>> we'll talking with the presidend ceo of pcia, the wireless infrastructure association, about his organization and how it makes wireless communications possible. then a constitution about transportation policy with officials from the federal railroad and federal traffic administrations. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> host: and joining us this week on "the communicators" is jonathan idle steven who served

for several years on the communications commission, also as administrator of the rural utility service and now is head of pcia, the wireless infrastructure association which is what, mr. adelstein? >> guest: this association represents the company that builds wireless networks, basically, the ones that deliver all of that content to your cell phone, your smartphone, your tablet. the big cell phone companies are on there, at&t, verizon, sprint, t-mobile as well as companies that own and build the cell towers, the antennas that you find in shopping malls. all of the equipment that's behind the scenes that makes possible what you see on that little screen. >> host: so how many cell towers are there in the u.s. right now this. >> guest: there's hundreds of thousands of them and, you know, the fact is it's hard to keep up with the level of demand that we have for new infrastructure because of the demands that consumers are placing on the infrastructure we have today. >> host: what are some of the

legislative issues that your organization focuses on? >> guest: well, we're focused on making sure that we can eliminate barriers to getting those networks in place, building out these networks is our priority. so sometimes there are local siting issues, sometimes there are federal rules that might affect how we deploy things or what the impact might be on historic sites or the environment. we want to make sure we are sensitive to those issues. at the same time, we want to move forward on deployment because our customers, those who use these devices every day in their lives, depend on having a good, strong connection on getting the day-to-day want where they want it, wherever they want it, and that means having a really robust wireless network,. >> sos the spectrum auctions upcoming, big deal to you guys? >> guest: a very big deal. the fact that there is not

enough going forward for the demand on the networks. in the next five years there's going to be an eightfold increase on the amount of data travels over these networks. the question is, how do you deal with that? basically, there's three levers that our companies use to make sure they can meet those demands. they use spectrum, and they need more spectrum. they can use technology like moving from a 3g technology to what's called 4g, fourth generation, is more efficient. it allows to travel more over the same spectrum. and the third lever is infrastructure, the one we represent at pcia. infrastructure is what delivers that out there. now, the spectrum auction's he's because it takes many years. people don't really think about the fact it takes many years once spectrum is allocated for it to actually take that data off of existing frequencies on to new frequencies. and that's because we need to change out the handsets that people are using, and that doesn't happen every day.

it happens over a series of years that the old happenedsets come out -- handsets come out. many people are still using old 3g handsets and many using 2g, feature phones. we're going to be waiting a long time, and tear not allocating it fast enough to get that in place. that's why we need this auction to happen as soon as possible. i think chairman wheeler's being careful and deliberate about how he's getting it dope, but in the meantime, we're talking about several years before we really get much help and maybe more than that from that particular band of spectrum. so we're not seeing a lot of new spectrum coming out. so the short term is infrastructure, and you know you're in trouble when your short-term solution is infrastructure because it takes a long time to get these things zoned, sited, built, up and running. that's what carriers were saying, i was talking to a major network for one of the carriers who said in a spectrum-constrained world, we need to densify our networks.

that means they're building in, they're adding more antennas within where they might have one on a tower now, they'll colocate next door, build a new one, talking about putting small cells in place in what are called contributed antenna systems that might go in a convention center, a shopping mall or stadium. so we're looking at all these different solutions to deal with the fact that there's this sue tsunami of data that members are demanding, and we want to keep up with that. it helps local communities to keep up with this. we want to make sure our data is welcome, it can roll out quickly, effective and deliver the service consumers want at an affordable price. >> host: joining our conversation is paul kirby, telecommunications reports. >> one of the things pcia has pushed for is legislation that would allow you to probe pose infrastructure. ways to deploy that

infrastructure in a more streamlined, easier fashion, and some of the localities say it would violate zoning laws and their sovereignty. wanted to get, i guess, your response to that argument and why the rules the fcc's looking at is important. >> guest: look, local authorities are our partners in building these wireless networks. we wouldn't have this huge system, we talked about all those towers and antennas in place today if we hadn't gotten approval from local authorities. what congress said in the law they enacted in 2012 as part of the broader piece of spectrum legislation was that they want to make broadband a national priority. what the fcc has said is that broadband ask a national -- is a national priority. what we're asking for in this rulemaking that the fcc's looking at is let's have localities join that, and increasingly i think they are seeing the importance of broadband to their communities, to jobs, to health care, to education, and they're acting to get these things done, but not

all of them are. so what we're saying is, look, everybody needs to get onboard. six states this year alone have enacted legislation to streamline broadband deployment. we expect that the fcc is going to do the same. they've been really very great partners with us and working with state and local government toss make sure we can get broadband where it needs to go. now, there's a lot of reasons for this. we issued a study recently, people talk all the time about the economic benefits in broadband. we said let's put pen to paper and put a number on it. we had independent economists research this, and our companies are making huge investments in capital expenditures, the largest of almost any industry this the world. $35 billion a year over the next five years each year they're going to be investing in the united states in infrastructure building these things out. what does that mean though? that small investment has disproportionate impact on the economy because broadband is

revolutionary in how it changes everything. it changes how businesses operate, where jobs are created, how health care's delivered, how education is taught. all of these things are made possible by wireless broadband. so this study calculated what is the value to the economy. it turns out that we expect, if policymakers allow us to make these investment, that there will be 1.3 trillion with a t increased economic activity additional gross domestic product, gdp, as a result of these investments in wireless infrastructure over the next five years, and that translates into 1.3 million jobs. that's 1.3 million jobs at a time when we don't have enough. not just in the wireless industry, but in all the other industries that are adding. but it also takes some away. you might not have as many toll booth operators when people are using a wireless network to whip

through the toll lane. so local communities, i think, are getting this. so's the fcc. >> but specifically, i mean, some of the rules concern one of the proposals that the industry has favored is a few years ago the fcc adopted what are called their shot clock rule and basically says localities have to act by a certain period of time. the industry has said, okay, if they don't do it by then, it should be deemed granted. why is that necessary? >> guest: well, congress saw the need for this. congress said in this law in 2012 that they passed that if an application is made for local zoning that it must be approved, must be approved and cannot with denied. cannot be denied. that is congress. so what they're saying, is and these are in the case of when you're colocating, in other words, you might have an existing tower that at&t is op, but t-mobile wants to colocate.

so rather than building a new tower, why not let them do that? why not let them go on? that shouldn't require new zoning because the tower was already zoned. so why would you go through that process again? the president has set a goal of 98% of the country having wireless broadband by 2016, and what congress is saying, what we're asking the fcc to interpret is there's no room for delay when it's something that should be automatic. >> you mentioned earlier distributed antenna system. they are among a category that are not the full-sized towers people are used to seeing. tell us why it's necessary for the fcc to adopt rules to streamline the deployment of what are called das systems. >> guest: these are smaller, by definition. they don't take up space of a 200-foot tower, they're not as intrusive, and they shouldn't be subject to the same rules. the macro system, we call it, of

towers is going to be the backbone of the network no matter what. but there's a need to fill in spaces where there's extra demand inside of a stadium in a very busy urban corridor where they want to put small cells to target that capacity to where people are using their devices and drawing down a lot of data. but if same requirements go to each one of these antennas, each node on the antenna system is going to slow the process down. as a matter of fact, it'll kill the business model. frankly, this is very expensive building these networks out. and the fact that these companies are forced to do this because there's not enough spectrum is something that we are seeing, because they need to get the service where it's got to go. but you can break the back of the business model if it ends up costing the same amount in terms of regulatory compliance to put in each cell as they would have to go through to build an entire tower. so these are not going to provide the same level of coverage, they can't be subject to the same costs and regulatory

hurdles or it won't work. so if we want to get service where it's needed, we need to do that. i mean, take the example of poles. we're talking about utility poles. a lot of times you can put a communications device on them. because it's a licensed communications device, it gets through all this regulatory review. it was a transformer that the electric company that owns that pole was putting up, there's none of these reviews because it's different. but, in fact, the small cell would be smaller than a transformer. and yet because it is what it is, it has to go through additional regulatory hurdles. all we're saying is let's streamline this process. yes, let's make sure that all the bases are properly covered, but there needs to be a stream laurened, quicker process -- streamlined, quicker process. the cable companies are trying to build out these wi-fi networks, and they've done well so far, but they're going to run into more and more issues if we don't streamline the process. the fcc totally gets that. the fcc's working with us on

that. >> host: jonathan adelstein, you talk about streamlining, is that something congress can work on or are you talking about localities? >> guest: this is really both federal and local, how they look at the small cell versus the large tower. there are federal rules in terms of historic preservation, section 106, there's an environmental protection act that apply. so the question is how do you streamline that process so that the fcc doesn't get caught up. if that happens, we're not going to be able to bring the benefit of broadband to these communities. it's going to get slowed down irretrievably. there's no time to wait. the president, the fcc, the congress have said we need to get these networks built quickly. if we find we're throwing regulatory hurdles in front of each little node on a 200-knolled antenna system, it's going to take forever and kill the business model. that's why we're looking at streamlining federal rules, streamlining local and state

