quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president at 11:00 thorpg, we will be having a very important vote on human trafficking and an important piece of legislation the justice for victims of trafficking act. i'm glad that this issue is finally getting the kind of ategsattention that it deserves, but i would be lying to you if i said i wasn't disappointed in the twhai this bill has become a political -- in the way in this bill has become a political football for people who want to cause the united states senate to cease to function entirely or to relitigate issues that have been resolved 40 years ago like the hyde amendment.

we here in the senate have the opportunity to do a great deal of good for thousands of people, including children, who are victims of sex trafficking many of whom are young girms not even of high school age. now, on average, the typical victim of human trafficking is between the age of 12 and 14. but instead of voting to pass this bill last week like i'd originally hoped the minority leader the democratic leader blocked a vote and he's consistently taken the position that they are not going to allow us to progress with this legislation. we even offered -- the majority leader offered to give the other side a vote to strip out the language which they find offensive but that was declined and instead the obstruction and the blocking of this legislation continued. i'd like to come back to the question that i've asked myself

privately and i've asked here publicly repeatedly and that is, why are so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle objecting to language that they have repeatedly voted for time and time and time again? why do they want to make this an issue on this piece of legislation which is one of the rare islands of bipartisan comity and cooperation and the collaboration that we've seen in recent times? and most importantly why are democrats going to -- going to the wall to block a bill that would help thousands of innocent victims of sex trafficking across the country who are crying out for our help? it truly baffles me but that's what's going on. of course, we know that human trafficking is a problem all across the country including my home in texas. and i was recently reminded by a couple of texas stories about how important it is that we pass

this legislation. including a recent story out of waco texas and one involving border patrol where it was reported that over the last five months, border patrol has apprehended 144 known sex offenders trying to sneak back into the united states illegally illegally. so with the reported hundred thousand people who are trafficked each year, that would be according to "the washington post," they say an estimated 100,000 children are trafficked each year for sex. why in the world can't we find some way to set these differences aside to fight them another day and to move on doing some good where we can by passing this legislation? itit has unfortunately become clear that this obstruction is about politics, plain and simple simple because, you know, we --

there's actually a whole lot of agreement about the importance of this legislation. for example we've got 12 democratic cosponsors to this legislation. now, this bogus story you've heard about language being slipped into the bill they didn't know was there is just that it's completely bogus. each of these democrats has highly skilled professional staff and they themselves weren't born last night didn't fall off a turnip truck. they know what the legislation included and it had language in it that they had voted in favor of repeatedly in previous -- previous pieces of legislation. and then there's the fact that all 20 members of the senate judiciary committee voted in favor of this legislation including nine democrats all members of the judiciary committee. and then when it came to the floor last week all 100 senators basically consented to bring this legislation forward. so why is it that after so much

bipartisan cooperation and trying to work together to solve a real problem and help the victims of human trafficking particularly those 100,000 children trafficked for sex how is it that this legislation became a political football to relitigate the hyde amendment? well unfortunately we know the abortion lobby has been very -- working very hard to derail this legislation. why? because they care about these victims of human trafficking? absolutely not. because everyone knows that the hyde amendment language contains an exception for rape and the health of the mother. so this would not -- these limitations on spending wouldn't have anything to do about the services available to help under this act those victims of human trafficking. well, i know that members of our -- of the senate on the democratic side care deeply about this issue. i know the ranking member, the

former chairman of the senate judiciary committee senator leahy, cares deeply about this issue. i believe all 12 democratic cosponsors of this legislation care deeply about this issue. and all members of the senate judiciary committee all 20 of us who voted in favor of the legislation care deeply about this issue. but there's one person who appears not to care one bit about this issue and that is the senator from nevada, the senior senator from nevada, the democratic leader. he apparently doesn't care at all about the victims of human trafficking. if he did then i think he would find a way to work with us to pass this legislation. well unfortunately we're going to have a vote here at 11:00 which is going to be very telling. i hold out some hope that our democratic colleagues who cosponsored this legislation or who previously voted for legislation that includes this same type of language or the

