lincoln and another war, the civil war. and wilson had it to lead the country through world war one. >> see the programs saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span-3. the senate is back at 9:15 eastern and continue to debate on the highway transportation bill. at 10:10 they are expected to vote to reauthorize the import/export bank. we bring you a conversation on the highway transportation fund with bud right. up next we will talk to fcc commissioner michael o'rielly. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and

brought to you as a pub health care service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: fcc commissioner michael o'rielly, it has been a while since you have been here. we have thought had you on since net neutrality became the law of the land. how is that going? >> guest: it is early to know how the rules are going to play out and what the impacts are. we have a court case still going on and we will see how that moves through the process and on the litigation side. >> host: there is talk on capitol hill with republicans about doing something to mitigate net neutrality. is that possible? >> guest: i will leave that to the friends on capitol hill.

i left that institution, enjoyed my time there but i am not in a great position to answer. but i suggest the legislation and reading it seems like a heavy lift right now. seems like those folks who feel they have done fairly well in commission items don't have interest in negotiating. i leave it to them. >> host: is there anything you can do as the commissioner? >> guest: my job is to highlight where we are doing well and where we can improve. i will point out problems hopefully we can fix. >> host: michael o'rielly we have another voice on the conversation. >> you adopted the open internet rules which are in place and are the fcc's rules. what do you do as a decenter when a case comes before you saying the rules have been

violated, i am being harmed by a violation of these rules, fcc enforce what you said is the rules. >> guest: there are a couple parts. there are bright line rules and other rules are authority-provided to the enforcement bureau and others to see how the land develops as it goes forward. it is hard to know what we will do on that side of the process. but in terms of the rules, i will analyze anything that is put before us any complaint filled in terms of violation. i don't agree with every rule but when they are in place i am obligated to enforce them. there hasn't been complaint do is the previous rules and i am not expecting too many but i will act accordingly. >> you talks about the delegation of authority to difference burrows including the

enforcement bureau. do you think in the case of new rules without a lot of case law develop, does that put you to elevate the questions to the full commission to deal with if something does come before you? >> guest: i think two parts. it does put the burden on the bureau to make sure they did all of their homework and everything they are presenting is accurate and making decision whether it is recommendations to the full commission or a decision they make. i am not a supporter of delegating swarths of authority to different burrows -- bureaus. there are instances that will be elevated but it is not for me to decide. >> host: >> host: did the politics of net neutrality affect relationships?

>> guest: i don't think it was one particular item. i enjoy my colleagues very much. we do try to get along the best we can. i think there have been issues recently causing i would say heart burn and disagreements on policy, hopefully they don't believe it on the personal side. i don't think it was one item but a combination of things as you go along and you start to realize your views are only so much of interest. >> you talked also the procedure form to create greater transparency and openness to the non-delegation issue. are there things that can be done in terms of openness and transparency that would alleviate -- it looks like a

good bit of partisanship from the outside and how information is being communicated to you have and you don't get the same information or the same access to the policy making part of you know preaching the order and having suggestions entertained. >> guest: it is not necessarily republicans and democrats. it is people with different philosophys and backgrounds approaching an issue. you highlight a number of instances where we could have done a better job in terms of the information that is provided to the public and the transparency available to everybody. that would improve relations for everything and have more sound ground when they do make a decision. things i have been seeking for instance is when an item is made for in open commission meeting and presented to the commissioner level that document should be made available

publically and i think that would provide an opportunity for everyone to know what we are thinking and people to hone in on issues they see as problematic. we have people raising concerns regarding the items but they don't know what is being put forward. so it is many scattered structures and that is problem problematic from my point of view. i would rather people not have to spend time on things that don't need attention. i don't think that is anything that would restrict the power or authority of the chairman or the majority. i am not interested. i don't think any of the ideas put forward would undercut their authority. i think it would make the process better for everybody. >> i know you are planning a speech next week on the issue of procedural form at the fcc. i don't want you to talk about it too much but there was a bill passing through the house commerce committee last month

that had a number of openness posting of orders as they are adopted and also of a little more on the decision making deadline side. are those the things you think need to be done? are you looking for something more fundamental and far >> i would say that one, i certainly leave the legislating to the legislatures. but a lot of ideas and i testified before the house commerce and committee energy and those are the number of ideas i have written about. i think i have eight or nine blogs on this topic and half a dozen more in the works and we are getting ready to release another one. there are a number of idea and those three are good and i think they are helpful. they combine them with three ideas from the democratic side so the combination of the two i would like to see the