willinglations as well. >> host: do you face in your industry nimby, not in my backyard rules? >> guest: well, sure we do. you hear people concerned about whether something's going to be sited in their back yard, but that shouldn't block the majority of the community. there might be a handful saying not in my backyard, but others are saying we want this. and increasingly we're seeing, yes, in my backyard. people want this. most young folks that you talk to don't even have a wire line phone anymore, and 40% of all americans don't use a wire line phone. so they want cell service. when a young person's shopping for a home or using a realtor, one of their must haves is wireless service. i mean, my kids have to have their broadband. you won't put up with it if you don't get good service. but what about, you know, that? the attitude is really shifting. we're finding that people are

increasingly welcoming. yes, there are always people that don't want it in their back yard, but that's precisely why the industry's responding. we're targeting to where it's needed most, building distributed antenna systems where there's demand, we can, you know, hide and do stealth techniques to make things blend into the environment more. but in the end, look, we've got to build bigger networks. there's no way to meet that kind of demand over the next five years without building more infrastructure. and people, i think, are beginning to get that. >> another issue the industry's always faced is an issue that some localities try to get authority over. they have no authority over it. it's an fcc issue. that's something you always face even with small cells, even with das. people say, okay, fine, das is small, but what if there's 100 of them or 1,000 of them, so how do you counter that? >> guest: i think people need better education on this.

all the studies have shown this is perfectly safe, but i understand that people have concerns, and we need to address them. the fcc now is involved this doing a comprehensive study of rf, radio frequency emissions and what safety implications there are, if any. we really believe, i mean, i was on the fcc for seven years, there's no way they're not going to protect the public. that's what they do for a living, and they set the rules. localities, by law under section 322 of the communications act, are not allowed to take this into consideration this local zoning decisions, but they do it all the time, you know? they say don't put it near a school. don't put it near a school? those kids are using broadband every minute of the day. they're sucking up huge demand on their ipads be, their iphones, using it for their education. that's preseussly where we need it. as a matter of fact, some schools can gain revenue, and it's completely safe. look, i understand, you know,

some soccer dad or soccer mom might not know because that's not what they do for a living. so it's very important the fcc put out, i think, intelligible information to the public from a reputable source, the fcc, as to what is and isn't safe so that parents feel comfort can be, as they should. because every study's come back the same way. will really are no serious health implications here, and if there were, i wouldn't be in this job. i mean, i believe we need to get this broadband out, and it's something we can do with complete safety. but the public, i think, needs to be educated about that. i think -- and understandably so. >> now, fcc chairman tom wheeler's been very active since he came in november. he worked for the wireless industry when you were at the fcc, he was the head of ctia. can you give us a sense of how he's done so far, and are there issues he hasn't addressed so far that you would nudge him on?

>> guest: well, you know, i think chairman tom wheeler is the right person at the right time for that job. i was thrilled when the president announcemented his appointment. i've known him for many years, and he is a person of impeccable integrity, he's a person who's a strategic thinker, he's decisive, he's bold when he needs to be, he's thoughtful and careful. he's remarkable in how fast he's moving on a number of fronts at the fcc. he's able to manage, he's able to draw on the lessons of he'sly and understand that we're at a pivotal point many american history where we have this opportunity to build this enormous network that's going to transform be how we live our daily lives, how we educate our kids, how we deliver health care, how we have our first responders go into a burning building with the blueprints on them. he gets all that, and he's focused like a laser beam on how do we enable this to happen. so he's look at how the capital flows, and he gets. and if there's delays because of regulatory hurdlings that capital won't blow to

investment -- flow to investment to get signal where it needs to be for the end user. you know, a priority for us is this notice of rulemaking that we mentioned at the beginning, this idea that we can streamline broadband deployment. acting chairwoman clyburn put it forward when she was the chairwoman of the fcc, the previous chairman, julius genachowski, began the process. commissioner pi is calling for moving this quickly, and i think the chairman will move it quickly and take strong action to try to do what congress asked, to get broadband quickly deployed so that the end users can benefit from it, so we can get those jobs and economic development. if there's one thing i think he needs to think about is we really have an issue with resources. putting so many new sites in place. for example, at&t talked about 40,000 small cells is going to place an enormous burden on the fcc. there needs to be adequate

resources for compliance. there are a number of issues coming up where there is an overwhelming number of deployments happening that is really making it difficult for the fcc to have kind of the day-to-day blocking and tackling it takes to get these things moved so that we can respond to consumer demand for wireless data. and it's not big, giant proceedings every day, but just making sure that those resources are there to move through the applications that happen, to move through the review processes that are required. that's something that i don't think he'll take his eye autoball -- >> so you're concerned they need -- well, all of, actually, the fcc's budget comes from fees they assess on licensees, but do you think congress needs to authorize a greater amount for fcc? they don't have the resources they need to do the day-to-day job? >> guest: i think congress needs to approve the full budget fcc requests. they run a lean budget.

when it comes to having people in place to be able to respond to native american concerns about siting on their areas, i come from south dakota and you see some of the most difficult circumstances, it's hardest to deploy in areas where it's needed most because they can transform those economies on the reservations. but it won't happen if it gets caught up, and it turns out the rules on indian reservations are very time consuming because of the ownership of the land and trust ownership of the land. so it takes resources. it takes the people to move through that. otherwise to we're not going to get broadband where it needs to go. >> host: jonathan adelstein, you said that the goal and 98% wireless broadband coverage by 2016. where are we now? >> guest: well, you know, there's different numbers on where we are. the president's goal of 98% is something i think we're able to achieve by 2016. we're getting there, you know? nta has certain numbers, and industry has its own. the important thing is that we need to move as quickly as welcome. we'd like to get to 100

president. some of these last areas are very difficult and cost prohibitive to get to. but we can't afford to delay at all. and it's not just a coverage issue, it's a capacity issue too. and i think the president and his team and those in congress on a bipartisan basis get this as well, that in the old days we were building out the n back in -- the network back in 2000 to make sure everybody has coverage so i can get my phone call through. now, in particularly urban, dense areas there's so much traffic that we need to put more and more equipment in order to deal with the capacity issues. because we only have a limited amount of spectrum, and the same amount of spectrum in you are wan with areas -- urban areas as rural, but a lot more traffic in the busier areas. so how do we infill those networks so we can, like i said earlier, densify the networks, split those cells up so you can use those same frequencies more furtherly over and over again.

>> host: put up -- put on your former fcc commissioner hat and then put on your infrastructure association hat. sprint/t-mobile potential merger, what are your thoughts? >> guest: well, you know, it's hard to take one hat off because they're both members of mine, so it's not something i can really get in the middle of, but i can certainly see there's been a lot of talk about it, there's been unusual signals sent by the regulators about it, and it's something we're certainly, you know, watching out for. >> the house energy and commerce committee is looking at an update of the communications act, and it's a process that is expected to take years. what would you advise them? you mentioned spectrum legislation passed a couple years ago as part of the middle class tax relief act. would you recommend other things they take on legislatively to help you specifically? >> guest: it's been a long time, paul, since the telecommunications act was passed in '96. we've seen generations of new wireless technology implemented

since that time. it really is time for an update. i think the house leadership is right on in asking for a really deep thought about it, and they're going about it the right way. they're asking let's do some papers, let's do some analysis, let's prepare the way intellectually, thoughtfully about where we're going to head and where the holes are. so i think that that's a good idea, you know? these new technologies are just a preview of things to come. 5g and 6g networks are coming. how are we going to pave the way more all of that? well, one thing that the communications act might, you know, be revised to consider is technological neutrality. frankly, it can be harder to build wireless networks than wireline. there should be ways to think about it so that they're not treated in a sort of a second class way or added new regulatory hurdles to the very kind of broadband we're trying to get out. i think congress should ask the question why is wireless held to a higher standard?

let's try to get it out. if anything, i think we should encourage wireless broadband at every stage of deployment. we've seen that from congress. i really believe congress wants to do that, and we are really anxious to engage with them, discuss this issue with them, figure out how we deal with the challenges that come with the amount of data we're seeing demanded by consumers, and the act rewrite, i think, is going to take a long period of time. usually these things don't happen in just one congress, it can take several congresses to get it done. but the time to begin as leadership in the house has indicated is now. >> there's another network underway, it's the first responder network, and it would be a nationwide public safety broadband network. they only have $7 billion which is not much, so they said we want to try to partner as much as we can with the private sector because there are hundreds of thousands of cell towers out there. what are your members hoping to be able to gain, and what opportunities are they hoping for from the firstnet network?