members of the judiciary committee who voted to support this bill at the committee markup will find a way to vote for cloture to allow us to progress to final passage of this legislation. there's going to be a very important choice. the choice is simply between the victims or party and lobbyists and outside groups who are trying to blow this piece of legislation up in order to relitigate the settled law of the land for the last 40 years. in fact, "the washington post" editorial yesterday i think stated the issue very well. they said at the conclusion of their editorial, they said, "the question is whether the senators who want to accomplish something can overcome the advocacy groups and politicians who would rather use this controversial as one more opportunity to raise funds and to sharpen divisions." that is absolutely pathetic that someone would use the

plight of these victims of human trafficking to raise fund and to drive divisions between americans. so we'll find out we'll find out what the choice is and where democrats choose. will they follow the lead of the democratic leader, who apparently does not care about the consequences of this obstruction and will they find a way in their heart to do what they know is right? because they voted for this legislation previously they've agreed to cosponsor it and, of course, as i said, they voted for previous language that is identical to that contained in this bill. but i'd like to quote from a texas newspaper "the corpus christi caller times" that published an editorial today with the headline, "antitrafficking bill is nothing to bicker about." that should be obvious but unfortunately it -- the obvious has to be said apparently time and time again. and the editorial closes with

this line, which i find to be poignant. it says, "this fight is supposed to be against human trafficking. distracting attention from that fight is shameful." it's shameful. mr. president, scripture reminds us that it does not profit a person to gain the whole world and lose your soul. and i worry that the united states senate is losing its soul and its unique role as an institution where we can actually work out our differences, we can have debate and we can have vote and we can actually make some discernible progress forward on behalf of the people we represent. this is a important time of choosing for members of the united states senate.

at 11:00 when we have this vote we need a handful of brave and courageous members of the senate on the other side of the aisle who will say to their leader this is a bridge too far. we are not going to march in lock-step with the leader and make what could be legislation that will help these victims of human trafficking and turn it into a failure. this is a time for choosing. i know there are senate democrats who care deeply about the victims of human trafficking trafficking. unfortunately, not everybody does or else we wouldn't be having this obstruction. so i hope that our colleagues, in thinking about this vote today, perhaps during a sleepless moment last night as they were contemplating this very important time of choosing,

that they will examine their conscience and they'll reflect on the reason why they came to the united states senate in the first place. was it to play these kinds of partisan political games to advance the fund-raising interests of the abortion lobby or some other grawp that want group that wants us to derail this legislation in order to relitigate issues that were settled 40 years ago? members came here because they wanted to do something good, something positive, something that would help the most vulnerable among us, and and wref -- and we have that opportunity here this morning at 11:00. and shame on us if we can't rise to the occasion, if we can't overcome the tug at our sleep by the outside groups twhangts to derail this important piece of legislation. shame on us. so mr. president there's going

to be a tiesm choosing -- a time of choosing and everybody who votes will make a record. that record will be part of their permanent legacy in this body and history will reflect who they chose in this fight between the 100,000 children who are trafficked for sex in america who might benefit from this legislation or the abortion lobby who wants us to relitigate this issue based on language that every single democrat has voted for in one fashion or another time and time and time again. this is a phony fight and a phony issue. we ought to do what's right. we ought to pass this legislation as soon as possible. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i hope we will do what is right but i hope we will step back from either partisan name-call offing for ascribing --

name-calling or ascribing motives to people. i don't even though my dear friend from texas voted against the violence against women act -- i don't -- i'm never going to say that he's for violence against women. and even though that had a sex trafficking amendment in it. the fact that he and the distinguished majority leader, senator mcconnell senator hatch, senator grassley others voted against the violence against women act, i would not ascribe to them a motive that they believe in violence against women. and even though that had a strong antisex trafficking amendment in it, i don't ascribe their vote against the bill as meaning they are against that. but we have to talk about listening to the voices of the