legislation go and leave it to their hands but i think the ideas are strong. >> host: speaking of legislators you co-edited a program called the life line program. would you like to see that program ended? >> guest: no i would prefer we do reforms to the existing life line program before expanding it to broadband services. but i was recognizing the delay of the land and my colleagues were interested in going to the broadband side and i said if we are going do both at the same time i want to do that but i want that to be fiscally sound and impose obligations on the program so we don't bet into further problems on waste, fraud and abuse that exist in the current program and i want to make sure we can live within a budget. there is a concern when you expand that to broadband the

program could expand in terms of cost. the cost generally, people don't know exist -- people that watch the show don't know the cost comes from every consumer out there. that cost is coming from services. you are paying more than you need to today to fund programs like life line high cost and a two of the four we have. in that sense, i wasn't trying to end the program. i want to put fiscal restraints on the program. >> host: what are the parameters around coauthoring are a member of congress? >> guest: we work on different ideas and send them back and forth and see what the languages matches up. in this case i worked with the congressman before so it was an easy discussion. >> your fellow commissioner argued very strongly forto get

carriers out of vetting individuals who qualify for the life line. carriers that sign up individuals who have a financial interest in seeing if people getting the sub-saharansidy as possible. do you think that is major driver of the abuse in the program? or do you see it more as consumers? >> guest: i think it is both. there are some carriers more prone to this. the smaller carriers have no problem. and there are individuals taking advantage of the program. my colleagues is interested in moving to a mechanisms some of the states or partnership in snap with another program and i am open to having that dialogue. we put out a lot of questions related to the life line and we will see when that comes back.

i don't know if it is one particular we could target. if we could we would have eliminated it already. we have done a fairly decent job reducing it but we still have a pretty big problem on our hands. >> is it because of the rules? are there loopholes you need to close? >> guest: some is enforcement, some is tightening the rules, and third is the recognize what the program should do and i would like to target the program better therefore in targeting who needs the program, you reduce the extra people who are receiving today. it reduces the size of the program. let's fund who really need this program. >> is that how you determine the cap? look at the need and set the cap? >> guest: i was willing to have a dialogue on the cap. i thought the best starting

point is watt we spent last year the end of fiscal quarter year 2014 $1.6 billion is what we spent last year. we didn't have too many discussions on it. there wasn't reception to it at the time. i am hopeful we can do something by the end of the year and impose a cap. that can be something we can address and something that will get my vote in support. >> if there were a cap and demand bumped up against the cap, would it be first come first serve? or would you lower the income threshold? how would you handle that? >> guest: we are not sure we will get demand to bump up the cap because we are imposing a number of things.

we are not increasing the subsidy size of $9.25. we are only making one subsidy per location. you can pick to stay with voice or move to broadband. those things would keep the size of the program small. in that situation if you are there, i am worried about some carriers exploding and becoming the favorite and that is when you get the most waste, fraud and abuse. you start to see enormous growth by one or two companies. there i suggested of automatic ways of addressing those particular situation at the time. i was calling them circuit breakers like you have in the new york stock exchange: let's hold this until we fair out what is happening. >> host: that ties into the uss

reform. where does that stand? >> guest: we have four universal programs and the one getting attention is the life line program. but another is high cost. within high cost there is a couple different programs we are working on. one is capturing all of my time is rate of return. this is traditionally independent carriers trying to provide broadband to american consumers and trying to work out the subsidy mechanisms because they work in rural places in america where the cost don't match up with what they can get from the consumer. we are trying to provide reform there. and in addition to that many people are unserved in that area and we are trying to tie them together. >> host: mikem o'rielly march 29 2016 are there going to be incentive auctions that day? >> guest: this has been talked about recently. i cannot tell you at this

moment. i am generally supportive of the timeframe the chairman outlined. i am sympathetic to his goals of moving it as soon as possible. i am willing to listen to legitimate concerns raised on why we should potentially change that date. not antidotes but people could say this is the reason the auction should be moved and i will look at it. i believe we will spend the rest of the summer doing formal items we need to as we have a number of items coming up in august and a number of things on the back end you will not see like making sure the software works mock auctions and a lot of procedural things we have to do hit the 1st quarter time temperature line if that is to be. >> host: what do you consider to be legitimate complaints? >> guest: we have obligations under the statues i worked on

under the members of the senate. we have an obligation to have a successful auction. there is no value of a failed auction. it harms carriers consumers, the legislatures it doesn't help the fcc. so i want to have a successful auction. and those items come forth saying if this isn't done or this isn't delayed for this reason it will harm the chance of success full auction. the first one attempted before, in reverse auction trying to convince broadcasters to sell and wireless carriers to buy and we have to have the pieces moving at the same time. i want to make sure we can have a successful auction and part of having a successful auction is being able to close the auction and the numbers match up and the amount of numbers the broadcasters want meets the

