inclusive than each state government should itself set up the can exchange. we know that congress unthe backdrop of the amendment, couldn't impose that requirement, we know that because of section 1321. section 1321 provides the means by which 1311 b 1 requirement is satisfied. it will be satisfied by a state electing to meet the federal requirements for exchanges or it can be satisfied in the event a state doesn't or tries but comes up short. hhs stepping in and establishing. >> when the statute says each state shall establish it really means federal government shall establish if state doesn't establish. if that were the correct interpretation you wouldn't need 1321 at all. >> i think the right way to think about this, justice alito, what's going on here is that -- the right place to focus, let me put it that way, the right place to focus is not on the who but

on the what. the thing that gets set up and whether it qualify as an exchange set up by the state. these exchanges do qualify. the rope they qualify is because they fulfill the requirement in section 1311 b 1 each state shall establish an exchange. 1321 tells you that. it says to hhs when a state hasn't elected to meet federal requirements hhs steps in. what hhs does is set up the requirement exchange. such exchange referring immediately to the required exchange, only required act under exchange 1311 b 1. it has to be what hhs is doing under plain text of the statute fulfilling 1311 b 1 each state establish an exchange. for that reason we say it qualifies as an exchange established by the state. that's reinforced as justice said earlier definition, exchange is established under

section 1311. 1311 again 1311 b 1, which says each state shall establish an exchange. it has to be that way. petitioners have conceded page 22 of their brief that an exchange that hhs sets up is supposed to be the same exchange. then petitioners say function just like the state sets up itself. >> putting a lot of weight on the word "such," such exchange. it seems the most realistic of such to mean federal government shall establish a state exchange. rather it seems to me such means in exchange for the state. rather than in exchange of the state. how can federal government establish state exchange. that's gobbledygook must mean something different. >> it doesn't gobbledygook. go back to something justice

scalia asked earlier. if language of 36b were exactly the same as it is now and statute said in 1321 that an exchange set up by hhs shall qualify as an exchange established by the state for 1311, you wouldn't change language of 36b one iota and there wouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that subsidies were available on federal exchanges. what we're saying effectively read 13g 11 and 1321 together that is what the statute does. it's reasonable reading only reading that allows you to be fateful to 1311b b 1, the word shall. >> the word "such" means not just the exchange that the state was supposed to set up. but it means a state exchange.

>> that satisfies the requirement of 1311. >> has to say it means this exchange, hinges on this federal state is state change. >> equivalent to state exchange, to statute, reasonable reading of particular provisions. once you've concluded it's a provisional reading, particular textural readings, you have to read it the way it is read. only way to make sense of the statute as a whole only way to bring it into harmony with quality act's individual what they admit is an absurdity under their reading of the law. >> would you admit there are provisions of the act where the exact same phrase established by the state has to be read to mean

established by the state not hhs. >> they have pointed out some but i think they are wrong about each one. >> let's take one. i'd be interested in your answer to it. >> 42 usc 13 w-3 h 1 d which says each state shall establish procedures to ensure that an exchange established by the state is a secure electronic interface. if exchange established by the state there is read to mean an hhs exchange that means the state in which that exchange is established is responsible for making sure that the federal exchange has a secure electronic interface. >> they are just wrong about that, just completely wrong. first of all state medicaid and chip agencies. what it says is they have establish procedures to ensure coordination. hhs has issued regulations setting forth what that

statutory requires in those circumstances. every state where there's a federalry facilitated exchange met the requirements, fulfilled them and works perfectly fine. there's no anomaly there at all. >> the regulation you say but to the regulations. >> yes, they do. >> do they give state authority to say whether or not these conditions have been met? >> the requirements are imposed on the state medicaid and chip relationship, that's what the statute does. regulations implement that statutory requirement and satisfied in every state as your honor reading it does say, the statute says each state shall. it doesn't say states that set up for them selves shall, each shall. presupposes something established as an exchange by the state in every state. no anomaly there. if your honor wants to ask about

are any others you can but no anomalies. >> i understand your answer to be federal regulations telling the states what they have to do here and they have all done it. the fact remains the state has some obligations under regulations to make sure there's a proper interface with federal exchange. >> on the state's side of the interface, yes. chip and medicaid agencies. it's their side it governs. i don't think there are anomalies of our reading but if there are they pale in comparison to anomalies on the other side. i really do want to focus on the point of the qualified health plan and qualified individual because the statute is quite clear in section 1311 an exchange, not an exchange established by the state but an exchange can only sell a qualified health plan. it is forbidden to sell a health plan that's not qualified. not established by the state