survivors. what they are saying, though, is clear. stop playing politics with our lives. poly apolly put it this way "politics should not govern the options available to victims of sex trafficking especially when such victims have had their basic human rights takenway by criminals who had only their agendas in mind." we ought to put aside our agendas. they're asking for us to vote against this bill, thevivors are asking us to vote -- the survivors are asking us to vote against this bill because it includes unnecessary destructive partisan language. a letter signed by the alliance to end slavery and trafficking rights for girls share hope international, polaris and nearly 100 other anti-trafficking groups say this: "we urge all members of the senate to turn away from this

divisive debate, find a bipartisan approach to this new initiative to protect and serve the needs of survivors." well we came together when we passed the expansive new authorization, the violence against women act. i realize some in this body who now say we must vote for this voted against the violence against women act. but i worked more for months with the remarkable people, the national task force to end sexual domestic violence, the coalition of thousands of organizations that represent millions of victims of domestic and sexual violence. i spent hours upon hours explaining what we needed. we listened, we crafted a bill to respond to these needs and i trust them. they have dedicated their lives to making sure that survivors have a voice and they say now -- quote -- "we write today to express our deep concern about the controversy of inserting the hyde provision into the justice for victims of trafficking act." the house passed a version of that act that did not include

this new hide provision. we ask the senate to do the same." close quote. think of that. highly partisan house -- they passed a bill that did not have this controversial language that's being debated here. that deeply divided body came together. they passed this bill with a unanimous vote just a few weeks ago after they took out this divisive language. i'm confident that we did the same, we could also pass it easy. the partisan provision embedded in the senate version is is not something that the survivors of human trafficking are asking for. if we're speaking for those who've been the survivors of human trafficking we ought to listen to them. they don't want this provision. it is not something the experts who work with them every day are asking for. those who actually see the damage of this crime ask us to

take the provision out. we're not talking about taxpayer money. we're talking about money collected from the very offenders who have already controlled too much of the lives of these women and girls. these survivors deserve more options, not fewer. that's why i'm opposing cloture on this version of the justice for victims of trafficking afnlgt i support the rest of this bill. that's why i included it in the comprehensive substitute amendment i filed last week, also included in my substitute is a vattal component to prevent human trafficking by focusing focusing on runaway and homeless youth. let's listen to the people who suffer from the trafficking. let's listen to the victims. let's listen to the experts who have always stood with us on this. they say take this provision out. let's do so.

mr. president, just think for aempt mo. the republican-controlled house came together an said, let's pass a trafficking bill. but let's take out this divisive language which many, many in the house would support as an amendment by itself but not in this bill. they took it out they passed it unanimously. shouldn't we listen to the same thing. it's not a question of whether you're for or against trafficking. i don't think there's anybody here that's for it. for those who like myself, have actually prosecuted these cases we know how important it is. listen to the victims. they say take out this language an let's move forward. with the that, mr. president, i would yield to the distinguished senator from washington state.

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you mr. president. i come to the floor with a simple message for our republican colleagues. enough is enough. the bill that we are debating today, the justice for victims of trafficking act, should be, without question, bipartisan. because a bill about combating trafficking is no place for politics and that means it is no place for harmful partisan measures that restrict women's reproductive health options. so it is deeply disappointing that over the last week republicans have insisted on including such a provision in the justice for victims of trafficking act and then instead of working with us to take this provision out get this bill done and move on to other important work, they've dug in their heels. mr. president, democrats want to work with republicans on this legislation and get it back on track. we've put forward a substitute that takes out the politics and focuses on what matters in this

debate, which is helping the survivors of trafficking get the justice that they deserve. it would be shocking, mr. president, if senate republicans refused to support this alternative just because it doesn't include an expansion of the so-called hyde amendment that restricts women's access to health services. especially, by the way since the house has already passed its bill without this harmful women's health provision just like the senate did last year. so we know republicans can support an anti-trafficking bill that does not hurt women. and there's no reason why we shouldn't be ail to shift this back -- able to shift it back to something that both sides can support. what makes all this even worse is that the majority leader is now insisting on even more gridlock and dysfunction. he has said that in efforts to continue a political attack on women's health he'll not only hold up the justice for victims of trafficking act but also the