amount willing to bid. if it takes more time i am willing to wait. i am make sure that happens. >> is success transferring a concern certain amount or a revenue amount? >> guest: in terms of the spending congress estimated we would spend dollars for, we already spent the money and are in the process of recooperating some of it. we have revenue targets but they are revenue targets to meet the demand for dollars from the

broadcasters. i don't know what the right megahertz is going to be or clearing spectrum. we will run the process based on the current structure and see what the demand is by both ent industries. >> and speaking of industries and you have to come to the auction. what is your sense if there is enough broadcasters to take the first step and participate? >> guest: i think there are those interested. the financial dollars from the aws-3 auction and seeing how much could be available to them is enticing them to be more open. the commissioner has done a fairly good job trying to convince broadcasters. i would like to see more information provided.

as much as necessary to the broadcasters to make a decision. i think we withheld some information. i would like to have been more open. toward the end there was a scuffle. i would like to right as much information as possible. trying to get someone in broadcasting and many times it has been generational. there is a whole different approach to broadcasting. i want to make sure they have as much information as they need to make that decision. >> i assume you are talking about the issues with the big push back. the issues you need to address from the july meeting until one hopes in august. all interest holders were saying no and don't put the

broadcasters in the space between the locks that wireless carriers would have. and yet that was the recommendation that was reportedly coming out in the order you were voting on. how does that happen when everybody is saying don't do that. >> guest: i have to be careful here because it is something we are going to vote on. so i don't want to prejudice my decisions and decisions may change along the way. i said many months ago i don't support putting a broadcaster in the duplex staff and i have seen a number observation vocal opponents coming forward. i think they made a decision this was something that was doable

doable. >> host: why is it important to hold it in the 1st quarter of 2016? >> guest: i think there is interest in holding it as soon as possible but i want to get right so timing is only one component. i don't have great input into agenda or the timing of the issue. that is the discretion of chairman and he is interested in holding it to then. >> one of the decisions made was on the credit you get. what is wrong with what the fcc is dog. -- doing -- and how do you make sure they don't advantage? >> guest: i am supportive of

that. the real question is would we allow a company to win license with a credit and lease it out to someone with a company. and therefore be a pastor. there are a lot of good things decided in the item and if we could have solved that issue it would have gotten me closer to being supportive. it is wrong to get a credit and lease out the inspire spectrum. the argument in the item is you would get operational experience but really you are collecting a check. getting the license, and leasing it out and you just get a check. that is wrong especially when you get a subsidy of 15-25 percent. if you are getting a discount on

the license, i think that is wrong. maybe there is a way to break up the lease. maybe we will make you you go to different providers. i think that is a big loop hole and we will face a problem eventually and be back to where we are today. >> in addition to transferring spectrum from wireless carriers there is said there is going to be spectrum available for unlicensed use. what is the policy making in your head? what is the policy rubric for addressing how much to allocate

for license and how much to allocate for unlicensed? >> guest: there has been recent ongoing debate on the value of licensed spectrum. we have obligations under the spectrum act to deliver licensed spectrum because that is how you generate revenue and meet the equalibrium i talked about. you have to balance that out. in the opportunity we are trying right as much license spectrum as possible. there is pockets and opportunities for unlicensed spectrum. i am a huge supporter of unlicense spectrum. you never know what someone is going to do with it and you look back and say that was an interesting idea. i love what can be done with unlicensed spectrum about we have a priority given the

statue. it is not a one or the other. it is a both. and there is opportunity in between the third model which is the sharing model. how long will it be before the american public is using this. if the 1st quarter is 2016 are we talking about two years, five years? >> guest: might be the five year time frame. a number of months for broadcasters to give up the business and there is a 39 month window. it is going to be give or take three to five years in terms of when the carriers can deploy this. and that has an impact on what they will bid for the spectrum knowing they will not have it immediately. the good part is carriers have

inventory now and this will feed into that. >> host: i am going to steal a question here for the final question on the final topic. this is about the communication act update and if it should be done wholesale or piece meal? as a former congressional staffer how would you like to see the communication updated? >> guest: i stick with congress is in the best position to doe decide what to do. if i were still there i might recommend, given where we are today, i may do more piece meal but it depends on the circumstances. i would probably send a good deal of time in title 6 that deals with video offerings and that is something that hasn't received as much attention dealing with how you regulate