>> guest: well, it's long overdue. i worked on this when i was in the fcc in 2006 and 2007, and unfortunately, we failed to properly allocate that spectrum, what was called the d block which was allocated for public safety to public safety in a way that could work. it was really one of the great tragedies, because after 9/11 everybody said, hey, the priority is let's make sure that our first responders have access to the communications they need. we sent hundreds of firefighters in that building to their death, and they didn't have proper communication with each other, they didn't have broadband capacity. it was just a tragedy, and much of it could have been avoided with proper communication. we can't let that happen again. so it's essential that firstnet succeed. our members are prepared to do everything they can to help our first responders have a network that is second to none. yet you're right, they don't have enough funding to do it. $7 billion is a very important down payment, but you can't build a nationwide network with that.

congress, i think wisely, required that they work with existing assets, existing infrastructure to the degree possible, and there's already a great, you know, network of existing infrastructure that they can site on. a lot of decisions yet to be made by firstnet about how they want to set up their system whether go through an existing provider, build their own. with the amount of funding they have, i think they're going of to have to rely certainly on the infrastructure that exists, and our members are really ready and anxious to see this succeed so that we can help them accomplish a goal that we all, first as americans, so badly want to see to help the people that put themselves in harm's way. we want to make sure that when that firefighter goes into that building, that he gets at home at night to see his kids. >> host: jonathan adelstein, should net neutrality rules also apply to wireless network? >> guest: well, you know, it's an interesting question we looked at when i was at the if,. >>, c. -- at the fcc.

we haven't seen any complaints about the way wireless networks are set up and, you know, people are charged more for the amount of data that they use. you get charged by the amount of use, there's also uncapped if you want to get that from some of, our members offer it. these are things that are working well. i mean, the carriers have to manage their networks, and network management is more complex because there's more constraints in wireless networks than there are in wireline networks. simply isn't the spectrum, there isn't the capacity always, so they need to move things around and make sure that they can optimize the use of networks and of the spectrum. so it gets very tricky in wireless, how you do that. and the good news is that all of our carriers believe in an open internet. i mean, there are no concerns there as far as wireless that i've heard that are serious about how they're conducting

their business. consumers are thrilled they can go anywhere, use any application anytime today want on their devices -- they want on their devices so long as they're legal. that is something that we're proud of, and i don't see really the need on wireless networks for any additional regulation. >> host: time for one last question. >> so another issue is positive train control. congress is requiring railroads to deploy this by the end of 2015. it's going to require more than 20,000 antennas, they're called wayside unit, near tracks. the fcc is looking at a way to maybe do them in batches, that kind of thing. the tribes, the state historic preservation officers and some others are concerned with this proposal from the fcc saying it won't give them enough say to insure cultural and historic resources are protected. you all filed comments in there and generally supportive of the proposal but suggesting a few modifications, i just wanted to give you a chance to kind of weigh in this on what the fcc

should or should not do to help that process. >> guest: positive train control is required by congress and for good reason, to protect the public that these, you know, these trains can be controlled using this technology, but as you said, requiring 20,000 new sites for wireless service is a huge undertaking. a lot of them do go through native lands. but that's combined with all the building operations that our folks are engaged in. our people are building out huge numbers of new sites as well, and this is the resource issue i was talking about. the fcc's trying to figure out where to streamline this, and they need to because they don't have the resources to go through all of this. most of that is on disturbed land. this is on railroad right-of-way, areas that are not necessarily pristine, they've already been plowed over and railroad right-of-way for many years and some cases well over a century. so we're really supportive of

streamlining that process as well as all of the other siting issues that are before the fcc. that's why the fcc needs to figure out a way to do this quickly. they've taken the right approach in what's called looking at a program comment or looking at categorical exclusions for some of these. the more they can get sort of out of the way, the more they can focus on what really might be of any significance, and it's the same with many other aspects, and we have a number of issues of wireless facilities that need to be addressed, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort by tribes and the fcc staff and others to get it done. we can't afford to have a lengthy, cumbersome process. or we can't get the train control done. if we can't get our infrastructure in place and when firstnet starts to deploy, it's going to find itself stymied. we have a bunch of public safety towers that are out of compliance that they need to go

back through and fix. there are a lot of these day-to-day blocking and tackling issues that the fcc needs to go after, and i'm sure they will. >> host: gentlemen, thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thanks for having me. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your it's provider -- television provider. >> all this week on c-span2 we'll bring you booktv programs in prime time. tonight our focus is on u.s./russia relations. at 8:30 eastern, british journalist edward lucas talks about his book, "the new cold war." that's followed at 10:05 with political scientist ilan berman who predicts the collapse of russia in "implosion." then at 1 1u 05, we conclude with "after words" and guest

host dimitri simes who interviews angela tent on her book, "the limits of partnership." book booktv in prime time all this week on c-span2. >> next, a discussion about transportation policy. officials with the federal railroad and federal transit administrations discuss the president's 2015 budget request as well as other issues including railroad safety. the discussion was part of a recent daylong legislative conference of the american public transportation association held in washington d.c. it runs a little over an hour. >> welcome to the last session of the day. my name is diana mendez, and i'm the vice chair of the legislative committee. i know you've all had an uplifting and invigorating day, and we're going to continue that with our session this afternoonh

we are really delighted to host for you a discussion with the ta key modal administrators from the u.s. department of transportation. today's session will coverfo important program updates and initiatives will be discussed along with a discussion of the v administration's view on transit and rail legislation pending before congress. we will take questions after we hear from both of our distinguished guests. pending before congress. we'll take questions after we hear from our distinguished guests. i will introduce the speakers and we'll hold questions to the end of the session. it's my pleasure to introduce our first speaker, trees mcmillan, joined as deputy administrator? july of 2009. she's currently acting in the capacity of federal transit administrator and leading a staff of more than 500 in

washington, d.c. headquarters and ten regional offices throughout the united states. these offices implement a budget approximating 10 billion. with the passage of authorization map 21, she's assumed a key role in guiding fta's implementation of transit related provisions in the law and overseeing the development of critical guidance during her tenure, she has also played an integral leadership role in advancing several critical fta priorities to deliver quality and delivery of transit services to the american public. some of these include leading a major reform of civil rights responsibilities, including new guidance for transit grantees and title 6 and environmental

justice, overseeing the construction of the compliance grants, assisting with the development of a extreme lined process for new and small starts program and new funding opportunities for state of good repair and transit assets. she has worked closely to ensure the timely allocation of $8.78 billion for over 1,000 recovery act grants that created or retained over 12,500 jobs and strengthened and enhanced public transportation for working americans and their communities. so a long list of tremendous accomplishments, including launching a national conversation and research effort to help transit agencies adapt to changing weather patterns and natural disasters. prior to her appointment,

mcmillan was the executive dpu it director at the san francisco bay's metropolitan transportation commission, where she was responsible for strategic financial planning and mtc management of federal, state and regional fund sources for transit, highways and roadways and other modes, state and federal legislative advocacy and public affairs and community outreach. she received her bachelor's degree in environmental policy and planning analysis from the university of california davis. and joint masters of city planning masters of science and city planning civil engineering science degree from uc berkeley. please help me in welcoming our very accomplished trees mcmil n mcmillan. thank you. [ applause ]

thanks so much for hanging with us. it's been quite the week. we've made a lot of progress together. we've been working shoulder to shoulder up until now but boy, there's another road we're going to have to travel. as you heard this morning, secretary fox is a dynamic and forward looking leader with a commitment to public transit growing out of his own personal experience experiences not just as big city mayor but someone who grew up using transit. it's a pleasure working for him as part of the reauthorization and budget initiative that you'll be hearing me speak to as well as joe. secretary fox's leadership combined with the obama administration's unflagging commitment to strengthen public transportation, puts us in a good position to fight for the resources we know we need going forward and again as you heard, that fight is not going to be an easy one. we're not going to win all of

the battles, which is why we need you as our key partners to make the case as forcefully as possible to the members who represent you in congress. we've said it before and say it again and it's one of the really important roles that i hope you walk out of this session that mike and his team has put together as a key takea way. let me summarize where we are heading from ftaperspective, the aggressive budget that you saw unvamed by president obama last week would increase, fta funding by more than 60% over the last appropriation. big historic asks and big needs. that's the key story we need to tell. we need the resources to paf the way for the initiative, a

four-year, $302 billion package that will bring us more predictable funding to help us tackle the challenges that we all face the two speak volumes about the commitment to revitalize public transportation and address infrastructure deficit and provide ladders of opportunities too millions of americans who need transit as an access every single day. you are the ones working with them in the field to make that happen. the fact to support the big ask are crystal clear. the demand for transit is rising. historic 10.7 billion trips, the biggest annual ridership level we've seen since 1957. again, due to all of the good work that you all put out there the u.s. population will grow by

a third between now and 2060, 120 million more people who are going to need to get around. the number of seniors aging in place will probably become more transit dependent. i will be part of that population in the not so near future as many of us in this room will be. so we need to be mindful of that need coming forward. in many of our larger cities, rail transit is already or at capacity. at the same time, the nation is facing a serious infrastructure deficit, the numbers again that fta rolled out with conditions and performance report, $86 billion and if we do not change our investment levels that is going to grow by 2.5 billion a year. the program changes we saw were

to meet the challenges and to some extent we have. for example, 21 did create a more needs based state of good repair formula program to fix our fixed guide way systems and established a national transit asset management system to ensure that all of the grantees will adopt a strategic and individualized approach for managing their capital assets. and that they'll be held accountable for leveraging all available resources to bring systems into a state of good repair. this is one of the foundational pieces that map 21 brought to bear and i've been very grateful for the cooperation and good ideas we've been hearing from the industry on that. we have issued or in the process of issuing, new regulations in guidance to accelerate project delivery and stream line the need for process and help your communities build the transit systems they need more quickly

and efficiently. we've heard that with we came in with the administration and working tirelessly as a team to make that happen. on the safety front, a foundational change again for the federal transit administration, that was -- new thortd was created in map 21 and we issued a historic advanced notice of proposed rule making last fall that addresses for the first time safety and transit asset management in an interrelated way. they truly go hand in hand we fleed to confront the necessity of balancing both. we are in the process of reviewing many, many comments that we received on that notice and your input has been critical. the thing that we take away from this, there is no one size fits all to addressing safety and state of good repair and transit asset management. we have very large systems and very small systems.