exchange. the statute says to certificate a health plan is qualified the exchange has to decide it is in the interest of qualified individuals. qualified individuals are persons who reside in the state that established the exchange. if you read the statute, language the way mr. carvin reads it instead of the way we read it, come to the conclusion and state with a federally facilitated exchange, there are no qualified individuals. therefore, the exchange cannot certificate qualified health plan in the interest of qualified individuals because there aren't any, so there aren't any qualified health plans that can lawfully be sold on the exchange. >> what is the provision that says only a qualified individual can enroll in the plan under an exchange. >> i just want to make clear the provision i'm talking about with respect to the prohibition on selling a qualified health plan

on anything other than qualified health plan on exchange is 1311 d 2 b, which is page 8, a of the appendix to our brief. absolutely unambiguous an exchange, not an exchange established by the state an exchange may not make available any health plan that's not a qualifying health plan. >> qualifying health plan. what's the provision you're referring to when you said that. an exchange may only enroll a qualified individual. >> what the statute says throughout is qualified individuals are eligible to purchase on exchanges it's the necessary meaning of that phrase, if you are not a qualified individual, then you are not eligible to purchase health care on an exchange. otherwise the word "qualified" would not have any meaning. the meaning of the word qualified is distinguished between people who are eligible and ineligible. as a policy matter wouldn't make any scene because think of the people who aren't qualified individuals. people who don't live in the

state, prison, unlawfully documented. >> part of section 1312, a person qualified to purchase on an exchange must, quote reside in the state that established the exchange. >> right. there are no such people in 34 states under mr. carvin's theory of the statute. you just run into a text ral brick wall. >> i understand your argument is that it's logical inference that only a qualified individual may purchase the policy. i gather there is no provision you can point to that says that directly. >> that's what qualified means, justice alito. that means if you're not qualified, you're unqualified. that's what it means. just reading the word qualified out of the state if you read it that way. >> qualified used in the lay sense of the term, not a technical term here? >> given the way it's defined includes people out of state. does that because the statute is clear. you weren't going to be allowed

to shop across state lines because that would infringe on state prerogatives on insurance. with respect to prisoners, doesn't make any sense to say prisoners should be able to get insurance. mr. carvin says yes, it does face life circumstances such as getting out of prison you can sign up for insurance at that point. he makes the the point about unlawfully present persons being both unqualified and not being able to be covered. that's not surplus. that's there for a very important reason, which is somebody can be in lawful status and be eligible for health care and lose lawful status. at that point they can no longer be covered. none of that works for them. none of that works for them. >> and but to really get to the fundamental point here, both at the level of text clear ir resolvable conflicts. if the statute can't work if you read it mr. carvin's way, the level of --

>> is that a synonym for ambiguity. >> i think so. absolutely right justice scalia -- excuse me, justice kennedy. you have ambiguity there precisely because you have -- this is a statute that's going to operate one way or the other. the question is how it's going to operate. when you read it their way. >> if it's ambiguous we think about chevron. it seems to me a drastic step for us to say that the department of internal revenue and its director can make this call one way or the other when there are billions of dollars of subsidies, hundreds of millions. >> billions of dollars of subsidies involved here. two points about that. >> it seems to me our cases say that if the internal revenue service is going to allow did he ducks, they would have to be

very, very clear. it seems to be odd that the director of internal revenue didn't identify this problem, if it's ambiguous and advise congress at once. >> a few points about that with respect to difference. first, we do think chevron deference clearly supports the government here and i'll explain why. before you get to that, you can resolve and should resolve this statute and statutes meaning in our favor even without resort to chevron deference cannon of reading statute as a whole to make it work harmoniously directs you to do very important principles of federals we've been directing you to direct them to do doctor of constitutional avoidance direct you to do. now, with respect to chevron section 36 bg of the statute, expressly delegates to the irs the specific authority to make any decisions necessary to implement section 36b. so you don't have any ambiguity,

congress said irs should do this. it is a big question. as the court said, chevron applies to big questions as well as small. your honor raised this point about the need for clarity in tax deduction, irs in statutory reading of tax deductions a learned treatise that describes that as a false notion. it's certainly not consistent with unanimous decision chevron applies to tax code like everything else. >> if you're right about chevron, that would indicate subsequent administration could change that interpretation? >> a subsequently administration would need a strong case under step two of the analysis that was a reasonable judgment in view of the disruptive consequences. i think you can resolve and should resolve this case because the statute really has to be read when taken as a whole to adopt the government's position.