cable. i would probably spend a considerable amount of time there. but that is something my formal colleagues would know best on wholesale or piece meal. the start of new congress is a new life. >> host: and politically because we are going into an election year, is it unfeasible to think about a communication act update? >> guest: it is probably a heavy lift in terms of a wholesale update or rewrite. there are pieces that could be done definitely. but the politics being as they may you never know. >> host: do you want to follow-up to your question? >> what prescriptions are you advising congress? you mention title iv do you think that is the most from an ease of doing it or amount of

interest you think you will go with? >> guest: i am not sure. that is probably where i will spend time. but it is probably more likely they will deal with the profit side. that is probably where it will spend time before the politics of late next year overtakes the congress. they are trying to see what they can do in the rewrite side of equation but i suspect those are probably more likely. i would say those over this. but they are capable of doing both but only they know the time of what can be done. >> one more follow-up? time for one more follow-up? if not we will leave it there. >> do you think the kinds of changes congress are considering will they -- or should they go to the greater issues like should the fcc be a trust

organization or consumer protection agency? what should the role for the long term? >> guest: this has been posed in many different ways. is -- some suggested getting rid of the fcc but i am not supporting that. i think the fcc does the best work focusing on the law and not trying to get outside of the bounds and creative. if it just does the job congress asks that is plenty of work. i am not so sure what congress should think about. i think we do a decent job. we have good hard working people at the fcc and i respect the work we do. i don't agree with their outcomes. i wish there was more give and take. but i think the staff does a hard job with a task ahead. >> reports and michael o'rielly

one of two republicans on the commission thank you for being on the "the communicators." >> guest: thank you so much. i really appreciate it. >> the senate is in recess and will be back at 9:15 eastern for more debate on a six-year highway transportation funding bill. at 10:10 they are expected to vote on an amendment to reauthorize the export/import bank whose charter expired at the end of june. a conversation on the highway trustfund with bud wright tomorrow while we wait from this

morning's washington journal. >> host: it is crunch time for the highway transportation fund that loses funding on friday if congress doesn't act. bud wright, what is the consequence if the budget hits? >> it will mean a crisis for the state department and local governments. on friday the authority for programs that are provided by the federal government for highways transit and highway safety expire meaning that no new reauthorization of projects can take place. and it will run out of money so the federal government can't make payments to states for work already done. >> host: at what point would the viewers at home start seeing and feeling the impact?

within days or months? >> probably more like months but i would contend they would be seeing the impacts already. many of the states have already canceled projects because of the uncertainty associated with the federal program. we have known for a long time this deadline was coming. yet the states did not know what the circumstances were going to be as we approached this date. so that means some of them have had to have no other choice but to cancel projects. the state of georgia has canceled $715 million worth of projects, tennessee $400 million, louisiana and others are saying they cannot go forward with projects we don't know we will have dollars for. the states are cutting back and people will see the impact. >> host: for viewers who want to know about the impact in their home state bud wright is a good person to talk about it.

for folks not familiar with the organization you are from give us an overview. >> guest: it is a group that represents the 52 state departments of transportation. we advocate for them in washington, d.c. many of the policies under consideration by the congress have a direct affect on state dot's because they are the primary deliver of the programs authorized. they have a great stake in what happens in washington. $41 billion a year flows through the highway program and all of them are delivered to the citizens by state dot. >> host: if viewers want to talk about the highway trust fund or give us a sense of what the highways and bridges are like in your area.

202 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8001 for republicans. take us through what happened with the highway trust fund over the weekend and where we stand today and the action congress needs to take this week. >> the house passed a five month extension to carry programs through december 18th and gave funds. their approach is one that says if we have enough time in the fall to look at international tax reform we can fund the reauthorization for a full six years. the house has taken that action. the senate is now in the process of trying to enact a bill this

week. it a six year bill but only contains three years worth of funding. they would like to go multi year right now and provide the certainty that state dot and transit providers need to carry the program forward. >> host: do you have a preference if the six year deal moves forward where the pay comes from? there was talk earlier last week about using funding from social security who those who have warrants out does it matter for you where the money comes from? >> guest: our mantra is long-term and sustainable. sustainable and user fees

usually. that doesn't look like it is in the cards. passing a gas tax or something is just not on the table. we know the spending is important. the economic impacts of not doing watt the congress is about to do is significant. why is the federal gas tax increase not on the table? it is at 18.4 cents a gallon for diesel it is 24.4 cents. >> guest: we think it is something that has been shown to have support of citizens. if you look around the country a number of states increased their own gas taxes and haven't suffered political consequences

many fear in washington. with but it is not supported by republican leadership or many democrats. i think there is a basic understanding of this is a system in which the users should pay for the benefits any tax increase, but gasoline short of middle tax increase is scene as politically toxic. >> host: we are taking your calls with lines for republicans, democrats and independents will be on the scene. we are starting with pauline, line for independents. >> caller: i want to ask a question. where is all of the money for our streets and buildings? i get tired of looking at my street and how broken up it is.