confirmation of a highly qualified nominee for attorney general. mr. president, that is indefensible. loretta lynch disrves a deserves a vote. she's been waiting longer than any of the last five nominees for attorney general. she has been confirmed by the senate twice already for her roles -- for her position for previous roles and she deserves to be able to get to work. the majority leader, mr. president, has said that the senate won't move to her nomination now until we finish the justice for victims of trafficking act. i'd like to note that we voted last night on two other nominations. so it seems absurd that we can't work on both at the same time. bottom line, mr. president is that senate republicans have a choice today. politics as usual or working with us to get this done. they can continue to hold up important work to draw out a political fight we've had again and again or they can work with

us to get our nominee for attorney general on the job pass the justice for victims of trafficking act and move on to tackle the many other challenges that our country faces today. i really hope they'll choose to work with democrats fight human trafficking, and help women across the country. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i'd ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion

to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule it 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute amendment to s. 178 a bill to provide justice for the victims of trafficking. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of sense of the senate that debate on the amendment to ints 178 a bill to provide justice for victims of trafficking shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to -- not having voted in the affirmative. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of the senate. mr. mcconnell: the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the majority leader of the senate. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close the

debate on s. 178 a bill to provide justice for the victims of trafficking. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that dep debate on s. 178, a bill to provide justice for the victims of trafficking shall be brought to a close? the yeas and the nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 55, the nays are 43, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered.

a senator: mr. president? center the senate majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president this morning was a sad day for the united states senate when a straightforward bill designed to help the 100,000 or so children who are sex trafficked in america each year goes down because of the advocacy of a group that wants to turn this into an abortion debate. and to change the settled law of the last 39 years. and as i said before the vote i really felt like this is a time when the very soul of the united states senate is being tested. are we going to actually break out of these shackles that we seem to be bound by which say that we're going to turn every issue no matter how sensitive no matter how much good could be done and turn it into a political issue that divides us. and by have thought of all the

topics where there would be bipartisan consensus it would be combating the crime of human trafficking. and, indeed, everything that went on before today seemed to give me hope that we would be able to do that. for example the fact that there were 12 democratic cosponsors of the underlying legislation. in the senate judiciary committee, there were 20 votes, a unanimous vote, including nine democrats in favor of the bill in committee. and it came to the floor of the united states senate and as the presiding officer knows ordinarily we'd have to jump through some procedural hoops but thanks to the consent of 100 senators we didn't have to do that so we could get on the bill and begin the open amendment process without having to jump through those hoops. at least so i thought.

and then somehow, somewhere, somebody decided they wanted to pick a fight on something that's been the settled law for 39 years and that's the hyde amendment. now, the hyde amendment basically says that no taxpayer funds can be used to fund abortion. except in the case of rape and the case of the health of the mother being in jeopardy as certified by a physician. so you might wonder why do people want to fight over the hyde amendment when the hide hyde amendments itself has an exception for sexual assault which obviously would be the major concern on behalf of any of these victims of human trafficking. so that's why this has been called a phantom issue. i would use another word, by say it's a phony issue it's a

fake fight. in order to derail legislation which would demonstrate that we on a bipartisan basis can work together and try to solve a real problem and make progress. i suspect the presiding officer had the same experience i did during this last election and back in texas people would say can't you guys and gals get anything done in washington, d.c.? why is it so broken and so dysfunctional? why can't you find common cause on something and make some progress and deal with real problems that confront the people of texas or the people of oklahoma or the people of the united states of america. now, that doesn't mean we come up here and leave our principles behind. just the opposite. i'm not suggesting for a minute in the interest of compromise we leave our principles behind. but there's a lot we can do, consistent with our principles,

to help pass legislation which will have a very positive impact on the american people. the president's mentioned things like trade as something we could work on together, but little did i imagine that the powers that be would pick on an antihuman trafficking bill in order to try to divide the united states senate in order to peel off the 12 democratic cosponsors who didn't even vote many of them didn't vote for the bill. in other words they were for the bill enough to cosponsor it and then they did not vote this morning to see the bill progress to final passage. i don't know how they explain that one. i don't know how you explain it. or frankly, how you reconcile that in your own conscience, recognizing that this legislation was designed to help vulnerable children, by and large, who are victims of what

