorrow we're going to hold another hearing in this room and the witness will being the secretary of transportation, elaine chao. several weeks ago we had a good meeting and one of the questions i asked of her is what do you think the administration would like to do to fund transportation projects? i believe things worth having are worth paying for and i believe the underlying concept for building b trump administration projects is those who use it, people and businesses help pay for them. that's where i come from in danville and roanoke, virginia, mr. secretary. but anyway, she's going to be sitting tomorrow,ing the secretary's going to be sitting tomorrow where you are. and just kind of like lift yourself up out of the chairs and bring yourself here with us tomorrow. you're here to give her advice on how to fund transportation projects. again, she seemed to think public-private partnerships made a lot of sense. i complained n explained to her that i think i don't know how many years, there's more than 40 or 50, some of the biggest ones. but tlsh just not that many. with what advice would you give her for funding? >> i think that most important thing is to understand that there's going to have to be a lot of tools in our infrastructure toolbox. it's going to take a healthy combination of revenue and financing mechanisms. i think with public private partnerships we've got to explore innovation that will allow some of the smaller projects to potentially take advantage of those opportunities, so i think again, as has been stated many times here in the committee meeting today, it's going to take a lot of as it's been stated here today, it's going to take a lot of beebes to make that happen. >> not a lot of silver bullets, but beebes. there you go. >> what advice would you give the secretary for funding transportation? >> number one, leave existing programs in place. two, find -- allocate 100 billion of that to surface transportation and two, recreate the incentive niche program program so you take that $100 billion and you're able to leverage it into more funding. you're able to find the efficiencies of life cycle costs, approach the delivery gives you. first ti efficiencies that modernizing business practices gives you and the efficiencies that technology give you and you can get a five to seven times multiple in total infrastructure outcomes. >> all right, thanks so much. next, mr. good. i think the number one piece of advice i would give is we have a long standing tradition of infrastructure finance for most structure, and that has served us well. for a number of political reason, we have drift ed away from that and it has made the political lift for members to try to find off sets to continue to fill the trust fend difficult and as that number grows with each round and surface bill, it gets harder and harder, so i would think we need to look at those sector, ports in the waterway, aviation, surface transportation where we have a user infrastructure in place and to try to raise those fees to match inflation over the years where we haven't. >> first of all, i would echo to keep the current funding programs in place like fast lane because p 3s are a financing al terrontive, not a funding alternative. in terms of p 3s, i'm a big dlefr believer. i just need to make it clear you need to understand the different types of risks. that's i believe a pretty steep learning curve in some of the state, in terms of how to evaluate construction and when you're talking about concessions, that is truly the risk you are trying to pass on and if you think about equity and any deal you do, that is the most significant and most costly part of the capital stream. in terms of that and quite frankly, it's been attracted because of the low interest public debt programs out there. so i would encourage the secretary to continue that is is to have some type of programs to help states dpeer up for the use of these tools. certainly, i believe outcome based results are needed. we prioritize through smart scale and it's based onoutcomes. not so much ip pnputs. and so, i have found in my professional career the better way to get more money is to use what you have efficiently. and certainly, i think a prioritization program would be shortening periods of environmental work and what's needed and helping these projects come to fruition. that would be my advice to the secretary. >> thanks so much, we'll see you tomorrow. >> senator fisher. >> like many of my colleague, i believe in the pornimportance o funding our nation's infrastructure and reliable infrastructure represents a critical investment in advancing the safety and also, commerce. the highway trust fund has served to equitably distribute funds to all states, rural and urban and is the lynch pin of our transportation system. and as many of you are aware, we're looking at a shortfall of over $100 billion. that we're going the face in the five years following the fast act. i happen to have a bill that will handle that, mr. chairman. pu however, can you elaborate on how important it is that we have certainty in the formula funding to your state's transportation system is and when it come to maintaining our roads and bridges, is there any substitute to that critical portion of funding that we have? >> i would tell you in many cases, there's no alternative. especially for a state like oklahoma. we have to have funding to be able to