either way just tell me the truth. thank you. >> guest: much of the money in the federal programs is directed toward the interstate system is one of the primary responsibilities and another large portions of the there dollars goes to the national highway system. the 160,000 miles or so of the roads that move interstate commerce they are typically four lane divided roads and provide for connection across state lines. when you talk about the federal programs you are talking about high volume roads, they kerry a lot of commerce, meaning truck traffic, and many federal dollars that flow to other purposes. when you think about the purpose

of a federal program, there has to be a national perspective. there are issues on the higher ordered roadways. we have obsolete bridges and a lot of needs to be met but when you look at local streets and road they are not ones needed through the federal program. >> host: we are talking about what might happen if the trust fund does expire. here is the protected end of year balance. these numbers in the $20 billions on the left side in the red if the trust fund is allowed to expire. we are talking with bud right

from the american association of highway. dianne in arkansas is up next. line for republicans. >> caller: hi i am so glad he is on this morning. i just got off a two week trip going west from arkansas through seven states. the roads are horrible. you cannot blame bush for this. obama laughed about it not being better. i don't know how the people in oklahoma and new mexico exist. and keep their cars going. it is big holes. it jolts your cars.

where has the money gone? >> guest: i would say that is why we need the certainty of the program. many of the state dot's feel ham strung not being able to make commitment to longer term projects because of the uncertainty they have faced over an extended period of time. the last time we had a multi year reauthorization of programs was ten years ago. the states are forced to look at short-term maintenance projects because they cannot be sure what the federal government will provide going frord. if the states would have a road map of the next four or five years of funding you will see them making a dent in the kinds of roadways projects you are talking about. >> host: shovel ready reminds me of stimulus dollars spent on

this. what is the legacy of the stimulus spending in that area? >> guest: the program was successful. from the recovery act, a huge portion did not go toward highwy expenditures. over $700 billion was for transportation and they got out the door and were used effectively. they were on projects that did make a difference. they provided for employment opportunities. not just on building and improving roads but those get to jobs and carry out the business they do on a daily bases.

>> host: what is an example of one of the projects? >> guest: it was a lot of repaving and reconstructing jobs. many of the states all of the states people recognize in their daily lives. >> host: joe in mass is on the line for democrats -- massachusetts -- >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i think people would support it if they could be assured the money would go far. but the problem is it has been used for other things. transportation and other matters. people don't trust the government is going to say what they are going to do. if this is for people using the roads that is one thing. but it has been used for other things. that is why i don't support it myself. >> guest: that is a fair comment. i would contend the dollars are being used for the purpose they

have been authorized. rather than the highway trust fund used to fund other purposes, highway and transportation spending is relying on subsidies over the past five years. we have had to subsidies for this. we are finding additional dollars for the general fund and it isn't easy. the dollars made available through the program, state dot and other entities responsible for delivering projects understand they have to be accountable. one of the things gone in the recent reauthorization is put in place performance-based

expectations. that is to say we will set targets in areas that were identified in federal law for how we will reduce congestion and safety and pavement performance. here is what we should expect in return and i think states are willing to say if you give us the resources, here are the projects we will deliver and here is are the outcomes. >> host: the house would be the 34th short term funding expansion. expectations for this week. does the house seem willing to take up the longer term deal? >> the senate is going until late wednesday or thursday to pass this bill. the vote is going to be close on whether they are able to do that

at all. given that fact and the fact the house is adjourning on thursday it seems it will have to be a short term bridge. the house passed a five month bridge if you will. there has been state department's decision but nothing is rolling out, if the senate proceeded with this three year six year bill, they would pass a two month extension at the same time. that would let them take the month of august and september and negotiate another solution. i think we'll see some outcome extension but rather that is the five month bill or the two month bill is yet to be determined. >> we have the executive director for the state highway. we have lines for republicans,

democrats, and independents as we talk about the roadways and bridges in this country and the trust fund for the federal government used for that. john line for independents. go ahead. >> caller: first to talk to the woman that travelled across the country. it wasn't bush or obama. remember, the republicans made the stimulus a tax give back. made was hundreds of billions there. as far as my comment, i put on 70,000 miles a year between pennsylvania and northern virginia every day. and we have to raise the gas tax even though it will cost me more. raise it every two or three years a penny or two. the roads suck in all of the areas i travel in. and it is probably worse in the