we called modern day slavery sexual economic bondage. this was designed not only to help rescue them but to help them heal and begin a path toward a better, more productive life. that's why this morning i said that i really felt like this was a vote over the -- for the soul of the senate. i can't imagine any united states senator who wants to do everything you have to do to get elected and serve here, the hardship for your family, raising money and all the stuff you have to do to get here, and then to squander it by refusing to take a step to help the most vulnerable people that are -- exist in our country. it is just beyond my imagination. but i'm afraid that more than just this piece of legislation

there an idea here in the democratic leadership that they really don't want the senate to be able to function. they don't really want us to be able to pass legislation or solve problems. what they want to do have the talking point that after the last election that nothing has really changed in the senate, that it's just as disfunctional a -- dysfunctional as it was when they were in charge. now, i'm happy to say i'm optimistic we will despite this morning's vote begin to make some progress as soon as next week we will i think take the first step to pass a budget, the first time a budget has been passed since 2009. and i'm grateful to the majority leader, the senator from kentucky for saying we're going to come back and vote again and again and again on this human trafficking bill until it passes. and he's not going to schedule

the nomination confirmation vote on the next attorney general until such time as we get this passed. unfortunately, that's what this place has degenerated into. everybody looking for leverage to try to get a little bit more of what they want and the -- and in the process the very people we're supposed to be trying to work for and trying to help get lost. so mr. president i'm very disappointed. this is not why i came to the united states senate. this is not the kind of united states senate want to serve in. this is not what my constituents the 26.9 million people i work for in texas this is not what they sent me here to do. they expect more of us. they deserve more of us.

and i hope now that this initial vote has been cast, thank goodness for the four democrats who broke ranks with their leadership on that side of the aisle who decided to vote to advance this legislation. but we still need two more. we still need two more brave democrat senators who are going to defy their leadership and not follow them simply off the cliff. this is what from a practical political standpoint i don't understand. one reason why republicans are in the majority now is because frankly, the president -- the president's policies were repudiated in the last election and the people who ran for reelection as incumbent senators they didn't have a record of accomplishment they could point to. and so what they were left with is a e he referendum on the president's record which they followed down the line, and they had nothing else they could point to that they actually had done on the senate floor because

the senate had been locked down and no amendments, no good ideas, no votes occurred. so you literally had a united states senator from alaska, for example, who was running for reelection after serving in the senate for six years who could not point to a single bill or amendment that bore his name that had been passed. and so when people wondered what are the issues in this election they were left with the president of the united states saying that my policies are on the ballot even though my name is not. and then you had the incumbent united states senator with no record of accomplishment separate and apart from that referendum on the president's policies and that referendum -- and that referendum, the president's policies lost and the people who enabled him and supported him. so i frankly really don't understand the calculation of our colleagues on the other side who have now slavishly voted

according to the dictates of their party leadership here and said no to the victims of human trafficking that would have benefited from this legislation. i don't know how they reconciled that in their mind. i don't know whether they've had sleepless nights worrying about it or whether their hearts have become so hardened whether they've become so accustomed to this sort of mindless partisanship that they don't even think about it anymore. but thanks to the majority leader, we are going to have another opportunity for them to rectify their "no" vote. and all we need is two additional senators who will vote to progress this legislation given the next opportunity. so i hope our colleagues will reconsider. mr. president, on another note,

i ask unanimous consent that beji mcmurray, a detailee to the antitrust subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee be granted floor privileges for the duration of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess as if under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15. recess:

before we take a deep dive into beyond traffic after all this is a roomful of international enthusiasts and some natural foreign policy wonks maybe you could remind us of some of the basics, why it is that our infrastructure is so important to us internationally? >> thank you for the question. i do want to thank the council on foreign relations for having me here today. it's great for me to come and talk to an audience that focus on so many things, working and happening across the world. spent a little time talking about the role u.s. infrastructure does play in the global space. look we as a country were the inventors of modern aviation system, the automobile and many

other innovations that have occurred in most of transit, in transportation. and so just from the standpoint of america continuing to great and innovate within transportation, i think the entire world has seen the impact of this country's focus on that. beyond that we also are very much aware that as the global market stands, it's good needs to move across the world in a timely efficient safeway, that american transportation networks are going to be critical. our rail systems and i was systems are sometimes referred to as a land bridge for internatiinternati onal travel because there are goods that literally come across our surface systems to get to know the point in the world. we have ports that are going to increasingly become important.