maintain the system that we have. it's all predicated on inspection and understanding our needs and having a carefully krfted investment strategy to meet those needs. that is con trained baseded on what resources we believe we're going to have b available. so, again, there will have cob continued investment at the federal level to manage our infrastructure for the feature. >> i like the fact it's not really sturks it's an investment in the future. when you look at the stratify jiwei for that, it really, i believe, needs to take place at at the state and local level so they can come together and decide on the priorities that meet that strategy. for your state. do you agree with that? >> i would agree. the states are typically held account bable by the folks that reside in those states. and again, we're responding and we have a responsibility to those constituents to be able to explain our investment strategy and make shaur they're understanding how we're reinvest ng the network to make sure it's operation alley as good as it can be. >> now, it's important to involve constituents. involve the people in our states in these decisions. you talked about evaluating infrastructure investments based on their performance. can you elaborate on what performance baseded standards would look like and do you believe these could be applied to publicly funded projects? >> be happy to. in a conventional project, the government basicallies up standards and specifications it applies prospectively and they service a proxy for the outcomes they want to achieve. they man the manner, the means in which it is to be b built. in a performance based p3, the contractor is held to contract yul requirements of the infrastructure's long-term performance. they're only paid to the extent that's secured. by performance, we mean that the infrastructure is available. safe. and many other standards set forth and is potentially applicable to apply environmental standards. under nipa, federal projects, they are -- requirements, whether they achieve those outcomes desired is speculative. that's the difference in a p3 environment opposed to a contractual environment. >> thank you and secretary lane, the fast act requires states to develop freight plans in order to receive federal funding and nebraska is in the process of developing a comprehensive freight plan. can you talk about the importance of ensuring we have a thorough strategy to address the growing movement of freight across this country? >> we just received one of the largest fast lane grants for our gateway project. it's here between richmond in the 95 corridor. up to northern virginia. $165 million in a federal grant but was supported by 550 million of private investment to deliver these projects and a big part of that was freight. we teamed with our partners, csx, one of the most congested freightways in the country. important not only for freight, passenger traffic. we certainly support the port of virginia, having that come up here double stack theed trains coming up through that corridor. so, having a freight program is actual helping not only freight, but other modes of transportation. taking people off the highway by allowing passenger trains because that freight helps our passenger movements. >> that connection is very, very important. i'm glad to hear you're doing that. extremely. >> thank you, senator. you want to go first? senator duckworth. >> i thank the ranking member and gentleman from rhode island for his general ross thety. i want to thank our witnesses participating. the $1 trillion infrastructure investments are still unavailable to anyone outside of the administration, however, his budget blueprint reduces funding in very troubling ways. what little we know about the president's plan suggested there is no trillion dollar investment rather, he will rely on financing gimmicks that have limited applicability in most of the country. i tend to agree with your view that financing mechanisms are mostly limited to urban and megaproject applications. the real constraint facing state and local government is lack of dollars, not a lack to financing markets. would this be a correct assessment? >> absolutely. i think one of the more i think disappointing aspect ss that so much of the conversation has been around the possibility of tax credits for equity investors, which i think is both a huge edition to the budget deficit f it were enacted and also doesn't deliver the benefits. we like to get dollars into the hands of project sponsors. one of the things that's not appreciated is that for the most part, it's not something that investors are looking for. in my conversation, they have said to me people bring us money because they want it put into projects. if they were to move forward with this, we would see it have no net effect and it would deliver almost no benefits. so, we need to bring federal dollars to the table and inlg there's a certain virtuous cycle from that. when state and local officials know that the federal government is acting as a partner, they're more likely to take on the political risk to raise their own dollars. >> an interesting history with public and private partnerships. it's an extremely effective and balanced effort to address chicago's challenges and in fact, the nation's freight rail challenge is a log jam right there in chicago. it doesn't shift risk from one to the other. the deals highlight