>> if there are any tax attorneys in the courtroom today, they probably wrote down what you just said. when we get future tax cases united states will argue we should not read them to -- there should be no presumption a tax credit is provided by that statute. >> you should read it according to its terms. when you read this provision according to its terms and reit it in context, against background of the principles of federalism you have to. thank you. >> thank you four minutes. >> thank you mr. chief justice. on standing mr. hurst would be subject to penalty in 2014. he and miss levy would face same principle for 2015 if the government suggests moot under circumstances under 508 s iii,

it's their burden to raise it. in terms of the anomaly, losing, 34 states losing their medicate funds, the general greatly distorted statute, 64, a of their exhibit. a state shall establish procedure so the notion hhs established them is obviously contrary to that. it says the state will identify people to enroll on their exchanges they can't enroll anybody on their exchanges if there are no such exchanges in the state. therefore, by the plain language if you adopt the notion established by the state established by hhs, all of them need to lose their medicate funding. >> could i follow up on something the general ended with and justice kennedy referred to which is the need to read subsidies limited. but so is -- in a limited way. but so is the need to ensure

that exemptions from tax liability are read in a limited way. under your reading we're giving more exemptions to employers not to provide insurance, more exemptions to states and others or to individuals. how does that work? you've got two competing -- >> no. you do get more exemptions from employers under our reading, some applies. is it unambiguous. it's undisputed that's unambiguous. the dispute here is if they win under unambiguous, requires not to afford tax credit. in terms of employer mandate, i think that's helpful justice's concern about federalism. under their view of the statute, the federal government gets to unilaterally impose on states, from indiana requiring this a requirement that states ensure

their own individuals, employer mandate to state. under their theory the states are absolutely helpless to stop this federal intervention into their most basic personnel practices whereas under our theory they are able to say no. so actually more intrusive view of the statute is theirs. my short answer is as follows. no way to view this state as more coercive or harmful than version of medicaid that was approved by this court. indeed, the dissenting pointed to acceptable noncoercive alternative. in all of that even if constitutional -- novel constitutional question as justice scalia pointed out no alternative reading of the statute that avoids that because either way you're intruding on state sovereignty. in terms of anomaly as predicted, solicitor general did

not come up here and tell you, yes, if we prevail here under this theory they have to empty out hhs exchanges. nor did he even respond to my argument that whereas to an exchange under definitional section only applies to state exchanges i think we can view this as -- not statutory interpretation. in terms of qualified health plan he discussed with you justice alito, the complete answer to that is that is on 1311. 1311 only is talking about state established exchanges. it has no application to hhs exchanges, therefore can't possibly create anomaly to hhs exchanges. >> thank you counsel. case is submitted. >> the oral argument from last week in king versus burwell we'll be taking you live in 25 minutes back to the public transportation conference for the afternoon session. first more on the supreme court

case with a roundtable that and on yesterday's washington journal. >> i want to continue sunday morning and focus on supreme court and affordable care act. join us at the table kaito institute, you were inside the the court last week. thank you very much. also in the court from the constitutional accountability center. thank you for being with us, elizabeth. what is the significance of this court opinion we'll hear late june from the justices. >> this an in credit able important case. without tax credits given to americans across the country to help them afford health insurance under affordable care act, the act doesn't work. all the benefits we've seen millions of americans getting health insurance for the first time, feeling secure in that insurance by protections against discrimination people with pre-existing conditions, all of that would go away. studies show millions nearly 10 millions of americans would lose health insurance if the supreme

court rules against tax credits nationwide for americans who need them. and the whole health care industry in general would go into what economists call death spiral substantially disrupting business. that's why we've seen everyone with a stake, insurance provides, doctors, nurses, patients file in support of the affordable care act here. >> is it legal? >> well first on that point i want to point out hospitals looking for federal subsidy not surprising they are still trying to have that federal subsidy and petitioning court for federal subsidies. whether it's legal, no it's not legal. this is really a kind of -- we begin with a clear statute. if we didn't begin with the clear statute we wouldn't be here. everything government argued established by a state does not mean established by a state. it could be established by hhs, which, of course, would not make sense if you used the term "established by the state."

no it's not legal. to elizabeth's point how important it is. it is important rules of law making sure executive can't do, don't work the way he expected them to or states don't work the way he expected them to. the death spiral is not a foregone conclusion. it is important and that is how the absent is supposed to work. four states had these exact provisions, had rating and guaranteed issue without any subsidies and did not put them in death sprirl new york maine, massachusetts before romney care had it. we don't know what effects would be yet. >> let's talk about 13 states in washington, d.c. which have state-run california, connecticut, idaho maryland colorado, hawaii, kentucky massachusetts, minnesota new york rhode island, vermont and washington state. and potentially three others. down into mexico and oregon have begun to set up exchanges. what about the rest of the country? >> the rest of the country, i think actually the nation as a whole would be affected by a ruling against the

administration in this case. you would have these, i think nobel prize winning economist who said death spiral in the health insurance industry don't think it's something that is up for questioning there. but everyone across the country would be harmed by millions of people who would be kicked off health insurance if the court rules this way. we've had public health brief the court literally quantify might be 10000 additional deaths of people per year if the court were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs here. >> how do you get to that number, 10,000. >> so the public health put that into the record. that's how they reached the number. you'd have to read the brief. i'm not a public health economist but i rely on their expert opinion in giving you that number. it's before the court in the record. >> the last time the court took up the affordable care act swing vote was chief justice john roberts. did that surprise you? >> it did not.