they need to meet these requirements but we want to provide a common sense way of letting them deal with their risk as they see them in their systems. and you all have been working very closely with us and giving us a lot of input on that point. map 21 has set us on the right path but there's a lot more to be done. the budget for 2015 keeps us moving forward and smooths out the bumps we acquired and made the point that map 21 provided many of the right policies not the right level of funding. that's not a new story, but the new story is that the president's budget for fiscal year 15, amounting to $7.6 million is looking that in the face and responding in a very positive way. it continues operational support for the state safety oversight agencies, that are helping us as partners with our safety

initiative, that budget level lifts research and training to $60 million and funds our new emergency relief programs and when a disaster strikes your communities, we're going to be. >> referee: ready to pivot and respond immediately. it increases formula grants and includes an additional $5 million to support the strategic fix-it first investments that need to respond to the $86 billion infrastructure deficit. and very importantly addressing needs not only for rail but for buses and bus facilities. we heard from members and many others, that the funding in the bus and bus facility program particularly under map 21 simply isn't sufficient for operators in small urbanized communities or in our rural areas who need to make significant bus acquisitions very often on a lumpy schedule as we like to

say. so the president's budget is going to increase funding for that particular program, more than three-fold and add a new discretionary program to help answer the concerns we've been hearing. again, we've heard you and responded as part of that budget as one example in that area. the budget also includes, $2.5 billion for our capital investment grant program fondly known as new start now program. last month we recommended 26 projects in 16 states for capital funding under the banner from subways in l.a. to commuter rail in orlando, street cars in fort lauderdale, there is no demand to expand transit in communities across the nation.

this $2.5 billion is again a big number. there's other projects in the pipeline. we're respondsing to the needs that you are bringing to us. those projects will sustain thousands of construction jobs now and help communities expand transportation choice and grow their economies in years to come. another thing we've been hearing from you and want to continue to hear from you that transit makes a difference in terms of the communities that it serves and the development that is happening in the corridors and around the transit stations. i was just in texas with gary and hearing about the $7 billion of investments that's been generated from his light rail system. and again, hearing this on a consistent basis. but very importantly, these transit investments also can help build ladders of opportunities to connect people

to jobs and within their communities. working in the transit industry itself can be a ladder of opportunity providing a family a real supportive job too help lift them to the middle class and provide a real sense of accomplishment. today's rapidly changing technologies heighten the need for continued training and to develop our workforce in a creative and forward thinking fashion. we need highly skilled workers to maintain competitive and efficient public transportation systems and that's why the president's budget also includes a request f$20 million to foste the development of a stronger workforce. each of these priorities is essential for the work ahead and they help set the stage for the next major authorization. president obama's reauthorization proposal as i mentioned before provides the $302 billion over four years for transit systems, highways and

rail systems providing that predictable long-term funding that's sufficient to meet the needs of a growing nation as secretary faust presented today. transit share of that $302 billion is $72 billion over four years. as was presented this morning, the amount of funding overall is also going to help critically help fill the hole in the highway trust fund. if our nation is going to continue to grow and foster success for everyone, 2014 has to be our year of action. president obama said as much in his state of the union address a few weeks ago. to make all of that reality, we need congress to act and for you as well. go out, meet with your lawmakers and above all, make yourself heard. because your stories and your experience is the best advocacy

that we have every voice is valid and deserves a response. we look forward to working with you as we prepare to send this bill to congress. and help turn this vision of transportation into a reality. thank you so much for having me >> well, thank you very much, therese, for your insightful remarks and inspiration to us all. thank you. now i have the pleasure of introducing the next distinguished speaker, and nominated on march 20, 2009, and confirmed by the united states senate on april 29, 2009, joseph c. say bow is the 19th administrator of the federal -- 12th administrator of the federal railroad administration. he leads a staff of over 900 professionals located in washington, d.c. and at field offices across the united states, and the this work force develops and enforces safety regulations, manages financial

assistance programs, oversees research and technology development programs. their mission, to enable the safe, reliable and efficient piew. of people and goods -- movement of people and goods for a strong america now and in the future. mr. sabo is a fifth generation railroader who between 2006 and 2009 was vice president of the illinois afl-cio to. he has served as mayor of riverdale, illinois, as a member of the south suburban mayors' transportation committee and as vice chairman of the chicago area transportation studies executive committee. in 2002 he chaired the governors' freight rail subcommittee, and in 2005 was assigned by the united transportation union international to the fra's railroad safety advisory committee where he participated in the development of rail safety regulations.

mr. sabo has served on the executive council of the chicago metropolis 2020 focusing on land use planning and transportation issues, and he was also a minute of the chicago land metropolitan planning council. he holds a back lawyer auate degree -- baccalaureate degree in relations, and he is the recipient of an honorary dock rate from lewis university for his lifetime commitment to public service. please join me in welcoming administrator sabo. [applause] in welcoming administrator szabo. >> well, thank you. and good afternoon, afta. so i guess i'm the one that stands between you folks and likely cocktail hour. so i'll present my remarks and

hopefully we'll have some good question and answer after that. and get on with the rest of the day. it's great to be here this afternoon at afta with fda deputy administrator therese mcmillan. and i'd like to talk to you today about the president's budget proposal will enhance safety and service for the rail industry, including commuter rail. investing in high perform rail system is an integral part of the u.s. department of transportation's efforts to build a safer, more reliable and more efficient multimodal transportation network. the president's 2015 budget request for the federal railroad administration is a blueprint for a four year, $19 billion rail reauthorization that builds upon existing rail policy. and the $23 billion portfolio of investments made since 2009.

and in the president's proposal, for the first time, rail will be put on par with other transportation modes with its own source of dedicated funding. it's part of a rail account within the transportation trust fund. and that's huge. that's a game changer. [ applause ] this is part of a comprehensive strategy for building a high performing rail network by investing in safety, rectifying decades of historic underinvestment. and providing competitive grants for market base enhancements of the nation's rail network. in addition to empowering us to continue investing in rail enhancement, the budget includes $825 million in 2015 to support the installation of positive train control on the nation's commuter railroads. that's another game changer. ptc, positive train control, is the backbone of our efforts to reduce accidents caused by human

factors, our most vulnerable safety area, which contributes to roughly 40% of rail accidents. and ptc is a critical piece of our comprehensive vision to lead the next generation of railroad safety. now, the track record has been good. over the past decade, train accidents have declined by nearly 50%. rail highway grade crossing accidents are down 35%. employee fatalities have been reduced by 59%. new records in safety have been achieved for the past five years. in fiscal year 2013 was even safer than fiscal year 2012 which previously had been our safest year on record. all this has occurred while commuter rail ridership has been growing. amtrak's ridership is growing faster than any other major travel mode and intermodal freight traffic has surged toward record highs. but the bottom line is, we owe it to the public to do better.