how difficult it can be i'm interest ed in learning more about universities for rural opportunities. what are best suited to access to brooift investment is limited. >> one of the potential webenefs is that any any project that is take free up dollars the state has. general tax dollar it is state has to do smaller protects that don't fit with the model. i think it's important for us to be sensitive to the fact that rural communities don't have the same tax base or the same able toy generate user fees because there's just left travel demand on the roadways, so, no matter what plan we come up with, we have to make sure to set aside an appropriate amount of o money. >> thank you. secretary lane, as you noted, most public assets are ownedly state and local jurisdictions. i'm concerned about the ability of states and local governments to assess and implement complex financing opportunities and protect taxpayers at the same time. vdot's i 66 expansion project could have gone down a wrong path and relying on that original analysis would have led to a bad deal for virginia taxpayers. how can states and municipalities avoid similar circumstances and how can we better prepare to assess complex deals that ensure taxpayers get the best deal and what can the federal government due to help in this effort? >> i do agree with that. when we came into office. they suggested we would need a billion dollars in public subsidy. so, what we did and i think is the key going forward, to develop the public option. if you're going to negotiate with a third party, you need to understand what it's going to cost you before you begin negotiating. we did our public option. we said it would take 600 and throw off substantial moneys over $800 million from impruchlts. as it turned out, true competition and that's the other key besides having the other on the table. true competition is what resulted in the great deal for taxpayers. you can't determine what has a better to make an offer. it could be other factors other than the deal. competiti competition. maybe low er cost of capital thn in the united states. these are big multinational companies. so, the two things that we can do to help the states negotiate these deals is have a public apgs and have true competition and i believe the federal government in helping could help us education the states and how we go forward. let me push back on one thing. every p3 that has a revenue stream, availability payments don't have to be connected to a project, but it has to be a revenue stream or how else are you going to pay back the parties? there are some value for money or the options giving up. if that money is used for something else already. now n the state of virginia, that would be considered debt. because if we don't pay for a project within our construction period, it's considered debt. they do help in some areas in that, but they are dedicating a revenue stream that could go somewhere else. that's the things i would say the public option and having true competition in these deals. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. republicans and democrats are often at odds over a number of of things. that gives me hope, coming up in this year and that really the federal government does have a very important role to play. in this issue, along with ensuring our national defense, which i think is very important, i believe that building and maintaining our nation's infrastructure should also be a top priority for our federal government. and mr. gatz, you have served as the oklahoma turnpike authority for nearly 30 years, thank you very much for your service. you stated that until recently, no public private partnership opportunities really made sense for oklahoma and oklahoma just some stats, has almost 1 million more people than the state of iowa and it's largest metro area in oklahoma, oklahoma city, has more than twice the population. of our capital city of des moines. so, if to this point, a public private partnership hasn't worked for oklahoma, underwhat circumstances do you see a public private partnership working for the state of iowa? >> thank you for the question, senator. i think that much as we have engaged in discussions with a lot of different governmental partners, whether that by b the -- on the gill crease project, we are trying to find wiis to leverage resources in a project of some size, but certainly not a megaproject. to be able to create an opportunity for a private party to come in and help with only the construction. of that project. and again, we think we can create a very come president competitive environment that would facilitate that. it's a little unique and we've got some question marks we're going to have to resolve, but we simply much as i would say that iowa has, we've never had the right project to be able to accomplish this. we've been talking a bt the gill crease expansion now for about nine years with these partners, so we're only now to a point where we feel we've got an opportunity to move forward with it. >> because every circumstance is very, very different in making sure it's not one size fits all. i think is really important. i thought it was interesting that mayor gar scetti mentioned los angeles and their county of 10 million people. my county, montgomery county, is 10,000 people. so very different circumstances. and director gatz, you mentioned in your testimony that tolling should be