i predicted he would be the swing vote. it was surprising i thought because the tax issue was surprising. our side won on the congress clause issues. chief justice in this case whether or not he's a swing vote, he definitely is in play in a way that i would have predicted in the first place. possibly justice anthony kebd which i think is a little overplayed, federal concerns how much he might be wavering i don't think wavering that much 20% chance of going the other way, roberts a 50% chance. >> the chief justice asked just one question correct, during the oral arguments? >> he only spoke a few times. one was to make a comment. >> did that surprise you, though? >> a little surprising. the chief is not that quiet. didn't tip his hand too much. those on either side have a question mark over chief roberts head. i was encouraged by judge anthony kennedy's questioning raising some concerns because

they also show he's aware of the burden the petitioners interpretation of the act would place on the states. their interpretation that either you set up your own exchange or you don't get these tax credits, indeed your market gets sent into extreme disruption, your constituents lose benefits they are paying taxes for anything. get to the point if congress were to put states to that choice, don't you think they would have made it clear in the act. the fact is no one at the time the law was passed, not members of congress who wrote it, not members of congress who were opposed to it and certainly not those folks in the states whose job it was to implement the law thought it worked that way. if you're going to put that big a threat onto states to get them to do something, you would think they would make the threat clearer and they didn't. that's because that's not the way it works. >> let's go and have you respond, chief justice has now released oral arguments each week that they come out we carry them friday afternoon 4:00

eastern on c-span radio. we posted the entire two hours 20 minutes of oral arguments on the website c-span.org. here is that exchange with chief justice kennedy. >> from the state point of the dynamics of federalism, it does seem to me there's something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, states are told create your own exchange or send your insurance market into a death spiral. we'll have have people pay mandated taxes which will not get credit on subsidies. cost of insurance will be sky high but this is not coercion. it seems under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute. there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument. >> two points justice kennedy. one, the government never made that argument. number two -- >> sometimes we think of things

the government doesn't. [ laughter ] >> i certainly hope you do in this case but not on this question. what i'm trying quite seriously justice kennedy convey if this is constitutional then the medicaid statute this court approved in an fyb would be unconstitutional. >> your response? >> four points onabout that. first as carvin said it hasn't been briefed. if they want to decide on that, i would say holding it over for extra briefing. the government has not been making that point. second new york versus united states, which kind of inaugurated coercion dommin dommineering. the third point is that it's not clear whether or not what actually creates coercion. elizabeth might want to be wary,

people championing federalism because easily we could rule that the coercion is created by community rating provision guaranteed issue and not by the lack of subsidies. we could overturn those and free up markets in the state. four federal concerns it's very weird to argue federalism on states rights asking for increased federal control over the states. >> this morning "new york times," what ending subsidies means. i want to share what "new york times" says, if rule no tax subsidies can be provided to americans buying insurance on the federal health exchanges in 4 states economic effects could be devastating. some 7.5 million people who qualify for subsidies this year could have them yanked away after a court decision and more than 9 million people would be unable to get subsidies. state economies would suffer insurance markets disrupted, millions lose coverage hospitals and insurance plans counted on revenues from newly

ensured people left high and dry and people who continue to hold policies would pay a lot more for them. >> well, that is possibly true but we can fix that by overtongue community rating and issue. those are the things driving health care up. without subsidies people wouldn't be able to buy it. i would be all for it if you wanted to free up states. what we have here obama care half of america imposing health care on the other half of america. there's no reason the health plan in kentucky has to look like massachusetts. >> if you drive a car you have to have insurance. why should americans have health insurance and if they don't have other people pay for their lack of insurance. >> that's the first case. people do pay insurance for that. you go to emergency rooms. there's ways to fix the health care system different, getting away from insurance model is one of them, having priced competition, health care goes down in price and up in quality like everything else. none of that is happening. there's a bad law that has so many problems and this is just