we saw just recently with a west coast ports in the labor issues there that what happens when some of our ports start to slow down and become less productive we also have challenges with the east coast ports being dredged to a level of depth that's going to be receptive to the specials that are going to be moving around the earth soon. >> we have an aviation system that continues to evolve and international standard setting that now happens in icao but innovations in asia continues to me to be worked through such as nextgen and a lot of a discussion that we have had because of recent flights that were lost in some cases about

the use of technology and tracking planes. and so there's a lot of innovation that i think is still out there to be embedded in the world. and again i think the u.s. role is both as innovator idea generator bringing innovation into the marketplace but also just the sheer importance of our physical infrastructure can't be understated because we literally help the world move. >> well mr. secretary knievel defense secretary now for about a year and have and a half but you've obviously a very, very busy secretary. let's talk about beyond traffic, which is a very impressive document, all 300 pages of it. there is but it would also a shorter version on the web if anyone wants it is just jam jampacked full of trends and impacts on our system from those trends and all the choices we need to make. so maybe share with us a bit about the content content of

the document, what it is. >> so yong traffic is the latest effort by departments but to basically assess the current state of the american transportation systems -- beyond traffic. the forecast over a longer horizon we typically have the ability to do on capitol hill and out in our communities looking over a 30 year horizon was coming at us, kind of trends are happening to us that we need to think about now and it just too. and just a couple of things that we were able to find out in the course of doing this study. first, we are growing. this country is going to 70 million more people trying to move around the next 30 years. and what i say people is that commute takes an hour today, get ready because it's going to be longer 30 years from now if we don't do more. and in some cases doing more

means doing some the things we've done historically which is adding lane miles are highway assistance. but in some cases there are areas more constrained, more urban areas more constrained were adding highway lane miles is impractical and you now need to think about doing something different with multiple choices, adding transit features, adding bicycle pedestrian features, giving people different choices of moving around. they share growth the country is going to experience is i think a troubling trend given how much we're investing in how we are investing today. i say another big learning we took was that there are generational differences in how each generation uses transportation to i'm still from the school, you know when i was 16, the thing to do is to go get a car. that's how you you know, that's how you got the girls, you know that's what you did.

some people did, you know. depending on what kind of car you had. but anyway, but this generation, this millennial generation has a totally different perspective on transportation. and many of them are not looking to go buy a car. frankly, some of them are not even going to buy a house these days. i have a totally different relationship to space. and so they're much more likely to want to be on the interior of a large urban metropolis. they are much more likely to use bicycles, pedestrians or so transit facilities. this generation is really looking for a quality of life so to speak that allows them to move very our delta between things. they don't want have a lot of accoutrements on top of of the. in with the bible is i think that's the true were going to have to see how long it takes

but assuming that it does that means we've got some challenges with how we're spending. right now we are spending, we're putting 40 billion into highway system. if we have a generation of folks are coming along that are not going to be as focused on the use of that we still of commerce that needs to move that way obviously but that may mean we need to think about a balance and involve little more transit system. >> so as secretary you have responsibility over a lot of different modes of transportation throughout the united states not just highways and transit, but airports, rail sea ports. it would be unfair to expect you to fix everything in the united states, right? because as you also know from your period as a very successful mayor of charlotte, north carolina, that there's a lot of