red states because they don't use their tax money for anything. >> what do you think about the proposal to have a user fee for miles driven? do you think it is possible? >> reporter: the republicans want to put toll roads on all of the roads. in virginia, you can go four miles and it will cost you $9 for the new extension. that is not really fair. put it in for everybody because everybody drives. and don't load it up on the truck drivers and the couriers and people that have to put a lot of mileage in. just make it so the whole country pays a couple cents more every two or three years. it is not going to kill us and gas mileage has to get better or it has been getting better for years and years. it is a common sense thing but

because the republicans operate from no tax increases for anything despite the fact we probably have 22 more million people than we did in 1992. it is political crap. >> host: do you think raising the gas tax let's the people using electric cars off the hook? >> caller: say that again. >> host: i am asking about people that drive electric cars. is that allowing them to use the roadways without bearing the burden? >> caller: that is a good question. they are saving money by using electric cars so they can pitch in too. why don't we look out for the greater good with the greatest number. that is a different attitude. >> host: i will let bud jump in. >> guest: i will start with the gas tax. i think one of the things that is true in this country is

people overestimate the amount they are paying in gasoline taxes. if you take the combine burden of state and federal taxes the average drivers pays less than $250 a year in taxes to support roadway construction and in some cases transit improvements as well. the federal portion of that is about $125 a year. so we are really talking about just over $2 a week in contribution to support this $40 billion federal aid highway program. if we were to increase the gasoline tax and i am by no means suggesting the gas tax is the only way do this but it is the approach that has been taken over a long period of time a 10 cent per gallon tax increase, would be more than enough to cover the deficit, would be less than $75 a year additional burden on the average driver in

this country if you drive a car that gets about 20 miles per gallon and you drive 12,000 miles a year. it is not a huge burden. i think it is something if most understood that would support especially if they could see the improvements and be assured those dollars are going to be used for transportation benefits. as it relates to miles taxes or mileage-based user fees i certainly agree that probably is the future but we are not ready yet. the technology is probably there. but there are many concerns, many sures going to be worked out. one of the things we are hoping to see in the legislation if it passes is the ability to carry out pilot projects to determine how a system such as that would work in this country. we have one state, oregon that is charging mileage-based user

fees. they have people paying based on the number of miles they drive. >> host: what about the privacy concerns about that for folks knowing their driving information is going to a massive database that tracks how far and perhaps where they have driven? >> guest: that is one of the principle issues that has been raised but there are ways to collect the information without charting where a person is driving everywhere. all you would need to know is the number of miles someone is driving and charge based on that. there are a lot of variations on how a mileage use fee would be implemented. a location base fee would be something some localities would do. i doubt the federal government would want to be in that part of the business. there are a number of ways to do this without violating privacy.

>> host: marsha is on the line from florida for republicans. >> caller: i wanted to comment about the roads. i believe that our president is going to give iran billions of dollars, which is a known terrorist organization. if we could quit giving away all of our money we might have enough to fix our own country. you should take care of home first before you go out to other countries and try to fix them. especially when they are our enemies. it doesn't make sense. >> host: any proposal to trim foreign aid to countries and divert that money to the trust fund? >> guest: that is not one of the thing being considered by the senate. it goes back to the overall

theme of why do we have highway and transit programs competing with other general fund needs? there are ways to fund transportation improvements through sustainable sources, user fees specifically. i think many in the transportation community would say let's get out of that battle for other resources and use a source similar to the one in existence since 1956 to fund transportation improvements. >> host: washington, d.c., darren is up next on the line for independents. >> caller: good morning, everybody. thanks for letting me on. i am a regular caller. i try to comment on a variety of stuff because i love c-span. i have two questions for our guest this morning. one is what are your thoughts on general road expansion? i am in my early 30's and i travel 95 corridor and 295 and pretty much no expansion since i

have been a kid as far as the road. i know there is way more cars out there. it really causes backup especially in certain areas. that and my other question -- >> host: darren you are going in and out. but i will let bud take on the question on road expansion. >> guest: darren raises a good point. we are not building new roads in the country certainly in parts of the country growing there is some expansion, but most of the country's goal is to operate existing facilities. we know using operational improvements, ramp metering traffic flow features, and we can get more out of what we already have. i think that is going to be one