one of them. >> why should the government dictate you need insurance. >> we have a democratic process passed affordable care act. i think what trevor's comments get to criticizing protection to people with pre-existing conditions is he doesn't like the law and people supporting king v. burwell don't like the law. we have the law. it was passed through democratic process. the president was re-elected after leading on this issue. what folks who are opposed trying to do with the king v. burwell lawsuit is to kill the law any way they k that's something that's more appropriately done through the political system and not in the courts. i think, you know when you look at provisions talking about extremely popular american people, protection for those with pre-existing conditions to allow them to get health insurance at affordable prices especially that's incredibly popular. all of these things work together. individual mandate tax credits to allow people to purchase

insurance and the protections for people with pre-existing conditions. they all work together. if you get rid of one of them, the whole act collapses. that's what this is about about people wanting to kill the bill at any cost and knock one of the legs uft three-legged stool out so it collapses. that's not appropriate use of the court. and the meritless argument they make is just showing that this is a political crusade against the law. >> we'll get to calls and comments 302-7880. 302-8001 for republicans. you can also join us online. our twitter page or facebook. real quick sidebar question from karen. for you, elizabeth. chief justice john roberts giving each side an extra 10 minutes during aca oral arguments. how typical or unusual sanjaya sanjaya -- unusual is this? >> not unusual.

>> chief justice -- >> the previous chief justice extremely unusual. renquist never would have done that. stickler for time. halfway through your time and you're stopped. often there are two on the docket. given there was only one, it wasn't terribly surprising. we expected pretty. >> less go to dubuque, iowa, democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. as a person who got denied because of pre-existing dns-of- conditions, i'm glad about the affordable care act. the question i have is how come republicans are so against laws so many people signed up. nra only has 5 million members has more clout in the congress and senate to get bills passed and things. the law helping the poor and

kind of the rich and middle class and i guess that's the question i have. >> okay. we'll get a response. trevor burris do you want to? >> since i do firearms. nra are good at galvanizing votes because there are a lot of single issue voters on gun issues. why republicans are against it, i'm not a republican, i'm a libertarian, the reason i'm against it harmful to the health pocketbooks and welfare of american people. i may be wrong about that but that's what i believe. elizabeth mentioned 10000 people who might die. i think this law has, "doesn't work in theory or application. there's no secret we don't like this law in general, i think for reasons that are at least good hearted at the very least and not trying to just maliciously take away people's health care. there's a death spiral on the law without subsidies, the entire thing to work. do not forget what we did affordable care act pretended insurance is the same thing as health care. it's not, same thing for health

care. increased demand without doing anything to increase supply. if you're an american citizen who fierce health care system, has to go to the hospital with your mother, make sure they are giving her right medications, that's not going away, nothing that fixed that problem with the health care system. >> trevor burris at the kaito institute, law degree from the university of denver. elizabeth widera, graduate of yale law school. tell us about your organization constitutional accountability center is what? >> so we are a nonprofit nonpartisan law firm think tank and action center that is devoted to the progressive promise of the u.s. constitution. and we work in the courts and with the public to engage the conversation over the meaning of the constitution and rule of law in this country. >> both of our guests were inside the court for oral arguments this past week. john in maryland, republican

line, good morning. >> good morning. i'd like to ask your guests what their position is on the forthcoming decision on the affordable care act, whether you would like to see it held constitutional, or do you want the people to win. >> i think they probably answered that but give them a chance to respond again. elizabeth. >> just first, this is not a constitutional case like the first time we were up before the court. last time court considers aca it was a constitutional challenge. this time statutory interpretation case. that's something supreme court does all the time. they interpret parts of provisions of laws all the time. so i think if you look at that well established precedent that says that you read a law in its entirety, context you don't take four words out of the law and read them in isolation and without a view of how they fit

into the rest of the law. all nine justiceses agreed on that. the controversial context of the affordable care act then you start to see some of the justices kind of step back from those well established principles. when you look at affordable care act you see tax credits are available for americans across the country if they need them regardless of whether the state is running the exchange or federally facilitated. the law's plain text says that if the state does not establish an exchange, then the federal government shall establish such an exchange in the shoes of the state. just those plain text words show that the tax credits are available. you don't take four words out of context in the supreme court. that's not how you read a book either. you can take four words out of moby dick and think it's a whale watching crews. trevor's interpretation is not what affordable care act is

about. >> share with you a tweet, somewhat related as a background. who are the plaintiffs. is each one a person who had or will have insurance to purchase against his or her will? >> the individual mandate if you call it against the will. individual mandate. there are standing questions which i don't think we should get into right now the standing is important. back to elizabeth's point in the law. not just statute that's miss characterizing our argument. it says established by the state. section 1321 established by hhs, what supporters of the law want to do say establishment of the state can be established by hhs. since that's counter-textural reading, clearly they didn't intend that. we don't think, i don't think there's absurdity that results from that, partially not just words, looking at the law and context the fact states do not belong to federal government. they try and tell them you shall