local and state authorities as well, right ?-que?-que x could just talk a little bit so that we get the groundwork year ask what are the respective roles, you know federal department transportation versus the states so people don't set their expectations to i? >> it's a great point and one would refer to in beyond traffic. this is a real page turner. >> cliffsnotes. >> there is a cliff notes version. but governance and transportation is an issue that think to continue grappling with. to answer your question squarely how things are built depends on what motive transportation you're talking about. so for instance, our rail system our freight rail system are largely privately owned and so a lot of our engagement with the freight rail system is on private sector system. the states have a huge role to

play in the maintenance as well as the continued expansion of our highway system. our transit systems are yet again a different level of governance because those are mostly local. and so you know the large transit systems across the country are largely a feature, greater local government or some type of authority that picks up an area of local government. we are all over the map when it comes to the governance shapes transportation. and i think that's one difference that you find in the u.s. versus another part of the world is that there are a lot of places, france builds french highways you know, they don't refer down to a state or something. we do that and that makes it a little more complicated. >> one of the fascinating statistics or projections in "beyond traffic" is in 30 years, 75% of the u.s. population is

projected to live within these megaregion to describe like the northeast corridor the gulf coast, chicago hub pics that's going to put a lot, that's going to read jekyll this federal state divide even more right? there will be more state cooperation but what do you think the federal government the congress can't or should be doing to facilitate that cooperation actually going to change the map? >> well, a "beyond traffic" study doesn't say this because it's really intended to be more of a descriptive document than a prescriptive document. but what i believe is that the federal government action all of our need to be more focused and attuned to the growth of these regions. and sometimes frankly they cross state borders. i come from a city that was right on the border of north and

south carolina, and part of our economic sphere of influence was actually in south carolina. the reality is that the economy doesn't always tip its hat to the political jurisdictions. it really focuses a lot more on workforce on assets within a given region or what have you. and, unfortunately, right now a lot of our decision-making is just within legal jurisdictions. so another feature of what we have proposed last year in legislation was an effort to encourage local communities to organize their transportation along a regional cluster as opposed to just one county or one city, starting to look at themselves as clusters of regional activity and making transportation decisions that adjusted to that. i think that's a trend we're going to need to bend towards as a country in order to be as successful as possible. >> i don't want to go on a

tangent here but recently there was in the press the fact that there had been an n-terminal agreement signed on the detroit windsor crossing, and on the one side the u.s. government in michigan and on the other side you had canada, and a lot of the press was about how canada will assume most responsible for the funding. would you say that's an example of the challenges we face as being, from a governance perspective? it's tougher to get things done on our side than it is there's? >> i think we have many examples of the kinds of challenges. there was a bridge project was supposed to happen between the state of washington and the state of oregon and the politics a line for a point in time and then the statehouse or state senate changed in the state of washington. they did want to do the project. the project sort of fell apart.

we find these types of jobs all the time. the windsor project is also different because it adds an international dimension to it spent which is why i raised it spent i understand, absolutely. a little different because the canadians are really putting up a significant amount of the capital cost of doing that project. notwithstanding a lot of efforts we undertook as administration a way to do more cost-sharing. >> if we could maybe for a moment focus on probably the most important of the biggest from the budgetary perspective our highway system. and maybe move a little bit from the prescriptive to the prescriptive because there is now a bill before congress that

the administration has put their to reauthorize the surface transportation system. it's still sitting in congress while the current authorization runs out into months, right? could you maybe just talk a little bit about some of the key features of the bill a what could happen if we don't get something done in two months? >> anybody who found a pothole on the way here, seriously potholes in this country are atrocious. they're getting worse. they're getting worse all over the place. i think what the average american doesn't always realize is that the transportation infrastructure, the surface system by the road systems they use are really an amalgam of the federal, state and local governments working together to ensure a quality transportation system. we've had over the last six years 32 short-term measures passed by congress.