we always have to do better. and we expect that from ourselves at fra. and we expect it from the industry that we regulate. so let me share with you my vision for driving the next generation of safety. and it consists of three pillars. first, is continuing strong oversight enforcement that's data driven. second is advancing more proactive safety-based programs that identify and mitigate risk well in advance of an accident. and third is ensuring predictable and sustainable federal funding for rail in order to improve rail vestto dop tho through capital now, our first pillar is safety. our oversight enforcement program is based on the strategic use of day through statistical modeling. we allocate our resources and execute our national inspection plan. and this is a very disciplined approach that has been the

foundation of this dramatic drop in accidents over the past decade. we learn from every accident, do good root causation analysis in order to further mitigate rusk or identify needs for additional regulation. case in point, last month we completed operation deep dive, a 60-day safety assessment of metro north. a comprehensive look at the railroad's entire operations and a plan to release our report by next week when all of our information has been analyzed. and more important, it's not just about going in and preparing a report, but with i look forward to actually not just discussing this with metro north and mta up in new york, but we all have to learn from this. and so i just met earlier today with the commuter rail ceos and told them a i'm looking forward to apta actually hosting a

session, and we're going to bring togetherrer commuter -- every commuter rail ceo many this nation to sit down and talk about the lessons learned in deep dive, best practices and how all of us from my regulatory agency to every commuter railroad in this country, how all of us up our game and learn from this horrendous experience to do better. the public deserves better. now, while our databased enforcement program has been instrumental in driving these new levels of safety, the recent series of commuter accidents on metro north, ask we can't talk in -- and we can't talk in isolation. the tragedy of this crude oil train in quebec exposed a weakness this solely relying on the data. because in both cases the data did not indicate an imminent accident. so while the database approach works, it's driven this decade of improvement, we've exposed an

opening here that we have to fill. and so this takes me to our second pillar in safety which is advancing those proactive safety programs that identify and mitigate risk well in advance of an accident. and this is where the next level of safety's going to come from. proactive programs like systems safety for passenger railroads and risk reduction for freight railroads including programs like confidential close calls reporting. our database approach has historically produced tremendous results. that data comes from accidents that have already occurred. programs like confidential close calls reporting gives us this data before, before an accident occurs, not after. it allows for the development of risk mitigation strategies well in advance. and so at fra we're in the process of completing a final rule that will require commuter

and inner city passenger rail operations to develop system safety programs, and this will be followed by a regulation that require freight carriers to develop risk reduction programs. systems safety, a word that won't be new to most of you here at apta, it's based on a voluntary program for the commuter railroad since the 1990s, but the time has come to now require, require all rail carriers to do these thorough risk analysis, to identify hazards and put into place customized programs to mitigate risk and document the progress. this in combination with technology like positive train control is the future of rail safety. overlying proactive safety programs over and above our traditional oversight and enforcement framework. this brings me to our third pillar, achieving a dedicated and predictable source of funding for rail just like the

president's budget proposes toen hasn't safety -- enhance safety through strong capital investment and technological innovation. as i sated earlier, our four-year service transportation reauthorization proposal will provide rail programs with robust funding, $19 billion over four years, and advance the growing role that rail must play to balance our nation's transportation needs. it sets a course for reversing the federal government's historic underinvestment in amtrak, achieving a state of good repair, providing adequate capital and replacing obsolete equipment and leading way to full ada compliance. it builds on the success of our high-speed and inner city passenger rail program, continuing competitive grants to pursue new passenger rail markets and to proceed with market-based enhancements to services throughout the nation. and it will drive the next

generation of rail safety. it'll support timely installation on commuter operators and amtrak, it'll upgrade track and signal systems, and it'll provide grants to communities to make safety upgrades or mutt gate the adverse impacts on rail through relocation projects or quiet zones. simple fact, the safest grade crossing is one that doesn't exist. and a great example of what we've been able to do through our program, in north carolina through our high speed and inner city passenger rail program, 50 grade crossings between raleigh and charlotte are being closed, effectively sealing that corridor with underpasses and overpasses strategically located to improve traffic flow and enhance safety for vehicles, pedestrians and recall operations. and rail operations. through our ongoing program, we'll be able to fund more

initiatives of this nature. and robust research and development has to supplement capital investment. and through the president's budget request, funding will be continued for the transportation research board's work to advance our national cooperative rail research program including a critical element for work force development to insure that we have the skill set that we need in the next generation to design, construct and operate our next generation of rail this america. in america. a higher performing railroad is also a safer railroad, and building it is as previous generations have realized is a shared responsibility. it's about insuring continuous improvement both in performance and safety. now, fra has also been the part of a comprehensive strategy for insuring the safe transportation of bakken crude oil in partnership with the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration, we're examining the entire system, the entire

process from when the oil comes out of ground until it's delivered to the refindly. making -- refinery. making sure that crude is properly classified and packages to sporting rulemaking for the next generation of tank car, to taking further steps to mitigate risk throughout rail operations. and recently, the association of american railroads committed to a series of immediate voluntary steps that'll provide significant benefits to safety. and our own safety advisory committee with apta input is currently engaged in three tasks regarding hazardous materials, train procurement and crew size with a firm april 1st deadline to complete their work. freight trains, or commuter trains and amtrak trains do not operate in isolation, and these recommendations will enable us to further reduce risk in our complex, interconnected rail system. it's about identifying gaps in safety and determining how

regulation and practices can be improved to close those gaps. this is much like we just did in our track safety standards recently, requiring railroads to adopt a more performance-based approach to rail inspections in order to achieve a reduced defect rate. the new rule insures that rail flaw equipment operators are properly trained and that railroads adopt current best practices and methods for internal detection. and meanwhile, we continue to work with railroads, manufacturers, suppliers and stakeholders to install ptc as reliably and timely as possible. now, while the deadline for ptc installation is up to congress, we acknowledge at fra the ptc is arguably the most complex undertaking the american rail industry has ever endeavored. there's no off-the-shelf product available to drop in place, and implementing it on the scale that we're undertaking here in

the u.s. has never been attempted anywhere else in the world. and so that's why we continue to call on congress to provide us with the necessary tools to effectively manage this complex undertaking, including authority for provisional certifications and funding to support ptc implement talkings on commuter railroads. implementation on commuter railroads. it's save lives -- it'll save lives. now, before i close, let me take a minute to talk about not rail, but i want to talk about streetcars for a second. the president's budget and funding for new equipment got me thinking about the old streetcar design that i know most of you here at apta will be familiar with, the old pcc car or president's conference committee car. formed in 1929 to create a set of standardized specifications for a complete streetcar, it standardized fleets across the united states and, of course, many pcc cars are still in use

around the world today. and so this history is a real testament to the vision of the transit industry some 90 years ago and speaks to power of standardization. and so in a similar vein about four years ago fra brought together the next generation equipment committee to apply the same principle to the development of standards and specifications for next generation inner city passenger rail equipment. we're in the process now of finalizing the sixth technical specification and advancing their second multistate equipment procurement, this time for next generation locomotives that will be running on the midwest and out in california, washington state. and the specifications now being developed for inner city passenger rail, they're publicly available, can easily be adapted to commuter rail. finish and so i'm calling on apta to reembrace its historic

roots and join us in this standardization effort. standardized equipment will cost less to purchase, generating economy of scales and eliminating overhead costs, cost less to operate by generating life cycle maintenance savings and create new opportunities throughout our domestic supply chain. now, we've already seen the benefits of bundling procurements with the bid for the next generation coaches for california and the midwest coming in some 36% below estimate. and it's 100% by america compliant. and so these are efficiencies that cannot be denied. investing in a high performance rail system is an integral part of the u.s. department of transportation's efforts to build a safe, more reliable and more efficient multimodal transportation network. so by providing predictable and reliable federal funding stream for rail initiatives as part of the transportation trust fund,

by advancing proactive safety initiatives and next generation technologies like autonomous track inspections and ptc and by forging partnerships to design and acquire equipment, together we can make this safer, more reliable and more efficient multimodal transportation network a reality and better serve our public. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you, joe, for your very informative remarks and your perspectives on the future of high performance transportation systems. really terrific. lots to talk about. so i'd like to open up the floor to questions from our audience, and if you'd like to ask a question, please approach a microphone, tell us who you are and your affiliation and then ask your question. thank you. >> thank you.

my name's jeff milebeck, i'm the general manager of a transit authority in flagstaff, arizona, and i just want to say thank you to the administration for the restoration and an increase to the bus program. it's critical to the bus industry and you've listened and don't want to let that go without saying thank you. >> great. well, thank you, and we appreciate it. now, this is the proposal in the fiscal year '15 budget and a major part of what we want to see in authorization. so, again, if you like it, advocate for it because, you know, it's not something that, you know, myself or the secretary deliver on our own. so, again, thank you very much for that support, and we'll all need to make sure that that happens going forward. >> thank you. yes, sir. >>ed good afternoon. my name is brian smith, i'm the director of planning in kent, ohio, and also a member of leadership apta 14, required to

give that a plug. [laughter] and i, too, would like to thank you for the budget that the president has put out and your support of it. wanted to let you know that i just got back from the hill, meeting in the longworth building with my general manager and some other staff members advocating for passage of the president's budget and specifically the public transit piece. and would like to take just a minute to share with you something else that we talked with the legislative staff about. you mentioned in your talk about how there's an increased demand for transit and how we have an aging senior pop laughs and that we need to use our a set management programs to provide the safest trips possible to those populations. one of the difficulties we have is with coordinated federal spending, and where that kills us is that we're required to coordinate with the 65 other human service programs that provide funding for transportation, but they're not

necessarily required to coordinate with us. it's like building a highway or building a rail line and then only having 40% of the people use it. it doesn't make any sense. and what can we do to try to get those other, you know, your fellow administrators in the other positions to require their programs to coordinate with us and remove those barriers to coordination. >> well, what you've highlighted is, i think, been one of the more vexing problems that we've had in the transit community, and i say the transit community writ large because as you well put out, federal support for the transit community doesn't always just come from the d.o.t., there are trips that are provided by mhs and department -- hhs and department of labor and others. i'll say a couple of things. i actually was at a harding that senator collins from maine had on -- at a hearing that senator collins from maine had where we