recognized as a long-term and sustainable transportation revenue mechanism. and my concerns with tolling are a couple of different points, but one, how many roads are we going to toll and at one point, do we start inhibiting movement of travelers and this is very true in those rural areas, oklahoma has the same very minimal rural areas. where the tax space is really pretty low. and every person in the family's budget counts. number two, won't we be forcing everybody to go off on to those secondary roads. >> to make a decision about tolling, it can't be arbitrary. where you have critical transportation needs that are developing, that are simply going to go unmet without a resource commitment. we think tolling is a viable option. in oklahoma, that's how we used tolling. we see the indicators developing. accidents, congestion, access issues. we've been able to invest and use toll roads to meet those needs and have been pretty successful at doipg that. that cannot be arbitrary. you have to have the right set of circumstances and very careful consideration and vetting. >> the one size all doesn't fit all kind of o approach and thorough vetting. >> thank you very much. thank you to our witnesses, mr. chair. >> thank you chairman and i'm actually we're hopeful to get something done on infrastructure. you've been a great chairman. we have worked in terrific bipartisan fashion. we don't always agree on everything, but this is a great way to get things done. thank you for that, chairman. secretary gail, although it's not one size fits all and although there, you have to be able to add dapt p 3s to different projects, are there certain red flags that that we should look out for that should be a warning sign for people trying to protect the taxpayer? in p3 deals and what, if there are red flags, which ones would you highlight for us? >> it says you can never institutionalize risk. every deal is different. for instance, here in the commonwealth, the risk for extending new lanes on interstate 66. it really gets down to what risks are in each particular project. they fall to three areas. construction risks, operations or financing and that's really where we get into the concessions and what really most people think of p3s, where we're transferring all the all those risks to the third parties. the only way i know to be able to and what it would cost the state. so you understand those risks and when you start talking about negotiating those risks away, what they be a value to. >> there's no easy, you just have to go in with your heads up and know there are smart people on the other side and know they are getting money out of taxpayers. >> not because they're not good citizens. that's their fe dush yar responsibility. the word that i was a trustee in a real estate corporations. it meant a great deal to who i was representing and that's what we need to understand, they're good citizens, but one red flag that i found this is my first time in public arena, standing up and saying i'm going to deliver this project, that undercuts the public's able toy negotiate the terms of the deal. when i walk away from the project, but walk away from a bad deal. i was in the private sector, unabashed capitalists, but you understand what the relationships are. that's what they're going to do. >> your state is a coastal state and we are seeing very extraordinary infrastructure needs emerging along our coast. as we are see iing seaing sea level from our local scientist, noaa, coastal resources folks and so forth. you're seeing this at norfolk naval station. down in hampton roads. are dough you doing anything in particular or should we do anything in particular looking at infrastructure to address the specific problem? whether it's waste water or roads or coastal defenses or military bases, whatever the sea doesn't like any of that very much. it takes it all over. are you focusing on any particular way on that threat? >> you are correct. it's not just sea level wise. the ground is also sinking because of taking ground water out of there and compressing it. the answer is yes, but not enough. particular ly on our new projects, that's part of the big scoring. we've also had to vote resources to what we call our state of good repair. we have significant assets that are subject to that that are going raises the roads or whatever we have to do in those areas. tiananmen square far short of the needs. now, what i've seen as localities have been b doing much more. we assist them like the city of norfolk got a $100 million grant from the federal government and they have been doing a lot and we have been assists them. we do not have in our budget, the ability to take care of all of the resiliency and the sea level rise impacts op the state of virginia. >> thank you very much. thank you for the extra 30 second, chairman. >> senator cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really thank all the witnesses. i found this presentation to be very helpful. i want to drill down more on the recommendation that came in on the i3 that we change the way that we con figure the federal partnership to reward or place incentive for leverages with either local government support and or private sector, one leg of it. the other two legs, i'll get to in a moment, which deal with technology. and dealing with maintenance. i think both of those are very important issues we should talk about at the national level. let