on surface transportation. and having been a mayor this is what that means. what it means is that if you've got a big $100 million or more project, you may sit on it for a while because if you don't know the federal government share is comingfrom makes it really hard to justify going through the expense of planning and project and in jamaica project and design a project and going through the ethics of public input and push-pull of getting a project done. and so i think what washington has told the rest of the conch is just stop. and that's the opposite of what we need to be doing. -- the rest of the country. within the context the president has proposed the grow america act. is budget reflects what we think we should be spent on our infrastructure, which is basically a 50% increase over current levels. we think that we should be doing a whole lot more highway work

both maintenance and new capacity, that we should have a national rate plan that actually has money behind it as a country so that we can ensure that we maintain our places and most efficient effective and safe system of moving commercial goods across the world. we think that we should have funding set aside for these local communities that have figured out how to cluster themselves along areas of economic sphere of influence. we think we should have greater protection for safety for the traveling public that we don't currently have today. the grow america act is a huge step forward but we do need congress to pass a. if they're not going to pass that pass something. >> maybe we could talk for a minute of the one of the elephants in the room, the federal highway trust fund. that by way of background ever since eisenhower, our federal

highway interstate system has been built out to the trust fund which is funded solely by gas tax, right? and if i recall correctly from "beyond traffic," if i have the numbers correctly, there's like $30 million that's currently, revenue that is being generated by gas tax. 40 million is being spent just to keep the current spending like eating million to really come if we're going to make investment many. we have a real problem with the trust fund. by gas tax is not going to be able to find it. basically insolvent, so what are some of your thoughts, the administration's thoughts on how to plug that gap? these going to be an increase in the gas tax? that seems to be bipartisan lack of support for that. is it going to be hitting up the

general fund? i guess the president proposes one off 14% income tax on foreign income which might spark a little interest in this room. the possibility of just revisiting the polling system for the interstate highway system. >> well, this is a very important point. the highway trust fund has been roughly running $18 billion short for annual basis and in recent years congress has tried to hatchet together using a variety of legislative duct tape and chewing gum to just keep it afloat. i would say in response to the question, i think it is misguided on our part as a country to think that plugging the highway trust fund is a substitute for making

investments in our infrastructure that we should make. somewhere along the lines we've got this impression that if we just got the trust fund plugged up that would solve our problems. and the reality is that the spending levels of the trust fund, eating -- even according to cbo, if you just got to trust fund level to last years numbers commutes to be about 11 or $12 billion short in terms of just the maintenance that needs to happen on an annual basis in this country. i think the problem we have is that everyone wants things to be like they were in 1956 and we're not in 1956 anymore. we are in 2015 and i will say one of the thing just you know, i had an opportunity to watch little best vault over the weekend i watched duke play again. and for the first 24 minutes coach k. looked like he preferred to be someplace else.

and at the end of the game he said it was like an out of body experience. the team was like not doing anything we told them to do for 24 minutes. the last 16 was fine. i have to tell you as secretary of transportation i'm having an out of body experts every day. because i go to these places and i see these bridges and to see the roads and i see the potholes, and it's just like this is not the country i grew up in. and so i get sometimes mildly smartly criticized for being such a champion for congress doing something on this but the reason has nothing to do with just being pollyannaish. it's about the fact this country really needs it. our kids need it and if they don't have it we are going to have taken something away from them that we were given and i just don't think that's right. >> so you don't think the little

price of gas right now is going to encourage congress to up by gas tax? >> you know, look i think the reality is i think we're going to have to have a different system. you know look we have proposed a system that would at least for six years give us you know substantial bump in the amount of money that goes into our trust fund using programs to assist tax reform. i think it's like everyone wants the ribbon-cutting but nobody wants to do what it takes to get there. and i think we are at a point right now where we are in a much deeper hole than most of the country realizes. we are in a much deeper hole. it's a serious problem and i would be committing malpractice if i can continue to try to

save. >> i forgot to making you are a lawyer. maybe we could go back again for a moment to the whole question of the federal state, local divide because some would argue that what's going on here one of the reasons why congress has resist reauthorization is to in effect encourage a devolution of funding responsibility to the state level. and, in fact, that seems to be happening. i think senator wicker recently referred to the fact that the states are a laboratory for fiscal extreme edition, they are passing fuel taxes sales taxes, experimenting. so is that maybe the de facto what's going to happen? is it to some extent just a realignment of responsibility in