of the things you see emerging as a theme as we go forward. especially for urban areas. we cannot build more roads. we want to provide mobility choices and want people to have a variety of ways to get around. which is why it makes sense for transit investment in urban areas. we will not build enough highways to take care of the population growth we know it is happening. we need to be strategic. >> host: is there an example of a city or locality at or near capacity for roadways where there is no more room for expansion where the efforts are taking place? >> guest: you could look at places like in new york city where there is not going to be significant roadway expansion there. what you are seeing there is they are putting the much bigger focus on things like bicycle and pedestrian facilities which

especially in an urbanized environment enables someone to get to work and recreation as easily as getting in an automobile. there was an effort at one point in the past for new york city to actually charge congestion fees. that didn't happen. but around the world, we are seeing if we can provide incentives to car pool or use public transportation that will take the cars off the roadways and the cost to decrease. >> host: let's go to bolder, colorado where greg is waiting on the democrats line. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing? >> >> host: good. >> caller: mr. wright hit on something i thought was important. he said there is a lot of fighting for government funding for different agencies and i agree with that.

a woman called earlier wanting to know where is the money. here is what i propose. we see the pentagon is building $1 trillion airplanes. a trillion a plane. we don't need them. all of the tax cuts for the rich people they say they need to use to create jobs. the only jobs they are creating are getting the people they want elected into the office. that is the only jobs they are creating. and then i hear all of these republican contenders for the presidency wanting to ignore the american's people's vote when it comes to changing the marijuana laws. billions of resting our fellow citizens for something that the american people don't want them arrested for, and we have republicans on tv saying they don't care what we vote for, they will enforce the laws whether we like it or not. come on. i don't know what it will take to get these people to start listening to the will of the american people.

$1 trillion for a warplane. and, republicans on tv talking about cutting social security and food programs, cutting all these things that people need to live, while they are inventing things that kill people. host: we got your point. bud wright, a lot there, i will let you comment. guest: i'm probably not the right person to talk about the defense budget, because back to the point that i was trying to make earlier which is that there are a lot of competing needs at the federal level. transportation has had a dedicated source of revenue for a long time. it has kind of state out of that fray. i think as we look to the long-term, to the approaches that we hope we would be utilizing, that we would not be income petition for other needs. that is certainly an important responsibility for the federal government. those are the battles that will continue to be fought. we would hope that we could get transportation out of that cycle, rely on sustainable long-term servi

>> we were hoping that we could rely upon sustainable long-term sources, things that are not competing with other priorities. >> as we noted the "washington journal" today, the highway trust fund debate being tied up with the debate over the export import bank and some of the legislation vehicles that are moving along and here is a commentary section of the washington times. he knows that the 320 million public works funding would raise everman spending increase taxes and possibly provide a lease on life. this happens every time a highway bill comes up for a vote, republicans talk about the credentials and lineup with this commentary today. can you talk about how the export-import bank complicates this? >> yes i think it does complicate it. it is not germane to the transportation legislation. it is not a unique washington

phenomenon that when a so-called must pass piece of legislation is being considered that other things are on to that. and it is going to make it more difficult, i think to get this bill done. but by including this some votes that otherwise would not be there will in fact support this legislation. our biggest concern is that there have been rumblings through the white house that a bill without the ex-im bank may not be signed by the president were at the very least a president has said that we might see this program expire. and we would hate to see that be the impact because we know that there are jobs that are going to be affected and economic performance is going to be affected.

>> morning. one for independence. >> i don't know if you are just knows the answer to this, but how are these highway funds distributed among the states remark because i notice -- and i live five minutes from kansas city, missouri. and i noticed when i traveled from kansas to missouri that the roads are really different. the roads in kansas are pretty good. but there is a stark difference between the roads in the two states. kansas does have a toll road and has a republican governor and missouri does not have a toll road, but it has a democratic governor. so i don't know if the government or how the funds are distributed maybe kansas is getting more money than

missouri. so that is my question. >> the funds are distributed based upon formulas that really are intended to be surrogates for need in each of the states. but it's important to note that the federal program and the dollars that flow through that are not the only ones that take place. each of the states has their own gasoline tax local governments contribute resources and the federal program constitutes close to 50% of the so-called capital invested investment and that differs from state to state. so there is a difference formula or amount that each state receives from the federal program but it's also true that there is a significant contribution and sometimes the different face the from state to state is a function more of that than of the federal dollars and resources that flow through this program. >> going back to pennsylvania virginia is waiting on line for republicans. good morning. >> hello. >> hello, you're on the