me talk about leverage, particularly private sector. i thought you raised a good point about accountability, et cetera. i was listening carefully and i was trying to figure out where you come down on this. don't put any incentives for restrictions at the national level. am i reading you correctry? >> yes, sir, i believe that the current tools we have this place, the government programs there could be thipgs to enhance that. but in terms of tax credits or giving some type of, that puts the factors in the deal. the other side, the private sector is going to know they're there, too, and they're going to figure out a way to make sure they use them. you may not get the dollar for dollar increase that the federal government would be spending. particularly in tax kets and certainly with the insecentivesn that. for those projects that lend themselves to p3s. >> so let me ask you a question. is there anything in the current federal authorization of our transportation programs that causes you heartburn as it relates to private partnerships? we zbl we don't have enough aggressive performance metrics when it comes to holding states accountable for how they spend the vast majority of money. so, i agree with the secretary's point about you have to look at this from the perspective of performance and that that should inform your project selection decisions. i would also say that i think we need to push more money down to metropolitian regions. i think that too much of the decision making authority current ly rests with the state d.o.t.s and i think it's a natural outcome of being a state d.o.t. employee when what you look at every day is a state highway network, you tend to think the solution is going to rest with expansion of the state highway network, even if there are other lower costs or environment alley sustainable approaches or things that provide more transportation options. more money to locals and more performance accountability at the state level. >> that's helpful. in my opening statement, i strongly supported the flexibility for local governments. i'm proud of the role we played in per serving the programs with the help of this committee so we have that flexibility under the current system and we're going to fight to maintain that. let me go to the other two issues. i think we have neglected maintenance. how do we at the national level, provide the right incentives for advancing technology and dealing with life cycle maintenance? >> i'd be happy to take a crack. again, we start with the proposal that -- new money be handled differently. handling by way of incentives is a new way. one of those incentives should be preserving assets to the end of their life and doing it effective maintenance. let's draw a line in the sand and say we're not going build anything new, we're not going to reconstruct anything unless we make that commitment. one of the ways of making sure that will take place is through an availability payment p3. so, that, the contract will obligate the contractor to achieve life cycle cost and useful life length by contract. that's a way of achieving it with certainty. the truth about the federal state relationship in infrastructure, in transportation at least, is that the states and localities own the assets, the federal role is to fund, to provide tifia financing and to regulate. hopefully, what we can do is is add an incentive, a stronger incentive as a federal role as it evolves. >> anyone else want to comment on that? >> if i may, yes. in virginia, more than half of our transportation dollar, federal and state, go to maintaining the roads and in fact, we just put a new law in that requires 45% of our construction moneys going to what we call state of good repair. those assets that you can't pave anymore or just paint, you got to rebuild them, but you're not adding capacity. >> is there something we can do at the national level to encourage states to meet their commitments and life cycle? >> well, you can probably tell i'm not an engineer, i'm not enlightened or encouplered by that degree. so i look at things from a lodgist cal standpoint or from a pragmatic business perspective and certainly, how you rating your performance of your current assets, which we do in the commonwealth and i believe that should be part of a federal program, are we maintaining up to a standard? particularly interstate systems and what have you, and that they make sure, just like we do, that they are maintaining those, so, senator, i would suggest there be some performance output based results in the moneys the federal government passes on to the states. >> good suggestion. i'll make this final comment, mr. chairman. the days that we used to have congressional designated funding, better known as earmarks, i've never known a legislate or to request money f maintenance, but we request for new roads and projects. so it's a tough political sell. when you're dealing with maintenance. but it's our responsibility to make sure that that's built in to the accountability and into the way that we develop our partnership and we, i look forward to your input as we develop the next infrastructure a ath authorization bill to see how we can be more effective in preserving our transportation in this country. >> thank you, senator cardin. and thank all the witnesses. talking about the successes we have had over the past couple of years and it's been rewarding. that's not