talked about advances that could be made. often what we see is system of the best coordination efforts are coming at the local level. as you well know, i believe it was with t21 or safety, coordinated human services public transportation fund. i should know because i had to do one when i was in the san francisco bay area. it was, i think, a really good first step because really for many, in many instances for the very first time these agencies were even talking to each other. and again, what we've seen this some local area, some very effective partnering that has happened at that level. we had some success at the federal level with our veterans initiatives that we instituted last year, i believe it was. and there we worked very hard bringing in the veterans,

department of defense and the veterans administration, the department of transportation, i believe that labor was also a piece of all of that, and we developed a funding package of one click, one call centers serving not only the veteran population which sorely needed a number of services in the communities, but also the work that was there could be extended to other community needs. and it was, i think, a demonstration that federal agencies actually could work together, break down some of the silos we had in talking and really put together a collaborative program. so we're hoping that going forward the success of that, you know, a sort of that leading edge, not only the leading edge, the agencies first doing it, will be an example that maybe out isn't as hard as people want to make it, and i think you

raids a really good point -- raise a really good point, that we need to put that in our portfolio of efforts going forward to try again whether it be with hhs or other organizations, see if we can make some progress forward. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> please, sir. >> thank you. my name is stephen -- [inaudible] with byd molters, and the question really is -- motors, and the question really is about the fta's support as in particular a manufacturer like byd where we're focusing on alternative forms of energy and the infrastructure that goes around that. i think we're seeing a point in time now where the cost of that infrastructure this particular electric -- in particular electric vehicles is starting to come down and be more in line with the expectations of gas and perhaps even less expensive than cng. so what are the ftc's or the fta's thoughts or feelings going

forward on supporting further layout infrastructure and also the technology coming to market? >> well, i think there was a very similar question that you raised with secretary fox, you know, this morning, and he's, you know, his answer is really reflective of the position that we have moving forward. new technologies are going to be important generally for the industry. transsit has very often been in the forefront of dealing with, you know, protection of the environment has always been part of what we've tried to do in terms of taking cars off the road,s in fossil fuel use, etc. but within the industry, being able to to bring in cleaner technologies has been something we've been supporting across the board. we support innovation, we support companies that want to brung that forward, companies that use the federal dollar, need to work within the federal

structure and the federal regulations, and we work very hard to advance that kind of information, recognizing that, you know, there is that element that we always need to deliver in terms of final products. i mean, at the end of the day, it's innovation -- if innovation helps to create good american jobs, deliver a great product for the riding public, that is really where our focus is going to be. and the development of new technologies is part of that portfolio and is very important. >> thank you very much. the floor is yours. >> michael -- [inaudible] with apta, thank you for being here. we appreciate it. [laughter] a question for administrator szabo. as you so well though, the way the regulation was currently structured, it's a very binary approval process. it's either all there in every segment, all of it together, or it's not. and you touched on the need, the

benefits of traditional approvals. could you expand on that more for us so we could understand why that's such a good thing to get us moving ahead. >> >> >> yeah, thank you, michael, for that question. i had a good conversation with the commuter rail ceos before session just talking about that. as you said, the raw right now, it's like a light switch. it's either on or off. you either comply or you don't, and it's a drop dead date of december, you know, 31, 2015. and the fact of the matter is given all of the technological challenges, the funding challenges there's not a railroad in the country that is going to reach full deployment. this was all articulated in our report to congress 18 months ago. but we feel that because partial deployment still brings significant safety benefits to the public that we need as an agency, i need to be given the

tools that i need to headache these provisional certifications that will allow for partial implementation. actually, what we would do is sit down with each carrier and customize their implementation plan, understanding, you know, the he psychiatry massey of the challenges -- legitimacy of the challenges, what can be achieved with realistic milestones, you know, what is the plan to continue to grow that implementation in a rational manner and then certify provisionally this step-by-step approach. best serves the public. you know, you've got those over here that, you know, want full accountability. well, this achieves accountability. you've got those over here that want to see an extension in flexibility. well, the achieves the appropriate level of flexibility. and because you've had people arguing on all sides, if everybody would come together in the middle with our approach for provisional certification, we can get this dope, get it

done -- get this done, get it done right, get it done rationally and best serve the public. >> thank you so much. and thank you to the d.o.t. and the administration for a very bold proposal coming out. we look forward to seeing the bill drop. thank you for all the effort you're doing. >> thank you. yes, sir. >> rick -- [inaudible] orange county transportation authority, orange county, california. we in orange county at octa we do highways, transit and also the managing directer of the corridor service. my question has to do with buy america, and buy america from -- i'm glad, i want to thank thank, first, for both being here together, and i think that shows a great unity of d.o.t. and the approach that they want to make to transportation. the buy america requirements for people like us of who have maybe some fra money, some fta money can be very daunting. there are three different sets of regulations right now. there are three different approaches, and i know they're base inside schiewrkts

unfortunately, so it's not just as ease a-- easy as meeting in a room and deciding the best approach. can you help us and we will help you in advocating for one best approach to buy america? >> yes. [laughter] >> thank you. >> clearly, as we move forward with a, you know, the president has said this isn't about just putting forward a budget, you know, that's a blueprint for reauthorization, but he intends to deliver legislation to congress and colorly as we're at -- clearly as we're at the table putting that together, we're well aware of conflicting buy america provisions and the need to, you know, standardize so it's consistent across the board. >> and i would say that, you know, as you well point out, you know, the differences in the regulations often is the differences this the statute. so in the meantime, one of the things we have been trying to do is to better around the tick late to the industry -- articulate to the industry where

the dunces are so that, you know, at least there's an understanding of what we have to look with now as we look forward improving it going forward. and where we can encourage coordination for multimodal projects or whatever the situation might be, you know, we seek to do that up front so that it can minimize issues down the road. >> please. >> alan leto with trimed in portland, oregon. we've seen some great additions to the categorical exclusions kind of helping out with environmental streamlining. what else can we expect coming down the line that might help out just a little bit more, and what could, what would you want to hear from us to help you do that? thanks. >> you want more? [laughter] wow. >> they've done so much. >> no. i'm glad you brought that up because i think, you know, even in advance of map 21 certainly

for fta, and joe can speak to what fra is doing in the area of streamlining, it was a really big one to be able to advance some categorical exclusions, let's just say that up front. but to recognize that much of what transit did is very, it has a very small footprint on the environment. and if you can work with categorical exclusions, it really can help you get through that process. so that was a great thing. other things you're probably familiar with on the capital investment grant fund, you know, new starts, small starts, again, sort of in advance of map 21, but map 21 helps carry through a lot of the thinking we had started. we revamped the criteria, we tried to make it much more reflective of a range of benefits in some cases made it

far more understandable and easier to measure in terms of cost effectiveness for example. we've built an off-the-shelf transit -- transportation forecasting, ridership forecasting model to shave significant time off something that's often added, you know, years to the process. so we're continuing to work in that vein. map 21 actually reduced the steps we need to take in the capital investment grant evaluation process. so, you know, we're working in, you know, getting those regulatory and guidance elements out on that. i think the important thing though whenever this question comes up particularly, you know, in the environmental realm and in our case in the world with new starts and small starts we still need to maintain a rigorous evaluation and oversight of the process.

we have to insure that even with all of this streamlining that we are protecting the taxpayers' money, that we are insuring that federal dollars are invested wisely, they're invested well, that they're going to deliver a product to the public. so we go into the stream laurening dialogue -- streamlining dialogue always keeping if mind at the end of the day, you know, that's the balance that a needs to be brought to the table. >> thank you. sir? >> john whitmore with pedestrians.org. you know, passengers have to walk, perhaps, along tracks or across tracks to get to rail stations. frequently, the first reaction of a railroad rather than think about how to safely accommodate them is just blanket no trespassing signs. what approach can we take to get pedestrians safely to where they need to go rather than pretend they'll go away if we put up no trespassing signs? >> i'm not sure i fully

understand your questions, but clearly -- i mean, i think the gist of your question is, obviously, about passenger safety. and i would just say this, you know, in the budget we're proposing, upgrading stations and enhancing amenities and safety is a critical component of of it. we need to move beyond just having, you know, aging structures and enhancements that may have been put in a more happen a hazard -- haphazard manner to comprehensively taking a look at what the station needs are, how pedestrians flow and make sure that they're designed with safety in mind. i did mention in my remarks the fact that we're looking to very aggressively drive forward ada compliance at all amtrak stations across the nation. it's an important part of our program. and not only is that a matter of complying with the requirements of ak do a, but -- of ada, but

more importantly or equally as importantly i should say, it's about enhancing the experience for all passengers including things like level boarding, you know, which i want when i'm hauling my roller wag along. roller bag along. so does that answer your question? >> um, to some extent, but even beyond station areas you're frequently, you know, rail corridors are someplace where pedestrians have to get across -- >> okay, gotcha. i know where you're going. >> and if you decide you're going to eliminate crossings and have a bridge -- >> gotcha. >> it's a two minute detour for a car, half hour detour for a pedestrian. >> yeah, no, you've got to insure how you do this and make sure pedestrian needs are an important or part of it. it was a matter of working closely with the communities, and this is what north carolina did when they closed their 50. it was strategic. it wasn't just about vooks, it was also about pedestrian access but making sure that it's done safely and, you know, and in