set up an examine chung but they can't say you have to. they do this all the time. medicaid, give them to do something. we're seeing resistance to this. said democratic process to pass this law, yeah, kind of, maybe. of course we had no republican votes in support of this law. we're seeing resistance to it. no one expected states not to set up exchanges and subsidies. people there with states not federal takeover of health care, who do not want citizen to be subject to individual mandate and employer mandate which they aren't with subsidies. as wrote in "wall street journal," brief, calculated by him in oklahoma, he's attorney general for oklahoma. it's a clearly designed incentive to get states to set up exchanges. not just four words and we don't have nim analysis. a good reason we did this. >> good morning, independent line. >> caller: hi, thank you for discussion and having oral arguments available.

i'm going to listen to them later on the c-span page. i'm going to take issue something elizabeth said earlier about the democratic process and passing this law. i see it when people use that i see it as a jab against supreme court's authority. extremely misleading when people say america is democracy. indeed we do elect officials democratically. when officials get together they pass laws democratically. america is a constitutional republic. the example i always classically hear used, if elizabeth had a piece of land that we all wanted, we could all have a vote on it and take it from her. she would get to vote but she would lose. in america, because she has property rights under the constitution, she gets to keep it, regardless of what the majority wants. i don't see that as a valid argument for anything something

was passed democratically. something to be passed by the mob everybody wants doesn't fit within individual rights of a person, they can't take it. that is how america works. again, the supreme court does have the final say on this. >> okay andy. thank you for the call. >> yes, i 100% agree with you, particularly your last points about you can't have laws passed with the democratic process that violate constitutional rights. my organizations constitutional accountability filed a brief on friday saying the exact same thing in the context of marriage equality. you can't pass laws democratically with the majority that violate rights of minorities or otherwise trample on constitutional limitations or principles. that's not what we're talking about here what we're talking about here is a law not being challenged as constitutional. it's upheld as constitutional by the supreme court. that is the supreme court's job to declare what the law it. now we have a lawsuit here that the reason i say it's political

and challenging the democratic process is if you look at the origins of this lawsuit, my colleagues joey meyer has a great piece on our website going back to the conference and slide show which some of these legal theories put out in order to kill the law at any cost, it's really in my opinion political opposition to this law in search of legal theory to push through courts challengers of the affordable care act couldn't get through the democratic process. that is not an appropriate use of the course. >> our guess at the table elizabeth wydra, constitutional accountability center trevor burrus kaito institute center for constitutional studies. joining us from the line, good morning. >> caller: good morning. if democrats passed this law, made it a law, how come people has to drive 100 miles to get a

doctor that will accept the insurance? >> i have an answer to that. the american health care system as it's set up and as it's been strengthened and put and entrenched by it the affordable care act does not serve you as patients. it serves insurance companies. affordable care act is the biggest piece of crony capitalism passed, hall of fame for lobbyists who got them to put in a provision that says you have to buy something from a private business, a gold statue to them. everything the health care before wasn't serving you, couldn't call your doctor, get better service from your vet than you do your doctor and puts that in place more so. third party paying systems, preference getting insurance through your job, which makes no sense whatsoever. all that is from government. it doesn't do anything to fix it. therefore driving 100 miles to find a doctor is what you would expect in a system where patients aren't customers. >> this is not a question but saying obama care is big money for insurance companies. wall street wants obama care and

the supreme court works for wall street. do you want to respond? >> i would disagree works for wall street. i'm a believer in the institution. i don't think it's been politicized. people attack me saying we have five justices, five conservatives who vote in lock step. i say what about the four liberals in lock step, aren't they political. i don't think either are political. philosophies are very irreconcilable at times. much different now than it used to be with those philosophies. no, they are not owned by wall street. >> joining us from massachusetts. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. >> should point out you're on the democrats' line. thank you, liz. >> yes. i recall last week a gentleman who was a lawyer on c-span. he was talking about the lawyer who was combing through

affordable care act and found the four words. and his response, his reaction to finding four words to this gentleman on c-span this will disinvolve the affordable care act. i think that there was probably some glee in that skoefr. also he was talking about, i don't know who was saying, but what about people who were going to suffer. he said, well, they will just go back to what it was before and what's wrong with that. i would like your guests' opinion on why the republican party is supposed to be the party of the family when they are so willing to make so many people miserable and tloost l health care. as elizabeth said possibly 10,000 deaths. seems -- okay, thank you. >> thanks for the call. we'll get a response from our guest. let's start with trevor and then to elizabeth. >> as i said before affordable care act i think also has