the case with this committee. from the administration -- the old days when our biggest problem was too much surplus in trust fund, but those days would ever come back. i appreciate very much the expertise that's been expressed by the witnesses today. i'm going to adjourn, but i'm going to ask, this happens to be b the 30th year of the partnership program, we're going to be holding this celebration in this office build ng about an hour, so i would hope all of you who are kind enough to show up will leave as quickly as you got here. i proesh appreciate that very much. we're adjourned. this administration varies to them. the 31 regular lagss, the tax in tax plans, the health care problems that we sustained in the house and really right after that is infrastructure and so, we're pursuing at the toward the front of the agenda. do you have a preference, they mentioned $2.5 billion of funding. >> i'm going to wait and see until we hear something. perhaps we'll hear something on that tomorrow. >> you mentioned that the recovery act was a failure and i was wondering how you thought pipa regulations were affecting the stimulus bill's success or lack there of. >> first of all, the regulations were dramatically changed during the time senator boxer and i were working together. that was a point of contention. we decided to put our heads together and make it a reality and we did. just keep in mind. this is not a republican thing. senator booker and cardin, said that we would work together ab get things done, so they're going to be a very important part of this. it will include -- a how do you address concerns -- >> is there -- dpo goh ahead. >> how do you address concerns from your colleagues about private investment, especially the p3s? >> first of all, the -- instead of just coming through and attacking p3s. it's somewhat backed up by the virginia. there's a place in there for all of them and i think that they were saying that that's not the total solution. there are a lot of approaches. i've been involved with -- since 1987. after the issue was behind us. this is beginning to be different. what about the gas tax? >> that's legitimate. if there is new funding, what's your preference? let's see what we can come up with selectively. so it doesn't give the impression that one person is trying to get his program through. do you have any take away from what kind of course of action you could take to kind of help p3s or any innovative financing? the name is difficult to pronounce is when he's going to be giving me advice. one reason is you might remember what could be argued as what might be the most effective person many the act. i see him at the back of the room. it happens that he is working closely with witness number three. since we've been working together for so many years now. >> how do you anticipate this working? is there going to be a bill in the house or senate? what's your preference? >> do you have any reaction to the house bill infrastructure? in the transportation remedy? >> i haven't because of our experience in the vast investing, really specific in the senate. it turns out in the senate. saturday on book tv, live all day coverage of the maryland book festival. starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern, maria olsen. at 10:35, melvin goodman, author of whistleblower at the cia, an insider's account of the politics of intelligence. sharon weinberger at 12:15 discussing her book, the imaginers of war, the untold story of darpa. at 1:15 eastern, craig shirley on reagan rising, the decisive years. 1976 to 1980. at 2:15, sidney blumenthal. the political life of abraham lincoln. 1849 to 1856. at 3:15, sally freeman. his family's quest to bring him home. watch our live, all day coverage of the book festival. starting saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 2's book tv. >> sunday night on afterwards, stuart taylor examines sexual assault processes at america's units. mr. taylor is interviewed by beth, editor and chief of the thashl law journey and medical times. >> what's your general thesis that we're look iing at here? what are we going dob reading about when we open the majors? >> the gist is that there's been a huge myth that's taken root. that there's an epidemic of camera tuss rape. there's a culture of campus rape, where it's encouraged and condoned, even by the administrators, that it's out of control, that it's increasing, that it's worse on campus than off and that it requires completely demolishing all due process in the presumgts of innocence for the accused people 99% of them are male. that's not an accident. this comes from extreme feminists. you know, male hating extreme feminists in some case, but it also is enormously pushed ahead by the obama administration. >> watch afterwords sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on cspan 2's book tv. next, phil gramm testifies on economic growth. he spoke about tax policy, immigration laws and debt and deficit reduction held by the senate budget company, this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> i'm going to go ahead and call this hearing to order. i'll do my opening statement and when ever senator sanders makes it heerk we'll allow him to do his opening statement. there was a vote this morning and i'm not sure exactly how it came out yet. i know that it's got quite a bit of interest over there, but they should be back here pretty quick.