kind of a coordinated manner. so, no, no. pedestrian, bicycles, you know, all part of the mix. >> thank you. sir? >> chris -- [inaudible] board member of houston metro. first of all, i'll echo that comment and say that when we talk about transit safety, i would say our biggest transit safety problem in this country is actually our riders walking to the transit vehicle. and we don't even have stats on that since we have no idea if a pedestrian gets hit whether they were walking to a bus stop or not, but it's a huge safety problem. so i think this sort of comprehensive safety approach i've heard is really important. a different kind of question. i think the most amazing thing this administration has done is get multiple pieces of the government working together. at the moment when i saw multiple cabinet agencies sitting on one dais talking about transportation, that was an amazing moment. [laughter] >> you know, we actually like each other. [laughter] >> but the government isn't just

a funder of transportation, the government also creates transportation destinations, and in that regard i'm still seeing significant issues. for example, in houston we had to detour a bus route to serve the new ins office a couple of years ago since it was located where there was no bus route. the only social security office with good transit service was closed down, and now we're getting complaints from riders that they can't get to the office. and i've heard similar comments in other cities, minneapolis, for example. what advice would you give to transit agencies in terms of how to engage other federal agencies in these kind of location decisions? >> boy. [laughter] well, let -- why don't you go. [laughter] you seem like you want to answer -- >> no, i mean, you know, so much of this comes back to the fundamentals of sound planning. and what we do, you know, it

starts with sound planning. and it touches, actually, and it kind of challenges a little bit what therese answered on the environmental process, you know, and our need, our significant need to streamline. but yet insuring there's this level of dialogue with the community to make sure these projects are properly serving the needs of citizens and doing it in a multimodal, interconnected manner. as we talk about our inner city passenger rail program, we're driving a much stronger concept of regional planning since in most cases these are rail hubs, you know, that serve more than a single state. and so we're trying to pull those pieces together. but i think then when you talk about station development and the connection to transit, it's all about the level of planning that gets done on the local level.

>> are right. >> and it's a fair question. >> and just to complement what joe is saying because i was going to respond in a similar way, in this particular case, you know, the federal agencies are stakeholders as much as the business, you know, private businesses are stakeholders, etc. so if you are developing a transit, you know, agency and if -- excuse me, a transit system and a federal agency is one of the major employers in your area, you'd have to have a conversation with them in the same way that you have before. i think the other thing that's worth noting is, you know, the big federal government, but, you know, agencies also work -- they have regional offices. again, i would urge that as part of this planning and outreach program -- and i know that you all, for example, are thinking

of a major and very strategic look at laying out your bus network and how that's going to integrate in with your light rail system. now would be the time to pull in the federal, you know, agencies there as major employers to say, you know, your workers are going to be our customers, so let's talk about, you know, your current and future plans as we're developing this strategic vision. >> and i do think, you know, your question ties into the previous question on pedestrian flow. i mean, you know, again, as these projects are planned, as they're implemented, we need to make sure all of these pieces fit together. >> and i think you also touched on what you said earlier about environmental impact. it's funny that if a federal agency moves a thousand jobs from one leased space to another and moves away from transit, that doesn't require an environmental impact statement. we build a bike lane that gets rid of five parking spaces, that requires an environmental impact

statement. [laughter] [applause] >> yes, please. >> administrators, thank you for being here and taking our questions. i have another question regarding the small starts program. my name is gunner olson, and we've been working on a bus rapid transit project in des moines, and we had had our eye on the very small starts program. on the map 21 it isn't there, so my question for you today is do you plan on putting in place some warrants as part of the small starts program that would address these very small starts scale projects? >> so map 21 did include language regarding warrants, and our team at fta is working again on getting out guidance and regulations. so, you know, keep looking for that. it should be coming out shortly. i would, you would point out that the budget includes a new

proposal for rapid transit systems. in fact, growing rapid areas of the country as secretary fox talked about in his remarks this morning. the idea is that we want to create a program that responds, a place-oriented program that's responding to those needs of communities where the population is growing so fast that we have an opportunity to try to get ahead of some of the congestion and mobility challenges that that rapid, changing population and the demands that come with it could create on the ground. you know, again, we -- stay tuned for more details of how that might play out as the authorization package is advanced.

but again, it's this thought that we need to continue thinking about flexible ways of addressing mobility needs for areas both in size and in their outcomes. so that may be something to look forward to. >> thank you. >> thanks. .. >> mort downing. i have my washington metro hat on. i wanted to follow up on the issue of federal office locations. just to point out that it is, in fact, the general services administration who makes these decisions. and, in fact, their policy calls for locating any federal office conveniently to transit. but you have to reach out to them to make this happen. we've reached out and actually given them first right to be a developer on any property that we -- i've identified with development. even before they have an agency client, they can figure that they can get that and then go

sell it to the agencies. they try to do this around the country. and the gentleman from houston mentioned the minneapolis situation. i read about that. it's kind of a screw up of major proportions. they really wanted to locate the immigration and naturalization service offices on transit. so they looked at the transit map and said, here's the bus route. we'll put it right by that. unfortunately, this was a bus route that only has commuter seice ie morn it's of no use whatsoever to the ins customers. but i think at the region round levels reach out when they're making any of these decisions. that's the policy they're supposed to be following. >> when you step up i was going to say you should come appear and answer the questions. [laughter] you just proved it. >> we have time for one last question. >> general manager, lane transit and also chair of a small

operations committee. one, first of all i do want to thank you for your response to the bus capital program that has been a big priority and we do appreciate that. one of the other issues that came up in our meeting yesterday was the third triannual views and now i'm going to have a review coming up this summer but from those that have gone over the past year, to issues that it seem to come. one is there seems to be regional office in trepidations of regulations that are different than the national interpretation of regulations and another is that sometimes there is an issue where contractors have come up with her own in trepidations that seem to jive with anything else. in the latter case the two instances that were examples were brought up, the regional office corrected it but still the fact that you even have to go through that step in the first place seemed necessary

because there were no fda staff on site when the triannual's were taking place on was just, i guess my question to you is, what can be done to make a little more consistency in the triannual reviews and to make sure that they're on sort, not local interpretation but more of a consistent interpretation? >> again, thank you for the observation. this is the kind of feedback, developing and implementing a program we want to hear. we will go back and look into those concerns and address them. at the end of the day it's very important that consistency be a hallmark of our oversight program so we will look into it and get back to you. >> and on the subject of locations, the va is looking a major clinic in eugene, springfield area. they were looking at three locations. one across the street from the

brt stuff. once or by to transit routes and one that was a mile from the nearest transit. yes which one they picked? [laughter] >> all right. a number of questions came up regarding project development and new start in small starts and core capacity such as want to make everybody aware that on wednesday march 12, from 830 imac-12, we are sponsoring a map-21 capital investment grant program workshop in listing session to if you'd like to explore some of those issues in more depth go to that session. and thank you all again for sharing your insight and keep the dialogue up. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> a senate subcommittee recently examined health care in foreign countries will operate under a single-payer system. officials from taiwan, denmark and candidate were among the witnesses. vermont senator bernie sanders chairs visiting of the senate health subcommittee on primary health and aging. it's about one hour 40 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> let's get to work, and thank you all very much for being here. we want to thank c-span for covering this important hearing. and i especially want to thank our witnesses, some of whom have traveled from very long distances from around the world to be with us today and we very much appreciate your being here. the united states has i think a very effective form of government in the sense that we are a federalist system, which means that we have 50 separate states, and it is very common that one state learns from another state is doing.