"washington journal." >> yes, i thought that the reason that we had this was to pay or our highways. years ago when they started all of that, that was to pay for the highways and also i think that they got rid of all these tollbooths and polltakers and put that money towards the roads that it would be a big help. and also there's too much thrift going on. we don't know where the money is going. it is disappearing in the financial state of this country is ridiculous because it's like nobody is watching the other person. >> a couple of comments. first the federal government does not impose any tolls. that is a choice that is left up to date and local communities and if you travel around the

country you can see that the tolls are tools are not common in many places around the country. certainly the northeast, florida, a few other places, you do see the tolls, but it's not something that is ubiquitous and it's really something that is kind of a local option and choice and commonly associated with the construction of new facilities. as to the comments of polltakers, what you suggest is happening is that most toll facilities to have electronic charges and some of the people in this area are familiar with this and it's a mean by which you don't have to stop and actually hand over money to a toll taker but you can breeze right through a toll collection area and have this collected electronically. and that is one thing that is we talk about the mileage-based

user fees, the ability to collect them electronically is something to be utilized. >> are there standards on how much money is collected on these tolls by private companies? how much the company can keep and how how much goes back into it themselves? >> that is subject to the agreement between the entity that is authorizing that to exist and those of actually undertake the project. there's not a national standard for that, but there probably are industry norms and certainly there are some administrative costs associated. they are more expensive than the gasoline tax and that is up to if the state of virginia for example as it relates to tolls that we have here and this is an agreement between the private entrepreneur in the state of virginia of the amount that can be set aside for administration costs. >> ryan is next. good morning. >> good morning. i'm going to suggest an idea

that dwight eisenhower used. he saw how the german autobahn system more and he decided that we have a lot more done on and then this is what they did, they had this as a result. >> it's a little bit part like this and get yourself together. we might have to defend our

country. >> the interstate system that president eisenhower was associated with is called the national interstate and defense highway network and certainly it has defense leads as part of its role and as to this notion of highways paying for themselves, the caller makes a very good point that transportation investment does stimulate the economy. it enables people to get jobs and goods to move more efficiently. there have been some studies done when you make an investment in transportation you are really saving money and creating economic opportunity and unfortunately that phenomenon comes into play and they really stimulate greater tax activity and stuff so while the overall

economy gets that transportation program, many don't necessarily benefit. >> we have five to 10 minutes left with the americans association of state highways. he's here to answer questions about the trust fund and we want to hear about the trust funds in your area, john has more for republicans. >> thank you for taking my call. i'm really calling to tell you that you're making a huge mess they on raising the gas tax and when you cast the light on this gas tax from you are going to get the food the restaurants anything that has to deal with the economy or transportation the price is going to go up.

so you're making a huge mistake on the gas tax. >> what would be your solution with this funding question? >> my solution is new leadership. you need people that are honest and washington the people of the united states are getting tired. you help republicans get elected. they don't want to vote because it's the same thing over and over again. people are getting tired. how about all the natural gas stuff throughout the united states. he wants to put natural gas in every state in the united states. and to use it to try to get this done and that is my opinion. and the magistrate the people in the united states are getting tired. >> i guess the good news for john is that gasoline tax

increases is not on the table at the moment. >> average driver pay someone in the neighborhood of 350 to $400 per year just in dealing with the things in their automobile that are affected by bad roads. [inaudible] >> let's go to mike in ohio. good morning, you are on the "washington journal." >> good morning. first of all i want to correct the woman caller from florida that said that the iranian money

is american money. that's false, that is money that was frozen during the sanction. we are not giving them any of our money. it is their money. the other thing is that during the iraq war we lost billions of dollars over there and nobody could account for where went to and the american taxpayers are getting screwed over by the military complex. when you pay $1600 when you combine it in an auto store for $20 and that is going on all over in the military complex. remember what eisenhower told us. beware of the military complex. people are taking money, not the soldiers and stuff like that but the people that know the weaponry. we have votes out there in california that are supposed to be minesweepers or detectors one of them almost sunk. the avionics on the ship couldn't step up next to it. so we have to start cutting the

cost in everything. just not certain things that the republicans want to cut. thank you. >> let me tie that back to transportation. and i think it does have to do with the notion of government accountability. and it seems like a point that we take seriously in conversation and we want the users to be assured that they are going to perceive something back into it. >> john, good morning. >> good morning.

>> hello, why would you have to adopt a highway and there's a sign-up on the side of the road that they are trying to adopt it, we are getting nothing for our tax money. i mean, it seems to me that people are trying to get us out of our cars and get people to ride on transportation systems that don't go anywhere near our work. >> the senate is coming back in session to continue work on the highway bill. including one on the amendment to reauthorize the export import bank. let's go live to the u.s. senate floor.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: