Transcripts For CSPAN3 Transportation Secretary Chao Discusses Others Infrastructure 20240714

Thank you for coming. Welcome to infrastructure week. We have been looking forward to this awhile. Infrastructure was a thing that all pundits after the election when we were in this fractured state after the 2016 election, will democrats and republicans be able to Work Together on anything, people said infrastructure. Why . Democrats like spending money and donald trump likes having things built, sees himself as a builder. We were supposed to get something. We havent gotten something yet, and well, policy always proves more complicated in practice than in promise. And thats the complexity of this, why we assembled the excellent panel we have today. Anybody that follows stuff about transportation infrastructure, the way cities work follows nicole. Senior fellow, contributing editor and columnist at new york post. Nick lawyer is of heritage foundation, focuses on energy, environment, regulatory issues. A Deputy Director of the thomas rowe institute for Economic Policy studies. Finally, Heritage Action tim chapman. He is the executive director t t Heritage Action, polling on the issue of infrastructure and transportation. Thank you, panelists. I want to start off and ask in general, do we need a 2 trillion infrastructure bill, and if so, what specifically should be in it . Thank you, tim. I want to thank you for having us here today. The answer to do we need a trillion dollar infrastructure billion or 2 trillion infrastructure bill is no. The answer to do we need an infrastructure bill is yes. But the problem is when we focus on big numbers, we dont get to the goal. We saw this with the obama era stimulus where this was billed as a nearly trillion dollar infrastructure bill, obama used the word transformative when he rolled this out in early 2009, but many of the projects in the bill never came to fruition. If you think about a High Speed Rail Network where president obama said at the time were going to build a backbone of a new transportation across the country, but the marquise project of the High Speed Rail Network, high speed rail spine up and down california, they have built barely anything now in more than a decade since this was announced. So to get to real infrastructure, the last thing we need is to put the number first. The first thing we should be doing is having all 50 states and major regional areas in each state put together a realistic list of what are the immediate infrastructure needs that are achievable within the next decade. Then, how much do the infrastructure needs cost. Then we arrive at a number thats more realistic than a trillion dollars or 2 trillion, then the hard part is executing the projects. Were good at announcing projects, making press releases and conferences, but were not good at getting them done. You remember the seinfeld joke, it is easy to make the car reservation, take the car reservation, it is harder to have the car there waiting for you once you go to retrieve your reservation. And were the same way with our Infrastructure Projects. It is the execution that will matter in the end. To build off nicoles point, when you think about what president obama said when he passed that stimulus package and projects didnt come to fruition, he said shovel ready jobs werent as shovel ready as they initially anticipated. A big part of that was the regulatory obstacles that we face when Building Infrastructure. Think of one single project like the Keystone Pipeline. If you look back to when transcanada announced they would expand their keystone system with xl down to the gulf coast, barack obama hadnt announced joe biden as his running mate yet. If you had a child at the time they submitted that application to the state department, that child would enter middle school this september. Thats just one pipeline project. If you expand that to all of the Infrastructure Projects that we have, whether it is traditional Infrastructure Projects and highways and bridges, if it is energy Infrastructure Projects, even renewable Infrastructure Projects are all facing the systemic regulatory problems, whether it is labor regulations, environmental regulations, outright changes in zoning laws, these things adversely impact the ability to actually build things and to get the projects that we want here to meet the consumers needs. I agree with both my fellow panelists. Let me answer from a different perspective. The question is whether we need a 2 trillion infrastructure package depends who you ask. We asked a lot of people. We have done significant amount of polling this year at Heritage Action. The backdrop to what were trying to do in the polling project is were looking at the Political Coalition that brought trump into power in 2016. That coalition we see as suburban republicans, grass roots conservatives, and working class americans. And working class americans were new to the coalition, came in because they liked a lot of things trump was saying, specifically on issues like infrastructure. So we have done almost 500,000 in polling this years to look at the dish areas. We polled nationally, in battleground states, blue collar districts, suburban districts. What you see is overwhelmingly theres an appetite for Infrastructure Program when the Infrastructure Program is described as roads and bridges, not talking about mass transit, but roads and bridges, overwhelmingly popular. That probably doesnt surprise a lot of people. If you look at within the republican base, registered republicans, you ask them simple question, do you support a trillion dollar federal Spending Program for roads and bridges, the answer is 78 support that within the republican party. So the point here, and then the numbers go up when you start looking into those blue collar districts and competitive districts, so you understand why members of congress on the republican side and we wonder why conservatives are excited to sign onto an infrastructure bill, it is because their constituents are. Look, the numbers go down when you talk about do you support the bill if it gets sweetheart deals to labor unions or if there are contracts theres corruption and things like that, numbers fall through the bottom, so there is a way to fight back against some of the massive bloated federal bills. But my point is that this is a politically salient issue that will come if trump is reelected, will be one of the first things they try to do. Conservatives have to figure out how to be part of shaping this because if we dont shape it, if you let the administration shape it and let them work with democrats to cut the deal, it will end up looking a lot different than we would like it to look. And thats the importance of the panel, too, what were talking about today, what does that end up looking like. When people say they support an infrastructure bill, three people have three things in mind. When nancy pelosi was asked, she said it is about jobs jobs jobs. She said something about economic efficiency, throws in saving the planet. Donald trump when he talked about it in the state of the union, he said we will build gleeming new roads and bridges and roadways and waterways. It is trumpian. When you poll people, you ask me about infrastructure, i think maybe youre going to fill some potholes. Maybe youre going to add a lane or sidewalk. Dont we mean 13 different things. Should Congress Sort of pick something and focus on it . Is this something for states to decide . Nicole, what would you do if somebody said where should infrastructure money go . I think thats the first question, what is infrastructure. The reason we see some big numbers, the engineers come out every three years with a big report that we have a 3 trillion infrastructure deficit, but that is based on an overly broad definition of infrastructure. So the first thing we need to do in coming up with a number, do we need a trillion, two trillion, pulling numbers out of the air, what is the role of the federal government in paying for infrastructure. Thats the number we should be thinking about. Most infrastructure is private sector infrastructure or it is local and state infrastructure. If we think about pipelines, think about electricity, if we think about water, these are all things that are paid for through peoples utilities, whether private sector, if you have a private sector Electric Company or through municipal water bill, except for in extraordinary circumstances, a poor town, they pay for themselves. You pay for the electricity bill, that covers the cost of paying for the electricity. Capital plant and all of the employees. Theres no need for government involvement except with some regulatory issues. Same thing with an oil pipeline, gas pipeline. If it does not pay for itself, theres probably something wrong with it. We should listen to the market signal theres not enough demand for the project, cost of building the project are too high and so forth. Much of the rest of our infrastructure, local potholes, local road and bridge maintenance are state and local issues. Three out of four infrastructure dollars are spent at the state and local level. There are some ideas about making more highways into toll highways. We can talk about that later and some of the positives and negatives of that, but the infrastructure that doesnt pay for itself is in general your Larger Network road projects where there is a federal role, larger mass transit projects, and gateway tunnel, for example. Dam projects to protect against Flood Control because theres no efficient mechanism to get everyone to pay for their share of the dam, so these are things were talking about. It is a much smaller universe than the broad utilities part of it. I think a big problem is that four of the four dollars arent going to those types of projects. Generally, right now we have an Infrastructure Spending system that incentivizes the siphoning of federal resources to go to projects that are state and local in nature. Its kind of like when you go out to eat with a group of your friends. If you go out to eat with a group of your friends and you split the bill among ten people, your buddy who gets a side salad is ordering a cowboy ribeye and slinging back cocktails because he can spread the cost with nine other people. Thats what you get with massive Infrastructure Spending packages. You are spreading the costs among the millions of taxpayers and then you get wasteful projects or projects that are simply local or state in nature. And you have things like spending on bike paths and recreational trails. Thats not to denigrate those projects. I love biking and recreational trails. I think the people who derive the most value are the ones that should be paying for them. So, tim, let me ask you, does your polling go granular as what the priorities are, whether its new versus maintaining, roads versus bike trails, et cetera . Yeah, we listed im not going to remember the exact numbers right now, but we listed different categories of Infrastructure Spending. Roads and bridges, mass transit, bike trails, those kinds of things. I think if republicans are going to do this right they need to begin talking now about what they are going to do in 2020 if the president is reelected. I think they actually have so shift the ground that they are debating the democrats on. Youre right. Nancy pelosi talks about this as a jobs bill. A popular political message. Thats how i would talk about it if i were her. Republicans need to take a step outside of this traditional debate, what is the federal government going to do and how much is the federal government going to spend on a big Infrastructure Program and say this is bigger than infrastructure. I would talk about this as a jobs and work program. I would recommend the president say heres what were going to do. Were not playing on the democrats turf. We are going to do an Infrastructure Program that empowers states and localities, have Public Private partnerships. But this is not just infrastructure. This is more than just roads and bridges. This is about putting this country back to work. There is a host of areas that he can dovetail into this when it comes to work and the dignity of work. This is important especially for that part of his coalition that he won. I think of you probably saw the axios piece yesterday morning that showed the flip districts that went for obama before they flipped and went for trump are doing less well in terms of the economic recovery than other districts across the country. He still needs to be making the case that he is helping the working class american. So we have all sorts of policies here at heritage we have been championing. Things like Higher Education reform where you put on par the federal subsidy that you give to people who go to fouryear liberal arts school and say if somebody is going to vocational or apprenticeship training, you should get that training. Why should working class americans be subsidizing upper class americans . Who receive federal funds to go to college free. Put that in an infrastructure bill. Put welfare reform in an infrastructure bill. Skillsbased immigration in an infrastructure bill and change the debate. Make the debate actually something that is a broader and captures the publics imagination in a way that i think the democrats cannot compete with. When they are trying to fight on Higher Education, they are going to get beat. Their interests in Higher Education are regress i have, you see what Elizabeth Warren is doing on her bailout for higher ed. You see what Bernie Sanders is doing. I would like to attack it in that way. That allows you to actually push a lot of spending down to the state and local level and but the bigness of the bill allows you to still be broad and aspirational. It seems that i have never seen republicans win a fight of who will spend more money, including to create jobs. You think it could or should be a jobs bill . It should only be a jobs bill in the sense that better infrastructure makes the private sector more productive. We think about infrastructure the wrong way when we think it should create Public Sector jobs or heavily subsidized Construction Industry jobs. Of course, its wonderful that jobs are a byproduct of Building Infrastructure and people who work Building Infrastructure, engineering infrastructure, these are important jobs, but that is not the point of the infrastructure. The point of the infrastructure is to support the private sector. Now, of course these jobs should pay whatever is necessary to attract qualified workers, but one of the issues with infrastructure bills is the state issue of prevailing wages. In new york, for example, state law says that if you are working on a public works project, the wage for a basic laborer is close to 50 an hour, but the health care and pension benefits above that that go into the hourly wage bring the cost closer to 100 an hour. And as you go up the scale of the the scale of the work, your operating engineers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, the wages are higher. There is nothing wrong with that. These are good, solid, middle class jobs. The other side of the prevailing wage laws is the inefficient work rules that are embedded in these contracts between the Construction Contractors and the construction unions. For example, if ive got a job that requires plumbing, electricity and painting, i need three separate people to do these three separate jobs even if the work is incidental in any one of these areas, that you just need someone to hook up the plumbing. You just need someone to hook up the electricity. Its not complex skilled work. You still need three separate people on the job site. There is a lot of inflexibility in these union contracts. I remember being at the Democratic Republican Convention in 04 and getting yelled at by a union guy. He says you are not ibew, yet you are doing electricity distribution. I am a reporter, i was plugging in an extension cord. He showed me i was doing stuff that only Union Workers were allowed to do. Thats not to say we want to to throw away unions. Get rid of these jobs. Its just to say any federal infrastructure bill has to nod to the reality that we need, first of all, these contracts need to be made public. Right now the contracts between Construction Contractors and construction unions are considered private contracts that the rest of us cant see even though part of our money goes to pay for it. And once the contracts are public, we need to see a lot more efficiencies in terms of the work force productivity. So we are getting more infrastructure for every dollar we spend. Let me ask you, saying that the way infrastructure creates jobs is by supporting business, allowing more efficient shipping, commuting, that sort of thing. And that gets back to the question of, well then how should we fund it and who should be paying for it . If its creating Economic Opportunity, then the people for whom its creating Economic Opportunity ought to be paying for it, right . There are a million debates over how we fund roads. Im from new york, and most highways are tolled. Almost every bridge is tolled. You go down south and tolls are, you know, thats the least i think whats your least popular opinion . I think we should pay for highways with tolls. So is there any way to do that politically . Do you think thats best . How would you guys pay for infrastructure . Nick. Well, yeah, i mean, i think part of it would be through the private sector to the extent that the private sector should be investing in these projects like energy infrastructure. It makes sense to remove the burdensome regulations to burdensome regulations to allow the private sector to invest and create the value that is necessary to meet Americas Energy demands for when we spend public dollars, we can do a lot to stretch those public dollars further by reforming things like davis bacon to actually stretch the public dollars even further. I think the biggest fundamental shift we should have is to shift the decisions to the states and significantly reduce the federal governments role to those projects that are federal and national in scope. Then if states want to tinker with raising their own gas taxes, if they want to introduce tolls, if they want to introduce their statebased dmt, if there is some local or regional resistance to tolling, i think thats the most economically you said vmt . Vehicle miles traveled tax. Instead of a gas tax to compensate for more electric vehicles that are on the road, it would be based on vehicle miles traveled rather than and then the state looks at your odometer at the end of the year . Yeah, there are different ways to do it. Yeah, essentially, thats one way to d. Some concerns about privacy issues. I think it can be worked out. Oregon is a state that has introduced that and i think with a lot of success. Thats where you see the laboratories of democracy creating different ideas, some are popular, some are not. The more those decisions are made at the state and local level, rather than the federal and raising the national gas tax, the more we take away those decisions that should be made at the state level. I imagine you have opinions on this . Yeah, an example of one Success Story that has very little to do with the federal government before i get to some of the political issues with the vehicle miles traveled toll. You remember a few years ago joe biden came to new york and he stood with our Governor Cuomo and he said that Laguardia Airport is like a third world airport, that laguardia is an embarrassment to the country and this points up why we needed the obamaera infrastructure bill. Lo and behold, half a decade or so later, we are building a new Laguardia Airport and we are also building a new jfk airport. So to the casual observer, this would appear that federal spending resulted in these new airport projects. About you if you look at the details of the projects, there is really no federal involvement here. The new york airports, they throw off a half a billion dollars a year profit. And those profits are what is rebuilding the airports. This is essentially a real estate deal. The airlines have decided passenger traffic, passenger revenues are high enough that they can support a complete rebuild of these airports, and so the airline money is going to build new terminals, better infrastructure around the airports. This is essentially a coalition of airlines that have agreed to pay for this, spending the money through the bistate port authority. There is really no taxpayer money involved in this. It could have been done ten years ago. It could be done today. It really just depends on the airlines outlook for does the traffic and revenue support this. Now, thats a Success Story, but it doesnt involve a massive federal infrastructure bill. Were doing this without and before the federal infrastructure bill. And ill just make one point about some of the political issues about the vehicle miles traveled way of paying for highways. This is something that sounds very economically sound because it is. Why should people who choose to live far away from their jobs because they can get a bigger house if they go out a few more miles and so forth, why should everyone else subsidize these people . But the problem or the practical problem is this is also how you get like a Yellow Vest Movement in france where the practicalities of who lives far away. A lot of people live far away because they cant afford to live closer to work. So you get into the issue of are you suddenly changing the rules of the game after people have made their decisions on where to live, where to work, and so forth, and when you are looking at a vehicle miles traveled toll suddenly slapping a two, 3,000 a year tax in the eyes of who is paying for it, a tax on the middle class that people feel like they have no way of escaping. They cant immediately change their behavior in response to this market signal. I am not saying this is good, this is bad, this is neutral. Im just saying that this is no doubt something that is going to come up in any bigger discussion of vmt. Do we have polling on gas tax, tolls, the popularity of those things . People are willing to pay a higher tax for infrastructure. Yeah, we have seen that consistently in the polling. I completely agree with my colleagues about how to pay for it. I want to back up just a second and make sure im clear on what i was proposing earlier. I am not trying to outbid the democrats on this. I think we have a couple challenges as conservatives. One is that the administration themselves are not high on any kind of Public Private Partnership Approach to this and they are not high on a federalist approach to this. I think we have work to do there and we need to convince them. We know that the Democratic Party is just try to spend a 2 to 3 trillion infrastructure bill and they are going to market it as a jobs bill. I think we can beat them politically if we are saying, yes, jobs is a very important part of this. Work is a very important part of this. The dignity is something that we as conservatives believe in. But you do not give people dignity in their work if you create a, quote, shovelready job. That may disappear or wont be shovel ready. Here is the way you create dignity in work. We have the policies whether you are talking about welfare, higher ed, vocational training. Its okay to reinvigorate the idea that not Everybody Needs to have a Fouryear College degree, right, or you can have a trade and you can provide the American Dream for your family. I Like Fighting on those terms when we talk about infrastructure. I think it may not be the right way to go, but we need to be creative or else we are going to just get if we are not creative, then we will get into the bidding war with the left. If its just about how much is the federal government going to pay on this, we will end up losing it. And that presents a great alternative to the jobs Training Programs that have been tried and fail in other stimulus style packages. If you look at the Green Jobs Program part of the stimulus bill that were supposed to get people back to work and train people for the next generation of work, i mean, they overwhelmingly failed. The retention rates were dismal. You were training people who already had the training. So this presents a very productive counternarrative to jobs Training Programs that we are likely to see in some of these bills. So i guess when i you always get the question of sort of why can europe have highspeed rail and why can these places do things that we dont . The l. A. Times had an answer. The problem is they rely on contractors who are greedy and rip them off. When you look at new york citys inability to build that Second Avenue subway in any reasonable time, conservatives say the problem is regulations, union laws, environmental regulations, that sort of thing. This is the sort of thing you have looked at sort of on a granular level. So walk us through sort of why we cant have nice things infrastructure wise. Yeah. I like rail. But we have a very difficult time building rail in this country. Even if you look at what is considered our highspeed rail Success Story, the train from washington up to boston, it costs 600 a lot of the times for me to go round trip from washington to new york. I can fly across the ocean sometimes for cheaper than it takes to take that. Why does it cost 600 . Because the customers taking it are heavily subsidized. They work for the federal government, so they are paying for this train ride out of their federal expense check, or they are doing some kind of lobbying, some business in washington where they dont really see the cost of the train ride. If you and im not saying its not successful, but if you were to say should i take my family of five for a trip down to washington to see the sights and go home, its very convenient. You can get there quickly. Its a nice trip. But if you are thinking of spending 3,000 to take five people back and forth to washington, it just doesnt work economically. Thats a very big difference from paris or france or germany or even britain where a highspeed rail trip, four hour, five hour trip could be 50 one way. Its a much more casual unsubsidized trip. What are some of the reasons for that . European Construction Contractors are far more efficient than the american market. And so part of what we need to do in rebuilding new yorks rail system, building a new tunnel under the hudson river, is we need a much bigger, more Competitive Bidding pool. One of the problems is that on our projects in new york we often have only one bidder, maybe two bidders. The same old bidders who have done a bad job on previous projects. Why is that . When i hear that that i think the mafia, are they knocking off competitors . Part of the problems is that Global Contractors are put off by these byzantine regulatory issues, work rule issues, prevailing wage issues, hiring through the union halls because they just cant manage the project. On the rare times that they have bid on projects, theyve actually lost money on some of these projects. Again if we are comparing to europe this is confusing. When i think of europe i dont think of the land of liberalized labor force and low government footprint. The labor environment there is not as adversarial unions versus everyone else as we tend to think of it. It is a much more collaborative environment where, in return for social safety net and so forth, the work force is far more productive on some of these Infrastructure Projects. And so that is something to think about. It is not considered a Massive Jobs Program because people feel comfortable that this is infrastructure and that this supports private sector activity. If you were to do one or two reforms, nick, to get Infrastructure Projects going better, what would they be . I think the biggest would be to just outright repeal the National Environmental policy act, or nepa. This has been the growth of the regulatory estate in such a way. It used to take, you know, a little over two years to go through an Environmental Impact analysis, has almost quadrupled. I dont think anything sucks away Consumer Confidence like being in this excessive Regulatory Burden of a state as well as an excessive culture of litigation as well. So explain what nepa does to the whole process. Yeah. For any project that involves federal funding, you know, it needs to go through a permitting and Environmental Impact analysis, which is done through multiple agencies. And so you have a lot of activity thats done by multiple federal agencies that have crossover roles and responsibilities. Its supposed to be delineated, but thats often not the case. There is a lot of confusion as to who is doing what at one time. Its duplicative of what state regulators could do. You see an increased amount of paperwork for not much more environmental benefit. I think decreasing marginal returns when it comes to environmental benefit. This has been one of the holdups of infrastructure for a long time now. Its over 50 years old. When the Obama Administration had all of their projects, they gave categorical exclusions to 179,000 different projects, which demonstrates that we can build these projects in a way thats environmentally safe and without this cumbersome Environmental Review process thats not to say that we shouldnt have any Environmental Review process, but its been used as a tool to block and delay Infrastructure Projects that people may not want. The Trump Administration is making some important regulatory reforms on nepa, and thats productive. I think codifying those things would be great. Essentially repealing nepa would be better. If we could cod fy some reforms that the Trump Administration is pushing that is a very big win. I wanted to talk about the political possibility of doing something. That doesnt sound like something a Democratic House would go along with. In general, tim, what are the political odds of passing something through Democratic House and a Republican Senate . Should we wait to 2020 . Whats your thoughts on this . I do think that this should be something that republicans present early before the election and then try to do after. You have got to win the mandate. I actually think that there are i was having dinner with a couple congressmen last night and they were talking about their more moderate democratic colleagues who were willing to bend a little bit on some of the labor regulations and local regulations because they have seen the ontheground impact of it. You mentioned, i think you mentioned the new yorker piece that was on the transit issue in new york city and how it was way worse than whats happening in europe. That piece went all over new york. New yorkers of all stripes are frustrated with the fact they cant get their Transit System up to snuff and you cant get a train on time and if you live in a certain borough you are in trouble 50 of the time on the way in. People are starting to understand what the issue is. So i think we have some illustrations that will be helpful to us. At end of the day we cant sugarcoat t you have to win the conversation. So i dont think you can win the conversation without actually starting the conversation, and thats where republicans need to be right now. They need to be thinking about what kind of infrastructure package are we proposing first. And it should not be one that you know, i dont think they should be proposing an infrastructure package that makes concessions early on. You want the concessions to be completely left out of this package. You are saying making a bid now. Yeah. Push it with the hope that with electoral victories in 2020 you pass it afterwards . Yeah. I was mentioning to you i have a piece in the examiner this morning which is making which is trying to make the argument that the administration has to be thinking right now about what the argument for 2020 is. And one of the pieces of that argument really should be infrastructure. They run the risk in this election of kind of trying to just revert back to 2016 and rerun the greatest hits of 2016. Theyll probably lose if they do that. He still has a reservoir of strength within his base but he has to give them something that they are looking forward to in 2021. This is a huge issue for the base. If you look back at march or april or may, there was happy talk of, you know, trump and pelosi working something out. Was there ever something that was going to work out . I mean, politically who could what could happen . What advice would you give lawmakers, et cetera . Nicole. I think the practically speaking, the bad news is that the only way that this is going to work out is through a lot of pork barrel tradeoffs. Buy off enough lawmakers . Yes. If you look at what a place like what new york wants, new york politicians do not want to touch any of the union rules. The Construction Contractors, the construction unions, they dont want these Construction Contracts public and being looked at by the public, obviously, and so we can see all of the inefficiencies that are embedded in some of these agreements. But, on the other hand, you have florida, you have texas, you have south carolina, you have places where the Real Estate Industry is basically dependent on nationally subsidized Flood Control infrastructure. So everybody has their own not very pure free market interests that they want protected. And so the infrastructure bill that we get may just be more of the same. Yeah, thats my fear, too. If you look at some of these antiquated laws and policies, even things that affect our ports like the jones act that prohibits any foreign built ship or operated ship from delivering goods from u. S. Port to u. S. Port, the foreign dredge act, that doesnt allow foreign dredgers to come in, that would allow our ports to be bigger, more economically robust. Are we afraid they are going to plant like little mines in the harbor . Unfortunately, yes, thats the fear mongering you get for protecting a lot to of these policies. But to nicoles point, there is a lot of concentrated benefits of these policies. And then the costs are disbursed amongst rest of us as taxpayers and consumers. It makes it difficult, politically speaking, to make my movement on some of these policies that are outdated and antiquated. All right. So wrap it up with one round of questions for you guys, or one question for all of you. Again, donald trump in the state of the union talked about gleaming new infrastructure. I remember Newt Gingrich running for president , talking about his various moon shots and, you know, obama was going to his precise words was remake america. Not rebuild. Remake america in his inauguration. So im a conservative guy. I dont really get excited about big bold new government projects, but politically maybe theres demand for it, and mab we need them. So do you guys have moon shots in mind . Do you share my suspicious of moon shots . If you were to do Something Big and bold, what would it be . Or would you not do Something Big and bold . I think, unfortunately, we live in a world where you have to do Something Big and bold. And especially with this president. He is not going to settle for, you know, a very modest, you know, small infrastructure bill. Which is why im suggesting we change the terrain and think about this debate a little bit differently. He also said in his inaugural address that im here to take power from washington, d. C. , the swamp, and give it back to the American People. That was one of the best rifts he had in the address. That was a nod towards federalism. They have not followed up on that as much as they should. That is big and bold, especially in todays day and age. As we have discussed many times, you have so much Political Tension and so much political fighting at the federal level and somebody, a lot of people are looking for ways to turn the temperature down. You know, do that in the context of an infrastructure bill. Its a good first step. Its big and bold. Say we are going to fulfill that promise that we did and we are going to empower local governments and State Governments to do what they need to do for the American People, but we are also making this about work and about the dignity of being an american, being able to raise kids, get a vocation or apprenticeship that actually provides for that. I like that approach. Nick . Yeah, about two years ago a former colleague of mine who worked on transportation policy and i put out a paper that said how do you get to over 1 trillion private infrastructure and stretching those public dollars further . I think if you want to go big and bold, thats where you need to go, look at fundamental reforms from a regulatory standpoint on environmental regs, telecom regs. On labor regs to get to that 1 trillion number, if you want a bright shiny number on it, focus less on the federal taxpayers spending that money and more on the private sector spending that money and then having a serious conversation, if we are spending federal dollars, how do we pay for it, make sure that there is offsets or if there is the right type of reforms that actually stretch those public dollars further. I was hoping somebody would have a bridge across Lake Michigan or highspeed rail underground from a tube from l. A. To san francisco. Or at least a gleaming wall for 1970 miles from the u. S. mexico border. Do you have any of those for me . Yeah, i do. My big bold project is build our tunnel under the hudson river. Its an interstate project. This is how hundreds of thousands of new jersey commuters get to work. These can be swing voters. They are desperate for competent government. How do we do this . Do it in a different way with the environmental regulations, with the labor contracts being made public. Do it through Public Private partnership where there is a fixed date for it to to be completed. There is a fixed budget. The federal government rewards the project for meeting or exceeding budget and transparency standards. If we do this right as a demonstration project it could be a model for other big bold projects. Join me in thanking this panel. [ applause ] i am going to make a quick note about the idea of big and bold. I encourage you to check out the the washington examiners editorial a couple months back where we noted that infrastructure weeks, they occur a lot, but they have a tendency to be very dramatic. Like fbi directors get fired and Michael Avenatti brings charges. We said americans deserve a boring, uneventful infrastructure week. We also deserve maybe a modest infrastructure bill. Talking about here, federalism. Let the states make the decision rather than congress. That was our editorial position there. So i encourage you guys to check out our last infrastructure week editorial. So that panel there so i invite the panelists for panel two to come on out here in one second. So that panel was think tank people who really dive into the policies. You were lucky to hear from them. Nicole is one of the people, if i have curiosity on an infrastructure issue or a transportation issue, i turn to her. And nick has been working on this hard in the heritage foundation. In our second panel we have people who are more engaged in the practice of this. So first we have Brigham Mccown, who is a former Senior Executive at the department of transportation and currently is in business and philanthropy, ceo of a d. C. Firm here and chairman of a nonprofit focused on Innovative Solutions for issues involving infrastructure. And we have marty noe, a supervisor on the Prince William county board there and he is a chairman of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. So thank you guys and lets welcome our two new panelists. [ applause ] there is a ton of things to talk about. We are the warmup act for secretary chao. Thank you both for coming. You guys with the same question i started the last panel with. Do we need a trillion or 2 trillion federal infrastructure bill . And if so, what would you want to see in it . Thank you. And thank you for inviting me today. Great first panel. I was thinking about that as i was sitting down here for the first panel. We have a significant infrastructure issue. I mean, i think everybody agrees that our infrastructure is showing a lot of wear and tear. The issue, and the issue has always been, how are we going to pay for it and what is the federal role versus whats the state or local role. Do we need a substantial amount of monetary infusion into our infrastructure . I may be off. Youre fine. That answer is yes. Does the federal government and does the taxpayer need to pay for it . Largely, that answer is no. And we can get more into that. We will. Go ahead. Yes. I would say that, obviously, the challenge is the same. How do you pay for what you say you need . There is no question that the investment needs to be made though. As a local government side that deals directly with transportation, this concept of crumbling bridges and insufficient capacity on highways and Transit Systems that dont work the way they are supposed to work is a serious and real problem and it is hindering Economic Growth. You know, in places like Northern Virginia, but also any place where you have got a lot of Economic Activity going on. The number one impediment to Business Growth is the lack of good investment in transportation and other infrastructure that makes it possible for people to get to work and go make money. And so then, yeah, well move and so, then yeah, well move to the paying for it question. How should it be paid for . And i know that theres 100 answers. Give as many as you can. How would you pay for this . Sure. Number one and the Previous Panel mentioned this. We talk about infrastructure. We really need to subdivide it into categories. Energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, social infrastructure. But if were talking about transportation infrastructure, i firmly believe, and the department has been working very hard to actually push a lot of those decisions, with federal oversight, but pushing those decisions down to the state and local area. And if you think about it, when weve gotten rid of earmarks, we didnt really get rid of earmarks. We got rid of a lot of the congressional mandated earmarks, but now we have bureaucratic earmarks, we have administrative earmarks. And the secretary has a lot of discretion on where that money goes. We have been working very hard at the department. Shes been working very hard at the department to make sure that those decisions are based on needs and based on qualifiers, but quite frankly, my concern is, i dont know whats going to happen when the next people come in, and theres just as much room, if not more, for diversion to projects that dont make any sense. So, how are we going to pay for it . I think there is a federal role. I would like to see a more limited federal oversight role, actually. Youve seen a lot of the states increase their own gas taxes and look at it. The big issues going to be and this is something that i just dont think house leadership and even the hill leaderships really going to want to get into this cycle, is the Highway Trust Fund is not sustainable. Right now weve talked about the guy that orders the last panel talked about the guy that orders the big steak. Well, the hybrids and electric cars are freeriding to some extend on our highway and transportation theyre not buying gasoline, so theyre not paying the gas tax. Theyre not paying. And now weve gone from a user fee to just throwing general fund money at the issue. And that is not, again, a longterm sustainable. We have the diversions, almost 20 out of the Highway Trust Fund for transit and other issues, and these are the big topics that we really need to be getting at. I, frankly, dont see the political will this time around to do it, but that disruption is coming. And more and more, as cars become more efficient, you know, at some point theres going to be a tipping point, and whether its vmt or something else, were going to have to get to that. But there are political arguments for both of the things you talked about, saying, well, the electric cars dont have the externalities of the pollution, for instance. That is one of the reasons that maybe they shouldnt pay as much. And then as far as the diversions, people say, well, if youre Building Public transit, well that, for one thing, is alleviating traffic. So, these are sort of defenses as what you see as flaws in the program. Do you think those are flaws . I think theyre huge flaws. And you may not agree with me, but look, lets keep in mind that until the 70s, transit operators, that was not a public enterprise. That was private. And the government was forced to come in and take it over. And you know, to the point, if its not sustainable, its costing us money. And what we have right now is a huge divide between urban and suburban and rural, and that is only going to continue. And i think, quite frankly, we do need to move toward a user feebased system instead of a subsidized system, because we are losing a lot of efficiency in the way were currently doing things. I think when you talk about it, like you talk about transit, for example, in that regard, hes absolutely right. The shift is complete. Were not undergoing the shift. I mean, transit agencies were private companies, or at least, sort of freestanding agencies that were created by the government but then sort of pushed aside to go do their own thing, and it doesnt function like that anymore. One of the challenges that the urban jurisdictions throughout the country are dealing with is sort of this Bottomless Pit of how do you put enough money into transit. I think one of the challenges that we deal with is that theres this tension when it comes to any kind of transportation, but particularly when were talking about public transit, between whether or not it is a mobility service. Is this a way to get people to jobs or get people home from work at the end of the day, get people to the Shopping Center so they can pick up groceries, et cetera . Or is it a social safety net program, right . And i think and as sort of the local public official, well, the answer is, yes, its both. Theres no question that if that, you know, workingclass, lowerincome family doesnt have Reliable Transportation of some form, theyre not going to get to work, theyre not going to be able to pick up the kid from daycare, and then theres a spiral that comes with that, right . You make the problem worse. Then the question becomes, so, how do we prioritize it . Are we prioritizing it as a mobility service, and is it competing, therefore, against road investment, or are we prioritizing it as a social safety net service, in which case its competing against, you know, the Food Assistance programs, for example. Right. And i think depending on where youre from and what your political ideology is has an impact on how you think about that. I think when were talking about a federal infrastructure bill, if its a federal infrastructure bill, then it has to be about mobility, right . If what were doing is trying to move people around, then you have to prioritize those investments that move the most people. Now, is that transit investment . Is that road investment . Well, depends who youre trying to move and where youre trying to move them. The needs in the National Capitol area are very different than the needs of houston and are very different than the needs in tacoma, washington. Pick your cities, the needs are going to be different, but you have to be looking at, if were going to make big moves, you have to be looking at prioritization that says, what has the best return on investment for the state or the locality of where that investment is being made. So, if its a good investment, shouldnt it pay for itself, and thus, thats an argument for sort of a user fee . Theres always talk about widening the roads in Northern Virginia, and i would say, well, if its economically valuable, then it should pay for itself and there should be no reason to tax other people to come in and pay for it. Right. So, great, great question. So, and this gets into the question of, well, is it better to collect taxes from people today to pay for the future use, or is it better to find ways to make the people who are going to use it in the future pay for it . And of course, the answer is that the company that builds the road or builds the rails or builds the train car thats going to sit on those rails, they want to be paid today. Theyre not interested in waiting for the tolls or user fees to come in. Here in Northern Virginia specifically, where i happen to be from, we have been making Major Investments in what they call h. O. T. Lanes, where singleoccupant vehicles can pay a toll or highoccupancy vehicles can ride for free. Some people love it, some people hate it. I paid a big toll to get here today on time, still got here a little bit late. But that is probably from a perspective of linking who pays to who receives the best benefit. That is one effective way to do it. It gets a lot of pushback from people who say, well, wait a minute, my taxes paid for this road 40 years ago. Now youre adding an additional lane and are going to toll me to be on a road that i already paid for. Sometimes the answer ends up being, its either this or we do nothing at all and your situation continues to get worse. But i think finding ways to pay for improvements over the life of that improvement, whether its a highway or a Transit System, is the better way to go. Unfortunately, the Business Model out there for these things doesnt always lend itself to making that happen. Yeah, you know, id just like to say that i think sometimes we tend to think that we have a one size fits all solution, and not just in transit, but with interstate highways or roads. And what works in Northern Virginia might not work in dallas, might not work in cincinnati. And just like we dont have a single tool in our toolbox, if we try to apply a hammer to every single thing we used, it wouldnt work out very well. Itd work out great, sometimes it wouldnt work out. You need different tools. And thats sort of the complexity of the transportation policy that we need to get into. You know, i, for one, typically like the idea that things should be selffunding, sustainable. You should let the market decide. And what the government has done through attempts at good policy to some extent, has been to remove transparency, which then keeps money on the sideline, keeps investment, because you know, risk is just so adverse to those who want to invest. And then, two, we tend to pick winners and losers sometimes, right . We tax what we dont like and we subsidize what we do like. And so, the market then becomes skewed. I really think and something that the secretary has been working very hard at is to try to level that playing field, let everybody know what the rules are, and then get out of the way. And you know, for example, d. O. T. Has President Trump has a 2for1 regulatory reduction. D. O. T. s leading the way at 151 right now, nixing every 15 for 1. And that is starting to let the gears turn again, and weve seen a substantial amount of private investment leaping into these things as well as state and local money in order to build these projects. But thats a little more theoretical i want to get to more of the nitty gritty of how publicprivate partnerships work and ought to work, but since, since you brought up regulations, what are the most important reforms, deregulations, et cetera, that can be done that would stimulate, free up investment, in particularly transportation infrastructure . You know, i think a couple. One is on the financial side, picking how these investment projects work. D. O. T. Is charged with not only doling out money, but making loans. So that process has been significantly streamlined and taken a much harder look, and they need to continue to take a much harder look at the viability of the projects when they come in. You know, i think we tend to say and think under federalism, those decisions are best closest to where the decisions are being made, yet you know, the federal governments sort of been seen as the piggy bank or the nationals mayor, sometimes the secretaries call it, everybody comes in wanting a handout. And her response is, great, lets look at your plan. Lets look at how much money are you what kind of skin in the game are you bringing to the table . And we can help use federal monies to leverage you and get you over the hump to do that last mile, but you know, when i first joined the department, i dont know, 20 years ago, somebody came to me and said, sir, we have a problem. I said, great, whats the problem . They told me and i said, okay, how are we going to fix it . He said i need 25 million. I said to do what . To fix the project. I said, okay, lets stop and back up here, because we do have a tendency in d. C. To think if we just throw money at something, its going to get fixed. And then the second part of your question, the environmental permitting and streamlining. And the Previous Panel mentioned that, ive worked on keystone, on apple, some of these projects. For crying out loud, we put a man on the moon faster than we could find out if we need a pipeline, and it gets to the point where its never enough, if you dont win, you sue, and a truckload of papers is not going to change a decision. So, having a federal government that prioritized a single lead agency for Environmental Reviews and gets them out. If germany, which is progressive, can figure out whether or not to build something in two years, it ought not take us ten or twelve. I think one of the challenges and again, i come to this from the perspective of a local government, but which a local government which makes very Big Investments in transportation, which is unusual, at least in virginia it is, where generally, local governments are looking to make the decisions about the interface between land use and transportation, without looking to the federal or state to provide the funding. My home locality, we have our own local Construction Program that sort of competes against the state program. But we have essentially this rule and this is exactly his point, one of the challenges we have. There are important projects, projects that would get people to work faster, improve everyones quality of life. Theyre costeffective. Theyre the right investment in the right place at the right time to solve the right problems. And then we find out that the only way to get it funded is through a federal program, and then well say, you know what, lets go build a road someplace else, right . There was a discussion we had actually at my local Board Meeting just last night about a project where someone said, well, couldnt we bring the cost down by seeking state funding or federal funding on this . And i