california, north carolina or vermont, someone's coming up with an idea or a program. it works, other people steal those ideas, learn from is a just and that' that's i think ay good way of going forward. i do not believe that we utilize that practice as much as we should internationally. the united states is not the only country on earth but their other countries were doing very positive, interesting things and we should be learning from them. in a sense that's what this hearing is about, is to see what we can learn from other countries around the world in terms of health care here and in my view, in fact we have a whole lot to learn. because at the end of the day, the united states spends far more per capital on health care, we spend almost twice as much

per person on health care, and yet we have many millions of people are uninsured, and our health care outcome, compared to many other countries, are not particularly good. that's -- why is that? and what can we learn from other countries who in many ways are doing better than we can? let me start off with just a couple of basic facts about the american health care system. while it is absolutely true that some americans, often those with a lot of money, receive some of the best cutting edge health care in the world, it is also true that for millions of low and moderate income americans, they have little or no access to even the most basic health care services. and later on i think maybe as part of the questions or answers we will sure photograph of many of you in virginia or

california, people lining up in fields to get basic health care or to get their teeth, rotted teeth extracted, photograph that will remind you of a third world country. the reality is that today, the united states is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health at the right, and that is a basic philosophical debate that we have to have. should all americans, regardless of their income, have access to health care as a right, or not? the united states is the only nation in the industrialized world that says no, you're not entitled to health care as a right. in 2012, more than 15% of our population, nearly 40 million americans were uninsured. but that's only half. because many people who had

insurance also have high deductibles and high copayments. and those payments created situations where people hesitated to go to the doctor when they should. not to mention other people leaving hospital deeply in debt and going bankrupt. is that something that we all are proud of? here's another important point to be made. when we talk about rationing and so forth, of course in the united states, health care is rationed but it is rationed by a building today, biking. according to a harvard study, published in health affairs, 2009 and health affairs in 2014, some 45,000 americans die every year because of a lack of access to health care. and i've talked to doctors, i don't know if my colleagues of doctor their doctors can't talk to doctors who say yeah, people walk in the door and they are

now terminally ill. and the doctor says why didn't you coming to six much ago? why can you commit a year ago? people said well, i didn't have any health insurance. i did want charity. i thought it would get better. we are losing some 45,000 people a year because they don't get to a doctor when they showed. there are, furthermore, communiticommuniti es around this country can find a senator roberts of kansas, a hearing we had a while back, where there are no doctors, there are towns in kansas, no doctors in the area at all. people do not have access to basic primary care. now, despite all of that, the united states as i mentioned a moment ago spends almost twice as much per capita on health care as does any other country. we are spending about 18% of our gross domestic product on health care compared to 11-12% of france, china, denmark and candidate.

9% of uk, a strike in norway, and less than a person in taiwan. and issue. we will hear from are represented from taiwan in a few minutes. in terms of efficiency, are we an efficient system? compared to the gym out of me that we're spending, are we getting good value. in august 2013, bloomberg, a respected business rank the united states health care system 46 of 48 countries based on efficiency. now, what about outcome? if i'm spending $100,000 on a car and some is spending $20,000 on a car, we would assume that my car runs better. i'm getting better value. i'm getting value for what i paid for. the united states pays almost twice as much per person for health care, but in terms of our health care outcome, we do not

do particularly will to pass other countries around the world. among oecd countries, the united states ranks 25th in terms of life expectancy. residents of italy, spain, france, norway, and the list goes on will have two to three years longer than americans. so in terms of our outcomes, they are not particularly good. what about prescription drugs? clearly when we go the doctor, very often therapy is medicine. i recall talking to a doctor in northern vermont who told me that about 25% of the patients that she sees, in which she writes, she writes prescriptions, are unable to fill those prescriptions because they're just too expensive. the fact of the matter is the pharmaceutical industry in this country earn huge profits and

charges are people higher prices in the world for prescription drugs. there's a lot more to be said but let me end my remarks with those comments, and i look forward to hearing the testament of our esteemed panelists. senator burr? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling this thing. i truly thank our witnesses today for their knowledge and for the willingness to be here to share with us their information. in about two weeks, our nation will mark the fourth anniversary of the enactment of the affordable care act, better known to most as obamacare. today's hearing will inform what direction we will next take health care in america by examining access to care and cost associate with health care systems overseas. as we examine single-payer

systems in other countries, and what we can learn from their experiences, it seems fitting that we also take stock of where things stand in the american health care system today. at the time obamacare was being debated in this very committee, i warned that it was the wrong direction for our country. health care was broken before obamacare, but four years later the american people are experiencing firsthand how the new law has made things worse. that's what americans view the law unfavorably, and that's why they are understandably weary of still more government involvement in health care. the president promised that if you like your plan, you get to keep it under obamacare. the federal government mandates that americans buy health care coverage and not just any coverage, but the coverage the federal government says is good enough.

sadly, millions of americans have lost their health care plans. health plans they liked and wanted to keep, despite the promises and continued delays of the administration. obamacare expanded medicaid, and unsustainable health entitlement program in which 40% of physicians on average do not even agreed to see medicaid patients. i believe the experiences of other countries will reinforce what many medicaid patients already know, there coverage does not always translate into timely access to care. today's hearing will also examine costs. while the president promised that obamacare would bring down premiums by $2500, premiums have actually gone up by an average of 41% in the individual market due to the law's mandates. so how does obama to attempt to control costs? for starters it established the independent payment advisory

board, or i'd have, on unelected, unaccountable board of 15 bureaucrats -- ipab, make cuts to the medicare program most likely in the form of cuts to doctors which will impact, again, seniors access to care. today's hearing will be informative as to the direction we take health care in this country. will we reveal obamacare and replace it with reforms that lower health care costs, put our nation's and other programs on a sustainable path, and empower patients in their health care purchasing and decision-making to find the plans that best meet their individual needs? or will they continue on the current course of unprecedented government involvement in health care and unsustainable costs? what do we have to learn from a single-payer system overseas, and what have other countries reforms meant for their patients? what would such a course mean for our nation standing as a

global leader in medical innovation and for american patients seeking access to quality and affordable coverage and care that meets their individual health care needs? i do want to thank chairman sanders for holding this hearing, because it will inform many of us on these important questions. i think today's hearing represents an important mission that obamacare is not working. that such an admission takes place within the very committee that the act was written in is a huge step, and i commend the committee for taking it. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and continue to work with my colleagues to advance patient-centered reforms that will actually lower health care costs and increase access to quality, affordable health care. i thank the chair. >> thank you, senator byrd. said indeed, did you want to make a statement? >> we have seven very

knowledgeable panelists, and we look forward to the testament. we're going to ask you to keep your remarks to five minutes, and then we will follow up with some questions. our first witness is tsung-mei cheng, a health policy research analyst at the woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs at princeton university. she is an advisor to the china national health department research center, and we very much appreciate her being with us today. please speak right into the microphone so everyone can hear you. [inaudible conversations] >> it's already started counting. good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member burr, and senator in see. my name is mei cheng, i'm health policy research analyst at the woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs,

princeton university. thank you for inviting me to testify. i have been asked to give an overview of single-payer systems, and i hear, my written test and into a few salient points. and overarching point made in my testimony is that single-payer systems are not the same as socialized medicine's or socialism, as is so often assumed in this country. in socialized medicine, government owns and operates the health care delivery system and finances it. the health system americans reserve for the military veterans, for example, the va system is purely socialized medicine. single-payer systems typically are just social insurance, like the social security system. under social health insurance the government nearly organizes the financing of health care but the health care delivery system typically is private and can't include for profit entities.

medicare, for example, social insurance, it is social insurance but not socialized medicine. the main characteristics of single-payer systems are the following. they are ideal platform for equity and access to health care because everyone has the same insurance coverage, and providers are paid the same fees regardless of the social economic status of the patient. single-payer systems typically are financed on the basis of ability to pay rather than on the basis of health status of the injured. single-payer systems typically give patients free choice of doctors and hospitals. in single-payer systems, providers of care do not compete on price, but they must compete on quality of care, including patient satisfaction. in a single-payer health insurance system, health insurance is not tied to a job. instead it is fully portable

from job to job. when people lose their job and in retirement, does not go away. therefore, there's no job lock in the systems over health insurance. because of funds to providers of health care in a single-payer system flow from one pair, it is relatively easy to control total health spending in such systems. the international data i cited in my written testimony made that clear. now, some single-payer systems, like uk and canada, may put constraints on the fiscal capacity of the health system, like a number of hospitals and mri scanners as part of the effort to control total health spending, including waste created by excess capacity. this constraint may lead to rationing by dq. the alternative -- by thank you. it is rationing by price and ability to pay.

something that we see in the u.s. health care system. the argument that health care is not rationed in the u.s. is not supported by the data. a single-payer system is an ideal platform for modern kiev with common nomenclature, all building can be done electronically and it yields enormous savings in administrative costs. and because such an kiev system conveniently captures data and information on all health care transactions, the systems provide database backend of spending in real time, and is in the case of taiwan, and it is a base is for quality measurement monitoring and improvement. and public satisfaction of our single-payer system is genuinely high. denmark, for example, is ranked the number to highest in the european union in consumer

satisfaction. in taiwan, public satisfaction is also very high with a national health insurance program ranging in the '70s to 80%. in canada, a 2013 international survey of 11 countries found that 42% of canadians surveyed said that their health care system works well and needs only minor changes, compared to just 25% of americans who said that. 75% of americans said american health care systems need fundamental changes or completely rebuilt. lastly, survey research has shown that single-payer medicare is very popular in the u.s. a final point is that every health system has its flaws which can be highlighted with anecdote. therefore, there's a medical tourism worldwide. for example, canadians come to the u.s. for health care, but it also is a true that americans go

to canada, mexico, thailand and taiwan for lower cost health care. thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. cheng. we're going to go now to doctor rod when, victor rodwin is a professor of health policy and management new york university's wagner school of public service. his work -- starting health care systems abroad with a special focus on france. professor rodwin held that a signature at the paris, in 2010. thanks for much for being with us. >> thank you, senator sanders, and distinguished members of the committee. good morning to all of you watching on c-span. my name is victor rodwin. iowa state on the french health care system. that system is a model of national health insurance that provides health care