extremely adverse health effects on people because it doesn't involve these problems that i mentioned. i'm going this because i think it's a badly constructed act that's bad for our health care system. that's why i believe the act should be destroyed. i also believe in upholding rule of law, intent of congress to give these subsidies out in exchange for them by the state. that's just a general principle of the rule of law. >> stella says this, aca passed on lies period. when the government can lie to people blatantly, it should be repealed by the people. >> i don't know what lies she's talking about. this was one of -- we debated affordable care act over and over and over. the committees that heard it in congress had more markup more hearings, you know. it was an incredibly transparent process in that respect. i don't think anyone would say we didn't talk about affordable care act enough. i want to get back to liz's call. she's right in talking about the

origins of this lawsuit this i alluded to earlier. when these four words established by the state were initially discovered as a possible tool to get rid of the act, first they were sort of saying gotcha we found this typo you put in there. we're going to try to hold you to that typo and kick millions of people off their much needed insurance. because of that they realized it wouldn't fly in the supreme court. they had to reverse engineer the story of why those words would be there under their interpretation. that's why you have we're trying to incentivize the state to set up exchanges. that wasn't the initial theory these four words were discovered by challengers to the act. it was reverse engineered to get a valid theory. "new york times" in its editorial used, i think probably the strongist language one could use on air. frankly, this was baloney and this is right.

>> there were lies and half truths in the affordable care act. the big one being what it cost. what you see in affordable care act, three different ways, told insurance companies can't deny anyone health care for any reason and couldn't vary price. the insurance company said that's going to be expensive. what do they do for the next part? we're going to make people buy your product. that's how we're going to get you money which means we never figured out how much it costs because congress took these squirrely moves to keep it out of cbo report and keep the truth of how much it will cost from the american people. >> talking about affordable care act and supreme court agents last week available on the website c-span.org. we'll go to cy from plain view, new york. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have several points i want to make. i'll try to be quick. first of all i don't think the car analogy holds up. no one forces you to buy a car.

you can walk. you can take the subway and you don't have to pay insurance. so in that case the car is not a good analogy. the second thing is no one read the 2,850 pages. congress voted for something they never even read. so how can you rationally say they voted in a thoughtful manner. the intellectual nancy pelosi admitted she never read it. >> we'll get a response. >> i don't think that's true. the members of congress the chief authors of this law. particular now ambassador max baucus chairman of the senate finance committee who was on the brief i filed in supreme court

on behalf of members of congress. they very carefully those about what was going to be in this law. provisions for tax credits for americans who need them based on income level regardless of the state they live regardless of which administrativentity runs the exchange on which they buy the insurance was incredibly important to the law and that was thought about very carefully. knowing what we know with this challenge would they go back and right, we really mean it federal government can step in and make an exchange and maybe they will. the the context it lies in the act, it's clear tax credits were to be available to all americans. it was in analysis put out by committees. there was an assumption they would be available nationwide depending on just the income. states acted based on that assumption. the states when they were determining whether or not to set up their own exchanges or not, they raised a lot of issues about having control over the exchange et cetera.

they never raised possibility their constituents would lose much needed tax credits as one of the reasons they should or should not set up exchange. even potential next republican nominee scott walker he set potential nominee scott walker set up his plan for health care system in wisconsin under the assumption that wisconsinites could get tax credits on a federal exchange which is directly contrary to the challengers of the supreme court. >> part of the exchange donald vorelli argued the case on behalf of the administration. joining in the discussion ruth ginsburg and antonin scalia. >> the idea that they're able to within six months when this decision comes out and the new year, will be able to set up exchanges to get them up and

running to get the approving done i think is completely unrealistic. >> how long are you thinking? >> the current time line, justice ginsburg, in order to have an exchange approved and insurance policies on the exchange ready for the 2016 year, those approvals have to occur by may 2015. okay. so that gives you a sense of the time line that hhs is operating under. >> what about congress? do you really think congress just going to sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue? i mean how often have we come out with a decision, such as the bankrupt court decision, congress adjust enacts a statute that takes care of the problem. happens all the time. why is that not going to happen here? >> well, this congress you know -- >> theoretically -- >> i don't care which congress you're talking about. the consequences are as

disastrous as you say so many million people sure i think this congress would act. >> inside the court, what is your impression, not the politics of the issue but just the atmosphere. >> well, it was really interesting nobody the courtroom that day. you had, obviously the arguments being presented before the justices, but in the audience there were members of congress on both sides members of the administration, secretary burwell was there. nancy pelosi. senator hatch. you had paul ryan. you had people on both sides. people who were impacted or were outside the court rallying. and so the atmosphere is one of these moments where the american people come together and focus on the supreme court as institution and as a place where important battles are fought on sort of the american landscape. and the arguments i thought, were well presented on both sides. the justices were very engaged.