said, no. This is a big project. This is a 300 million project that turns into a 450 million project if we have to take federal money and take with it all of the strings that come attached to it. So, i mean, one of the things that has to happen is whatever happens with the next federal infrastructure round of infrastructure investment, a piece of that absolutely has to be making it more feasible for states and localities to use those investments to actually solve the problem that needs to be solved. And that doesnt mean that we want to ignore the importance of protecting wetlands or protecting Historic Resources or protecting endangered species. We want to Pay Attention to those things, but if what we end up doing is spending the federal piece, all of the federal money on a project on complying with federal regulations in a way that doesnt actually improve the quality of the project, its better off just to use state and local funds to pay for it. So, youre turning away free money because the money comes with too many strings and its not free anymore. Thats exactly right. X thats exactly right. And weve had what should have been twoyear projects become a tenyear project. Or weve had roads that should have been fourlane roads get built as twolane roads because the compliance becomes too difficult. And again, if that compliance, if those regulations add value, if they improve the quality of life or they improve the way in which were taking care of our national resources, well, then thats something we need to do, but its something we would do whether or not in my case, its something we would do whether those regulatory regimes were in place or not. So, how do we streamline that . How do we simplify that and get rid of some of the old thinking on this and be able to think more innovatively. So, speaking of thinking innovatively, sometimes when i think of a place like Prince William county or loudon or something, and the thought is, well, we need to be able to get to reduce the congestion of all the people trying to get into d. C. , or maybe arlington. But to some extent, congestion is like a price signal, right . Some people wont move to Prince William because theres so much congestion. So if you then add another lane, well, then more people will move to Prince William. Its one reason why the developers in Northern Virginia were the first ones to lead the cause for, you know, more statewide funding, that sort of thing. Sure. So, arent there a thousand other answers . We sometimes say, you know, telecommuting or have more jobs in Prince William exactly. Rather than have the people so, how do you think about that . Because governments are so likely to think, we just need more lanes. So, thats a great question. So, just coincidentally, last night my local board agreed to put on the ballot for november a referendum for a 335 million bond referendum for local investments in roads. The biggest piece of that is a road, for those who arent familiar with it, route 28, which is the most congested corridor in all of Northern Virginia, which is the most congested region in the country. This has become sort of the center of gravity for bad traffic in the midatlantic. And by the way, it happens to run right through the middle of the district that i represent. But were making a big investment in that. The thing that i find frustrating is, its an investment we absolutely have to make, but it is an investment that is about moving people from my community into a Different Community to go to work where they will be creating jobs someplace else. The rest of that bond referendum were putting forward and the rest of the requests that were making from the state agencies and the regional transportation thor authority of which im chairman are really projects that are about moving people around the county better. Because i think that in highly and again, Prince William county, my home county, Loudoun County just to our north, even fairfax county, which is more part of the core of Northern Virginia, the conversation really has shifted from how do we shorten peoples commutes, rather than easing peoples commutes . I think, you know, some National News surrounding the decision to locate amazons hq2 in arlington, and its a big deal, right . Its 25,000 to 35,000 jobs that are going to come over the next ten years. One of the things that amazon made real clear was that they were only going to go to a place where their employees could get to work on transit. They recognize that dropping that many jobs in any place in the country all at once was not going to be solved with more lane miles and more exit ramps. So, again, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and the state are making Big Investments in transit because, going back to kind of the previous point, those are the investments that have the biggest impact in this situation. And i think the notion of not looking for a one size fits all, the notion that, somehow, every problem can be solved by more roads so in the situation because theres already so many lanes . Or why is this a situation that calls specifically for more transit . So, gernsiusing amazon comin arlington county. First of all, theres no place to put additional lanes. You couldnt literally, the existing right of way ends at the edge of the buildings. I suppose you could add more space to 95 if the Defense Department doesnt mind the highway getting closer to the pentagon, which they dont mind, by the way. So, there is no opportunity to build more lanes there. But the reality is, to your point, that wouldnt have solved the problem, right . Add more lanes, you put in more cars, but all youre doing is diverting people from one mode to a different mode. Its about looking at the situation and saying, theres not a one size fits all, theres not a single solution that solves everything. Now, let me say, thats a frustration, by the way, coming from a more suburban jurisdiction. When i see a big chunk of money being invested in Transit Systems inside the beltway, it means theres not a lot left to invest in roads outside the beltway. I for one think they should extend the yellow line down to alexandria and the blue line to franconia springfield. I get hit with extend the blue line, but that kind of money doesnt exist. My answer is simpler, move to texas where i am. Weve got plenty of room for everybody and low cost of living, pro Economic Growth policies. But you know, i think this goes back to sort of what i was talking about earlier, the 30,000foot view, is that different jurisdictions have different requirements. However, if i go to ohio, where im from, and i tell people as theyre gassing up, hey, chicago metro transit thanks you. Like what are you talking about . I say, youre subsidizing people in the bay area taking b. A. R. T. Down to silicon valley. Youre subsidizing people who work on wall street. Now, yeah, are you subsidizing folks that need to get to work with hourly jobs . Absolutely. But again, the funding system that were using is inefficient. And from an innovative standpoint, the day of reckoning is coming. I dont think its here yet, and i dont think theres enough political courage or will in the congress to change the funding mechanism this time around. But whether its the, you know, the additional the Highway Trust Fund falling off or other models, when disruption happens remember kodak. Kodak was like this massive company. When i grew up, it was worth a lot of money, right . And they did one thing, they did it very well, and now its basically gone, right . Because they didnt anticipate the disruption that was coming to their industry. Transportation disruption is coming. Were not there yet, you know. Autonomous vehicles. 90 of the time, they make really good decisions. The 10 of the time they need to make a really awful decision, theyre horrible at it. So i, for one, dont think Autonomous Vehicles are coming quite as quickly as a lot of people do. But all these changes are coming, and theyre going to fundamentally disrupt our mobility and how we get to work, where we work from. 5g broadband in rural areas is going to change the need to come into the cities. So all this is coming, and its something that we need to be thinking about. I just got back from the spacex launch. It was fantastic. Thats a hugely disruptive, 1 trillion industry, where somebodys figured out a way to boost twice the payload for a third of the cost that the government can do it. Thats coming to transportation. I just dont think were there yet. So, as far as funding. So, yeah, we fund highways and other stuff through a gas tax. And the industry lobby for the most part is calling for more gas tax. The chamber of commerce, thats been like their most consistent position for the last decade is raising the gas tax. But again, to me, there seem to be flaws with that. Some people are talking about the vehicle miles traveled. Sometimes it involves a gps. I dont necessarily want my government tracking where im going. I mean, i guess apple and google already are, but you dont need to add a third onto that. And then the subway systems here in d. C. , you pay more if you live farther out, which makes sense, except if you look at the red line, you start at tacoma, my side of the red line, you start at tacoma. Each stop you go out, the Median Income falls, and each stop you go out, the price of the commute goes up. And so, theres no easy answer to this, but youre talking innovation. So what would you guys see as far as specific ways to innovate . So, i think the notion and he touched on this the notion that, you know, Rural Broadband is going to change a lot, okay . Because suddenly, it will become possible to do a lot of jobs that used to require driving into an office or commuting into an office, literally in the middle of a farm field in nebraska. The day will come. Were not there yet, but the day will come on that. I think the other thing is that we have to think about is that how do we use technology to use our existing infrastructure, specifically transportation infrastructure, more efficiently . I hear a lot about the notion of, well, driverless vehicles are going to make the need for roads obsolete. I dont fundamentally agree with that. If all that happens is we get in our singleoccupant car and let the Computer Drive us to work rather than using the steering wheel, were still one person in one car. But well be able to tweet more while driving. Well be able to tweet more, exactly. Or read a newspaper, because you know, weve got our fancy car. Im very into reading newspapers and magazines. Everyone in this room should do that. Exactly. Thats what i love to see is people who sit with their books on the subway, and i want to say, you know, some day well be able to read a book in the car, but then the car will just read the book to you. But i think that, for example, Autonomous Vehicles could have a huge impact if and if i knew how to make this happen, i would be making a lot more money than i am as a local elected official but if Autonomous Vehicles create a new culture of ridesharing, right, that theres this Autonomous Vehicle that serves as little microbus and picks people up near each other and takes them where they want to go. And how does it know they want to get there . I havent figured that out yet. Another area where Autonomous Vehicles can change everything is in the trucking industry. I know lots of people have met lots of people in my life who have done longhaul trucking. They are not interested in only driving from 8 00 at night until 5 00 in the morning and then having an opportunity from about 10 30 to about 11 30 to drive more, right . An Autonomous Vehicle has no problem. An autonomous tractortrailer has no problem getting off of the road when traffic is heavy and then getting back on when traffic lightens up. That could be a big change, right . Also, the ability again, technological solutions. This ties into the land use piece. The ability of people to share work without having to be in the same space, so that essentially, the people who are physically proximates to each other dont necessarily have to be working on the same project because that can be done virtually. And i think the tension there is, i still believe that despite all of the great things that broadband can do for us, human beings still like to interact with other human beings. I get told a lot, you went to such and such a meeting and sat in traffic to get to the meeting, why wasnt it done as a Conference Call . And the answer is, because i would have put it on mute and done email while im sort of listening to people talk. And this is a problem we were told about in 2000. Reason magazine, a competitor of ours and i hold them in high regard but their crazy libertarian idea in 1999 was to have no actual physical office. Everybodys going to work remote. I mean, this was on the path towards the libertopia, where they all become just ones and zeros or whatever. Then they decide after a few years, you know what, you actually need to get people together in a room to create a good work environment. So i mean, highspeed, Rural Broadband to me sounds like the same problem that was made to me 20 years ago. Yes, some people will be freed up to telecommute, but the idea that this will dramatically cut down on commuting, is there any reason to think that would change now . No. I dont think so. I will say this, and i see it with my teenagers i would say that the availability of 4g connectivity in our homes has created this generation of introverts, right . Yeah. That theres a much bigger percentage of the population under the age of 35 who are more comfortable being physically by themselves or happier being physically by themselves than people in my generation, jgen xers were and are. But part of who we are is the human contact. And we may be evolving or devolving in terms that the interaction can take place digitally. I was told, i dont remember the circumstances, may have been a theme from a movie, where two people were looking two baby boomers were watching a gen xer sit in a coffee shop with his phone in front of them and one of them said its terrible that these people look at their phones all day, dont they ever want to interact with other people . And the second baby boomer said, what do you think theyre doing on that phone . Theyre interacting with other people. So, maybe over time our brains get rewired a little bit to mean that Human Interaction doesnt always have to mean physical proximity. But right now, and for the foreseeable future, teams are able to work more creatively when theyre in the same space. But the flip side to that is, there are some people whose role is to be by themselves, and thats where yeah. Their job requires being by themselves. Those people dont have to sit in the office every day. So, innovation on either funding or transportation that you think is coming or would be really earthshattering. Well, what i would like to see coming versus what i think is actually not going to happen. Let me start with that. My line is, i dont think were going to get a big infrastructure package this year. I mean, zoom back up to 30,000 feet. I just find it hard to believe that the congressional leadership is willing to hand President Trump a significant victory moving into the 2020 election. No matter how they do it and they can try to claim equal credit, but you know, i frankly dont see that happening. Now, what has happened is the congress has plussed up the transportation budget 10 billion a year the last couple years, and that has given the secretary a lot more fuel to push out to the states and to try to do that, and a lot of people have been coming to apply, yet other states, like youve mentioned, during the obama years, ohio just quit applying for grants. Like were not going to get them, so why apply . But you know, the funding mechanism needs to fundamentally change. When i was in the bush administration, you know, we looked at a gas tax increase and were told, no, thats a tax, by president bush. We said, why dont we index it for inflation . We were told, no, thats a tax. But the realities of life are that concrete, steel, and asphalt cost a lot more than they did the last time it was indexed when president clinton was in. We really do need to bump up the gas tax, at least for short term. I wouldnt be opposed to tying it to inflation. You can phase it in or you could phase it back down if things got tight and the economy went south. But were going to have to have some public spending, whether we like it or not, in the short term. And then what we really need to be looking at are these longterm solutions. Because again, things are going to fundamentally shift, and the current mechanism were using billed as a user fee, isnt working. Whether thats congestion pricing, value pricing or vmt, getting everybody to pay ill use a democratic term make sure all those on the roadway are paying their fair share. We need to look at that. Yes, i think thats exactly right. I dont know what it looks like, but that has to be the concept. I heard one of the things we talked about when we talk about housing policy is the notion that you can no longer look at Median Incomes versus median household prices and make a good decision about whether you have the right mix of housing in a community. What you look at is Median Incomes and a combination of Median Household Income and median transportation costs, because essentially what happens southboun is if youre not careful about making investments in transportation infrastructure that simply allow people to move further away from their jobs and buy a cheaper house, because then those of us who chose to live kind of in the middle are subsidizing the folks who chose to live out in the country. Oh, thats okay because the folks who live in the urban core are probably actually subsidizing me at that point, but thats bad policy, right, that we need to figure out how to look at the entire sort of Market Structure around these things and make good decisions. I think one of the challenges, and i think that secretary chao is probably doing a better job of this than weve seen in the past, but we like to talk about how we got rid of earmarks to take the politics out of the decisionmaking, but we really didnt do that, we just moved it from one branch to another for the decision making. And i think were seeing that problem getting better, but there needs to be a more radical fundamental change that the decisionmaking needs to be based on data and analysis for what is most Cost Effective in achieving the goals, rather than what makes sense because it feels right today. And so, we touched on the theme of federalism and local control here, but i guess how would you describe the right mix of federal funding and what the federal role is, if you got to reform, if you got to stick reforms into an infrastructure bill that ends up passing . What would they be . Should anybody in virginia be paying for roads in mississippi . Should people in new york be paying for roads in virginia . How would you describe sort of what you think is a proper structure of this . Yeah, i think there is a federal role. Clearly, theres a federal role in putting together the overarching rules of the game, if you will. There is also a need to spend money, whether its parks and federal lands. If we want a Valid National structure transportation system, were going to have to subsidize roads in certain states. Otherwise like what . Why should a marylander pay for roads outside of maryland . Do you buy anything on amazon . Do you go to starbucks . Do you rely on the supply Chain Network . We need,000 through roads. Otherwise, theres no incentive for north dakota to build an interstate highway that connection the east coast with the west coast. So shouldnt those roads pay for themselves . If im buying from amazon, im paying for roads because the truckers are paying for the toll. Ideally, every road should pay for itself, but how do you quantify that . I had a chif economist and said what do the numbers say . And he looked at me with all dead seriousness and said, what do you want them to say . So how you analyze the analytics is important. Yes, it should pay for itself. We can be lured into this nimby, how does the Keystone Pipeline help me . Im not, you know, through there. And it does because we live in a worldwide, integrated system. And we have to do a better job of explaining that to people and selling it, just like, you know, transit removes people from the roads, et cetera. We have to look at that. There is a federal role. I believe in partial devolution, pushing more stuff back to the states. You know, i think its strange that we take somebody elses money, hold onto it, lose some of it, and then hand it back to them, right, for our cut. And you know, but the federal government can do a much better job of helping people build a 100year bridge or 50 we can build asphalt right now with lane lines in it that will never need to be repainted. You know whos opposed to that . People who paint the lane lines, right . But you can bake the lane lines into the asphalt at multiple layers. Never have to do this again. There are things we can do that the federal government can help the state and local governments do, but as your Previous Panel said, most infrastructure, 75 to 80 is already raised and spent at the local level. And id like to push that up more toward about 85 . I think that theres absolutely a role for the federal government in these things. Look, im a local government official. I believe the federal government should be paying almost all of it and we the local governments should just focus on schools and Police Departments, right . But that said, i think that one of the things that can happen is a recognition on the regulatory side that says that very often the agencies that are building the infrastructure using federal money are agencies whose primary function are things like Elementary Schools and Police Departments and fire stations, right . So, if youre a large, urban jurisdiction, you may have a very professional transportation infrastructure department. I was just involved in a project to build a 12 million Traffic Circle to accommodate 12,000 trips a day on a twolane road that was first constructed in the revolutionary war, just on the edge of a town with 132 residents, right . The mayor gets paid 1 a year in this town. He doesnt have a public works director. And literally, the mayor himself attended all of the scoping meetings and all of the engineering meetings because there was no one else to represent the towns interests, okay . And but hes going to transform his little tiny, historic town, based on this in a very positive way. Making it easier for transportation capital organizations to create transportation capital instead of focusing on complying with a big, thick rulebook. Thats the biggest change that has to happen. And i think that what well find the amount of dollars that the federal government has to put in actually will build a lot more stuff and a lot more good stuff, if you let the people who actually understand what the needs are and can actually demonstrate that the investment is going to provide what were looking for, actually do their jobs. Do you guys think that when could we possibly expect an infrastructure bill, and what do you think shape it would take . Is there any chance a Democratic House and a Republican Senate passing something . You already said no. You want to go first . Um, i agree, its difficult to imagine a big infrastructure bill before november of next year. Its just its just hard to see it. But what i will say is maybe whats happening is weve lived in a time its been 20plus years that weve been living in this culture of the solution to everything is to get mad about it. You know, ask me my opinion on any topic and i will say, i dont know, which one justifies the most rage, right . Then thats my opinion. Maybe the American People are on the precipice of getting tired of that way of governing. And it doesnt matter whos in the white house and it doesnt matter whos in control of congress, regardless of what the structure of governments been, its been about conflict is the solution, right . Maybe the American People are ready to say, no, we actually want you to solve stuff. And i guess i would call on everybody watching call your congressman, tell you want him to solve stuff, rather than fighting with other people about things. And i think thats a Culture Shift that seems nearly impossible. On the other hand, every big Culture Shift like that thats ever happened has happened very quickly, so maybe well get a call tomorrow. I dont know. April 2021. April 2021, yeah. Thats going to be my because republicans take over the house or . Well, i think regardless of what happens in the house, you know, i think President Trump will get reelected. I think at that time, people on both sides, whoevers in the house or senate, will be ready to go. That being said, just kind of in conclusion, we sometimes think that congress has to pass a law to fix something. Sometimes they should not be doing anything, right, or should be undoing what it is theyve done in the past. And you know, weve had the plusups in the spending. More is getting done with the roadways. And so, this notion that we have to have a massive infrastructure bill may not necessarily be accurate where it could be broken down into smaller things. Id actually like a tenyear bill. First highway bill was a 13year bill. And think about that, because again, you need stability and consistency over time for private investment. And thats what we didnt really get to talk about today, but thats the other golden arrow that we have in the quiver is that private money to put in. All right. Join me in thanking this panel. [ applause ] thank you guys. So, as my final act today, i get the pleasure of introducing not only my boss, hugo gerten, editor of the washington examiner. Hell be coming out here, but hes not why you people came. Not that theres anything wrong with it, though. But what hell be doing up here is interviewing secretary elaine chao. Elaine chao came from a shipping and transportation family. And in washington, she served on the federal maritime commission, becoming its chairwoman. And then in the first george w. Bush administration, also served in the department of transportation. Under george w. Bush, she was the secretary of labor. And now, of course, she is secretary of transportation. For a lot of people on the head of the commentary page at the examiner, its a conservative page, and a lot of conservatives were not in line with donald trump early in the primaries, and theres a very mixed result of what they think about the work that hes doing. But where theres almost no mixture, almost no sort of debate, is on the question of deregulation. There is broad praise from conservatives that donald trump has been that his administration has been doing an excellent job, not just of not increasing regulations, but of dismantling the most destructive, most harmful, most useless regulations on the federal book. And one of the epp centeicenter this is the department of transportation preponderance we talked a little bit about this. There are some rules congress is going to have to change. We talked about davis bacon and some of the labor rules. We talked about nepa, the environmental policy thing. But a lot of the rules there were built by bureaucrats at the department of transportation, and they are the obstacles, regardless of what you think of how much money needs to get built. But then and so, thats why its great to see the aggressive deregulation thats happening at the department of transportation under secretary chao. Thats not the only thing shes going to talk about. My editor in chief, hugo gergen, is going to be introducing her and bringing her out here. And i just wanted to, again, say at the examiner on the opinion page, we cover all sorts of issues, all sorts of articles on this by op ed contributors. So if any of you guys are working in this industry, please contribute. Read our editorials on it. But for now, please welcome out here hugo gerden, my editor in chief, and elaine chao, the secretary of transportation. Thank you. It isnt just me, i promise. The secretary will be on in just shes just coming through now. Madam secretary, please come here. Hello. Have a seat. So, good morning, madam secretary. First of all, thanks so much for joining us. Oh, my pleasure. Thanks for having me. Were delighted to have you. Its particularly pleasing to be able to talk to somebody on issues where theres at least theoretically some bipartisan and agreement. Well, we certainly hope so. But before we start, can i just give a great shoutout to Brigham Mccown, one of your Previous Panelists. He had worked in the Previous Administration and had done worked on pipelines, and he was very helpful to us during the transition. And also for a number of months afterwards. So, in front of all his peers, i want to give Brigham Mccown a great shoutout. So, thank you, very, very much. Were going to cover a number of different areas, and i do want to turn a little bit later on to the innovation agenda at the transportation department. But the Previous Panels have focused very squarely on infrastructure and on the possibility of an infrastructure bill, and thats where id like to start. Both sides of the aisle seem to be keen on having an infrastructure bill, but there doesnt seem to be very much life in the possibility of a bill right now and legislation. Is it the case that as President Trump suggested, after the breakdown of talks a month or two ago, that its rather difficult to have two tracks going on, infrastructure on the one hand and democratic investigations on capitol hill . Is that you know, can the two happen together . And you know, how optimistic are you about moving infrastructure forward . Well, the president s always said that he wanted a bipartisan effort in addressing the deteriorating infrastructure conditions of our country. This is actually an issue that should be done on a bipartisan basis. So, there was high hopes that this could be, you know, a bipartisan effort. But clearly, its been disappointing that the administration put forward its proposal last year, and we want to work with congress, so we hope to hear from them, you know, as to what their ideas are for addressing the deteriorating infrastructure of our country. Because its so important. You know, infrastructure impacts productivity, economic vibrancy, Economic Growth and the quality of life for our citizens and our residents. Thank you. I guess this does not work. Im sorry about that. Chuck schumer said that the president is looking for an excuse not to do infrastructure. Is that the impression that people have in the administration . Absolutely not. I mentioned the president is very focused on the need to address the deteriorating infrastructure in our country. That was something that he talked about way back in 2016. Right. And infrastructure really should be a topic that there is bipartisan support. So we want to work with the congress. The administration put forward a proposal last year, and we want to engage in dialogue with the congress and have them come back to us as well. One of the big issues that had come up for discussion this morning is the headline figure of 2 trillion that both sides of the aisle were talking about a couple of months ago. Can you address, from a conservative point of view, the merits of spending that kind of number, and should we take that number seriously . We have a 20 trillion, not deficit, but debt now. Is that the kind of number that we should be spending . Should we take that searcriouslr will it be much smaller than that . Well, thats the nub of the matter, because when we talk about trillions of dollars, theres a real divide between the administration and those who may not agree, because were not were talking basically about, you know, how to fund that large number, be it 1 trillion, 1. 5 trillion, 2 trillion. And there is tthe left, the democrats, who by and large want this funded fully by federal spending. But there are other ways to finance our public infrastructure, and that is through allowing the private sector to come in, Leverage Private sector, local and State Government resources so that its a partnership. And then the leveraging effect can actually help the federal government, our country to reach that larger number. So, if its 2 trillion, lets go back to the president s original proposal, which is 1 trillion, and then it was 1. 5 trillion. You can allow the private sector to come in and fill the gap. Right. And there could be a federal share. There can be a state and local share. So it doesnt have to be 100 federal funding, and i think thats where some of the disagreement is. I think that a lot of people think of infrastructure, particularly when were talking about a major bill, as being primarily a federal spending issue and a federal responsibility. But well, you would be amazed at what the federal Government Funds now. We fund bike trails. We fund local projects. The role of the federal government originally in the interstate commerce, interstate highway days, when president eisenhower first built the infrastructure, you know, highway system for the country number one, it had National Security interests. These were huge highways that technically an airplane can land. So, there was a National Security purpose. And then secondly, interstate commerce. It connected the whole country in this wonderful network of beautifully built interstate highways. That now has changed a great deal to the extent where the budget of the department of transportation far exceeded what it was before, and it now funds a lot of projects within one state. So, the interstate and the National Security aspect of a federal Infrastructure Project has changed a great deal. Can you talk a little bit more about the way in which the federal spending is used to help leverage state and local and private lending . As i understand it we have a wonderful example out here the purple line in maryland. Governor hogan took a good deal of leadership, and he worked with state, his state people, local governments, and the private sector. And when i talk about the private sector, im talking about pension funds. Im talking about endowment funds. And so, he had some of those in a privatesector interest come in, and they put together a package, and then they came to the federal government, and we funded Something Like 35 . Right. So, it was an excellent, an excellent example of a partnership between the public, the private, and within the Public Sector, it included federal, state, and local governments. So, the purple line is now, you know, the groundbreaking has occurred and the extension is now being built is under way. And then out on route 66 this is under governor mcauliffe, and governor mcauliffe had also put together a partnership with the federal government, the local and State Government, and so extensions and widening of the 66, route 66, occurred. And that was just a year and a half ago. So, these projects are these two are great projects. Just in this washington, d. C. , area, how a partnership can be done and it doesnt have to be fully, you know, funded by the federal government. And the reason is not because the federal government is uncaring. Its that theres a proper role for the federal government, theres a proper role for the state, and theres a proper role for local government. And when there is buyin, which is what these participation signify, that means the communitys together, theyre willing to Work Together. It bodes much better for the project. Theres still a lot of spending, a lot of grants given out, i believe, that the department of transportation has given out, 160 billion or so oh, yes. During your time at the department during this administration. To leverage. Obviously oh, if youre going to talk concerned about the way the money is spent, and i do need to ask you a couple of questions. What do you say to those who say that kentucky got special treatment in the allocation of money . Well, my husband has a wonderful sense of humor. Hes also an outstanding public servant. And so, he responded. And i wasnt there. When asked about this, he said, yes, i was just complaining to the secretary of transportation the day before. There are 169 projects, and kentucky got 5. And he said, i sure hope kentucky would do better in the future. And also, from a nationwide point of view, kentucky ranked about 25, in 50 states, in terms of total dollars, yeah. The house on monday very pointedly passed, voted to forbid department of transportation funding to be used for personal gain. How do you feel about that. I agree i believe they shouldnt be used for personal gain and i believe that and havent done anything to the contrary, nor has anybody else in the department. Nevertheless, it seemed a very pointed thing oh, no, its definitely a political partisan attack, an effort at it, of course. So, on the question of making sure that monies are well public monies are well spent, obviously, one of the things that is often said to promote Infrastructure Spending is that its referred to often as an investment, rather than spending. That actually changed during president clintons era. He was the first one to use the word investment. And it was an effort to sell government spending. The implication is that Infrastructure Spending, at least to some extent, pays for itself. Are there really solid ways in which taxpayers can be reassured, in fact that kind of thing can be quantified . Are there good ways of measuring how effective Infrastructure Spending is . There are. We have productivity studies. There are congestion studies, safety studies, of course. And through these measurements, the monies that are spent for safety we have a safety task force. Currently, there are about 37 still, a little bit less than 37,000 people who die in fatalities, car fatalities. And we have done studies, and of course, participated in efforts to reduce that through various ways. But one effort that we have reduces fatalities by about 500 people, lives, a year. And then in terms of congestion, we know that on average, passengers, you know, ordinary folks, spend about four hours on the road in congestion, congested conditions, and lose about four hours a week. So, when we invest in infrastructure, we can actually try to reduce that number. Right. So there are various ways. I understand that but of course, were always looking at, you know, how can we spend the money wisely, prudently, in a fiscally responsible way. And also, the department is huge the departments annual budget is about 88 billion, of which about 70, 75 billion are for infrastructure every year. So, even though we did not have the infrastructure bill let me mention two things. One is that there was a down payment in the fiscal year 20182019 supplement, appropriations, in which 20 billion extra was given to the department. And so, we have used that money in competitively bid grants, in airport improvement grants. And then also, even though the infrastructure proposal has not yet been successful, and again, we always want to do this on a bipartisan basis, there is something called the surface reauthorization act which is coming up. Right. Because the Department Works with Congress Whenever we want reauthorization. So thats going to expire on september 30th, 2020. And so, that would be another vehicle, which is a more familiar vehicle, actually, to members of congress. I wanted to ask you about that. Obviously, about five weeks after that expiration well be having the president ial election. Nevertheless, the fast act renewal is talked about as the most likely vehicle for passing an infrastructure bill. On the other hand, it could be just a renewal of what there is now. How confident are you . Is there a real prospect of getting substantial infrastructure bill using that vehicle so close to an election . Well, i always hope the politics wont get in the way, because i think this is really important. Its for the American People. But we also know that sometimes that happens. So, the fast act that was passed in december of 2015 was the first fiveyear reauthorization bill in a very, very long since the 1960s. There have been 16 reauthorizations, like in as many years. So, the general pattern is, in fact, to just have extensions, not full reauthorizations. Right. But clearly, the certainty of having a longer time frame is very important to those who are involved in infrastructure. State and local governments. You know, if they know theyre going to have this money for five years rather than six months, they can actually plan for the future. So, a longerterm horizon is better. Yeah. Assuming, as i think probably most people do assume, that theres not going to be a major infrastructure bill or oh, i havent given up hope yet. The president s optimistic. And the white house is theyre talking to congress about this. Lets just say, then, hypothetically, if it doesnt get done, how much is being discussed in the runup to the 2020 elections about making infrastructure a central part of the president s Reelection Campaign . I havent been involved in those discussions. Okay. Yeah. Do you think that it would be a wise thing to do in that there is bipartisan agreement . There was polling which was referred to in an highs, road improvement, et cetera is popular in states that the president s will want to win. I dont get involved in discussions like that. Its above my pay grade. There was a new governor of michigan. She said fix the x roads. Infrastructure is important. I dont get involved in the cam page and what i that you can about. I take care of the department of transportation. I was first deputy maritime administrator. Its been wonderful coming back. What ive learned coming back is mission creep. Every time i come back after eight or so odd years the departments mission changes. Its expanding. The government is getting bigger in all the departments. There is always the possibility that amount of spending will push up the cost of labor, the cost of resources. In order to make sure that the tax dollars are spent in a judicious and cautious way, do you think that the Infrastructure Spending and construction needs to be phased in so cost dos not rise. We like this phrase. The president likes this phrase. Under budget ahead of schedule. We look at the track record that it will come in on time, on target in terms of the budget. That is factor when we give out these discretionary grants. She proposed the department of transportation do a grading system so theres rewards going to people who are getting things done on time and on budget. We have Something Like that which give out incredible number of grants but now federal railways is giving out grants. This is example of where federal redirect examinati railroad was involved. Federal highways is used to giving out lots and lots of money. Its farm ormula. They keep track of how the money is spent. There are audits afterwards to make sure that the money went where it was supposed to go. Its not precisely her idea but there are checks and balances. We are interested in ensuring we do a good job, the department does a good job in giving out the money on a formula basis as dictated by congress but the money is used wisely. Lets turn our attention to the innovation agenda. Thats very exciting. There theres an enormous number of things it acts a facilitat facilitator. May ainterrui interrupt. We have three priority. The first is safety. Were a Regulatory Agency on safety, ensuring safety and transportation modes except for maritime. The Maritime Administration is a promotional agency. In oil we say tlths good days. Nothing falls off the tracks. First and foremost safety must be number one. Number two, we want to address deteriorating infrastructure because infrastructure has impact on economic vitality, productivity. The third is weve got to be preparing for the future. Theres so many exciting Transportation Technologies that are emerging and the governments role, our role is the department of transportation is to engage with these new emerging technologies to address legitimate public concerns about safety, security and privacy without hampering innovation. Lets talk about one of those. I was astonished to read there are now one and a half Million Drone pilots in the country and presumably that number is growing every day. What is the department of transportation doing to monitor and regulate drones as the same time to encourage it. Were actually in the midst of laying the foundation and frame work for future technology advancement. There are a lot of concerns about security. Drones have appeared in places where theyre not supposed to be. They can be weaponized. Its a security aspect. The military and agencies are very concerned about this. E work as to hold up we can regulate other drones and the faa reauthorization took a bit more time. Because of the need of different stake holders to come to a protocol about what to do on the security front with drones. Thirdly, we get, and i hear all the time from consumers who dont like drones. The thought of drones peeking through their windows. Theres privacy concerns as well. Were doing really revolutionary work in terms of asking for public input. We held a uav, Autonomous Vehicle. Were seeking input from the public. We have a number of rule makings now ongoing. Drones flying over the head of people outside the line of sight and at night. We also have Autonomous Vehicle improving grounds. Be. Historically technologically innovations have always alarmed people. Iran shot a drone down the other day. They are machines that can be and are weaponized. They are also on tv for pizza being delivered by a drone. Theres an enormous range of uses for drones. Are we going to see as it were a flight paths, for airplanes. How can public be assured that with one and a half Million Drone pilots in the country presumably rising to two million, what practical steps are already in mind. These rule makings are enormously important in seeking public input and also stake holder info. Were not, the government is not the fountain of all wisdom. We are not the ones to decide which technology, were not todown, command in control. To rely upon the federal government is changing so rapidly its truly frightening. What we can do is to provide the forum there which public input and relevant stake holders can voice their opinion. Thats the rule making process. We have another two initiates that would talk about remote id, identification. We need to safely integrate them into the National Air Space thats run by the faa. Aum these questions aring with considered by the faa and our policy shop as we go forward. Thats to make sure the drone is not being flown by an enemy. Absolutely. Its a security issue. Drones are used for so many ways in which we had not expected. Remote expectations of energy grids. In recent california fires drones flew into survey what was going on. Drones were used in puerto rico to look at the aftermath of the devastation and what the state of repairs were that were needed. I was going to ask you about that. Theres another thing. Theres now 435,000 drone operators. This is a category that did not exist five years ago. I was the secretary of labor. In 2008 when i left there was not any mention of a drone operator. Can we expect the department of transportation to have its own fleet of drones to inspect National Infrastructure . I had not thought about that. The faa does have some planes for precisely this purpose. Well have to see. Thats very interesting. The United States was lagging in fourth place. Its now back to the number one position. What has the department of transportation done to streamline the permitting for reusable rockets and tell us a bit about that work. Youre exactly right. Now commercial space, the United States is number one in commercial space once again. There are two things that are happening. Number one when the president came in, he set up the space counsel and the Vice President who has real personal interest and passion for this is the chairman. The space counsel has done wonderful work in coordinating agency wide the work of the whole government and permitting reform at the department of transportation is certainly a major issue. There was a rule making that was initiated and we are decreasing the number of overly burdensome regulations. Making it easier to have one stop shop. With the relarelaunchable, reus rocket, that decreased the cost of using commercial space ant was a boom to the industry. Staying up in the air or at least i assume still up in the air that youre also doing some work to encourage super sonic flight and making testing easier for new technology. Could you tell us whats being done there . Thats also the faa. There are new starts that are thinking about restoring and bringing back super sonic flights. Obviously, safety would be a huge concern. Noise would be a second. Stake holders to work early in the process with the faa they will get a better idea to what the regular larts want. We encourage early participation and collaboration. Collaboration may be a bad word. They need to let the regulars know so theyre not going way off stream and the regulars can tell them this is the right way. This is the wrong way. Tell us about the Technology Council that you set up. We have been hearing about hyper loop. I spoke with the former mayor of chicago to have a hyper loop built between the inner city of chicago and ohare. I realize the department of transportation is structured in a very siloed way. I dont think it would be a surprise to anyone. We dont really have a place that can respond to informational requests from people who want to know what the governments role is and what will the department of transportation do. Federal ans igs would be involved. Its in vacuum tube so faa would be involved. They always need Environmental Impact statements this mean the highways would be involved. We sat up this council that would bring all the heads of these various offenses togeth together offenices together d provide a one place shop for new and emerging Technology Innovators to come and ask how did they proceed . What do they have to do . How do they fulfill all the regulatory requirements . Because that is very necessary. They just cant were all for innovation but innovation condition guidelines of safety, security and privacy. Thats how this concept began. We have found it to be absolutely amazing in terms of the reception. I just saw someone from hyper loop yesterday and they were just so enthusiastic and excited about they not having to figure out how we work but be able to go to one place with fepeople w know what they are talking about and advise them responsibly on what the regulators require. I know that time is tight. Coming back to the question im interested in giving out information. Im interested in empowering others so they have the information to act. We try to be very transparent and very responsive. Im not a media hound. Youre not. Should the gas tax be raised . Thats been a topic of discussion. President has talked about. Certain republicans and democrats. I think thats a its larger issue of what will we do in our infrastructure bill. Lets decide on that first. Well come to how are we going to fund it, how are we going to pay for it . How are we going to finance it . One of the ways suggested is undoing some of the tax cuts. Is that also on the table . I think thats probably not on the table. Clearly, how to pay for it, how to finance our infrastructure needs is a huge issue and we really wanted to be on a bipartisan basis because this is something that every american cares about. With that, i think we have come to the end of our time. [ applause ] thats it for today. I hope youll come back to policy discussions. We have these events every so often. Thanks for much, everybody. Thanks so much. Tonight, American History tv looks at postcold war u. S. Policy. Well hear about japanese relations after world war ii. Lart later a behind the scenes look at a cuban revolution. Its tonight on cspan3 starting at 8 00 eastern. In 1979, a Small Network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. Let viewers make up their own minds. Cspan opened the doors to washington policy making for all to see bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. A lot as changed in 40 years but today that big idea is more relevant than ever. By television and online, cspan is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. Brought to you as a Public Service by your cable or satellite provider. President trump sat down for an interview with cspan this week. He discussed his toughest day in office so far, political divisions in the country, racism, his use of twitter and the 2020 president ial race. You can watch the interview on cspan at 10 00 a. M. Eastern saturday. Its Available Online any time at cspan. Org. After that, the first of this weeks two democratic debates posted by cnn. The first debate had ten candidates. Watch that saturday morning on cspan. Sunday, the second debate will air. Both on cspan. This weekend on American History tv, saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on lectures in history. Comparisons between Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson on the constitution. You take a look at the whole cartoon. Its a different impression of what people thought. Not that he was a defender but he did not understand the constitution. It was above his ability and that he was acting in unconstitutional ways. Sunday at 6 00 on american artifacts, a review of the amendment at the national ar kooi archives. Women in new jersey who were the first voters beginning in 1776 when new jersey became a state, the new jersey state constitution made no mention of sex when discussing voting qualifications. It only had a property requirement. Women who own enough property primarily widows and single women so not all women in new jersey could and did vote in elections at the local, state and national level. At 8 00 p. M. , on the presidency, author john farrow talks about nixon early life. He went to every rotary club, every chamber of commerce, every vfw and American Legion hall. Every crowd that would take him. He owed them his best judgment, not his obedience. He convinced them. When the Party Primaries were held in california in december of 1948, Richard Nixon won the republican and democratic nomination. He ran opposed first Reelection Campaign. Explore our nations past on American History tv every weekend on cspan3. The House Oversight Committee Held a hearing on the future of the Affordable Care act under the Trump Administration. We hear from supporters and opponents of the law as well as patient who is have been fitben from it