asked very good questions. in that sense, it was sort of your typical day on the supreme court where you had advocates making arguments. >> and some humor. very funny justice scalia for the jokes and she at one point had said to mike harmon who will be there before. >> thank you for joining us this afternoon. the capitol steps were outstanding, were they not? [ applause ] >> all right. this afternoon we're going to hear from our leaders from the department of transportation. this is one of my favorite sessions actually. we get to beat up on fta. first step is fta acting administrator terrese mcmillan, terrese is representing secretary of transportation anthony fox today who could not be with us.

she will also speak specifically about fta's initiatives for 2015. terrese joined fta's dispute administrator on july 9th 2009. she has assisted the administrator in leading a staff of more than 500 in the washington, d.c. headquarters office and ten regional offices throughout the united states. with the passage of map 21, she assumed a key role in guiding fta's implementation of transit-related provisions in the lot and overseeing the development of critical guidance. she's also played an integral leadership role in advancing several critical fta priorities to improve and the quality and delivery of transit services to the american public. including assisting in a streamline process for the new and small stats program and secure new funding opportunities

for state and government transit assets. she took the lead in working with fta staff to ensure the allocation of 8.7 billions for 1072 grants. she also represented fellowships in the partnerships for sustainable epa colleagues. please help me welcome acting administrator mcmillan. [ applause ] thank you. and it is great to be with again. as you know secretary fox planned on being here today and the only reason he didn't is because he's having surgery on his knee. i'm sure if he was here, he'd be the first to point out that iron that like our infrastructure all of us are getting older and in need of repair from time to

time. there was one very important message, however, he wanted to be with you today to share. and that is to thank each of you for coming to washington and to visit with your members of congress. he's been to the hill many times himself over the past year. and he's worked hard to share with lawmakers the stark facts and a sense of urgency. he's explained how we're investing much less than we should be in transportation. and he's warned that because of that disinvestment we've fallen behind on repairs. something we have to address even as we plan for the new capacity we must have for growing demand. but these same arguments carry so much more weight when they come from you. you are able to speak in concrete terms about communities that are struggling to stay on the move.

large ones and small ones. urban and rural. red and blue. that context matters. when states like arkansas and tennessee and delaware speak up and say they're postponing billions of dollars worth of projects it demonstrates in bold terms what the uncertainty of short-term measures is costing us. and it's up to each of us out there to convince our elected leaders that america's future growth and prosperity depend on the decisions that they will be making in the weeks ahead. working shoulder to shoulder with local business leaders you are in the best position to tell your own story, and to make it clear how important public transportation is in your community. so, now i want you to imagine that you have the opportunity to write a postcard to yourself and send it back 30 years in the

past. what would it say? maybe on the front side you would send a picture of your family as an encouragement to your past self. i really can be besuccessful. maybe you send a warning of the troubles we face as a nation. or maybe you would advise your 1985 self to invest in microsoft, look out for a company called google. and don't count apple out just yet, there's this thing called an iphone. well, we've already received our postcard from 30 years in our future. and on the front it shows broad highways, full of cars at a standstill. and trucks full of goods going nowhere. it shows a nation with 25% more people and an inability to connect them to jobs education and health care. it shows bridges that have

fallen with tragic results. and on the back, it simply says invest in transportation. so, why are we getting such a pessimistic postcard from our future selves? and will we follow the advice that it holds? now, you have to understand that the future america is a much more crowded place. when our nation could grow by as much as 25% over the next 30 years, adding more than 70 million people. pick any highway bus, railcar at rush hour in almost any city in america today and you tell me if you can squeeze in 25% more people. americans are already spending five days a week in traffic. in new york city a record number of riders on an ageing subway system has already

resulted in a greater number of overcrowding delays. in fact in december, there were more than twice as many delays as just the year before. and this is not only a problem for our big cities. some of the fastest growing areas in the u.s. are places like frisco, texas, south jordan utah. gaithersburg maryland. and mt. pleasant, south carolina. in the town of san marcos texas, they saw an 8% growth rate from 2012 to 2013, making it the fastest growing nation in the city with more than 50000 people. and we are not talking about a tech hub or a healthy oil town. in fact the median household income is $26,000 in san marcos. that is far below the average for the state of texas. while the population in cities like these are growing

nationwide, the number of people 65 and older, will more than double over the next 50 years. and when the aarp asked older americans what amenity they most wanted close to home, the number one answer was a bus stop. not a pharmacy. it was more important than a grocery store. it's how important their mobility and independence are to those seniors. what that postcard from the future is trying to tell us is that we will not be able to accommodate that kind of demand. driven by change in growth, unless we invest in transportation today. and specifically, public transport. of course, more people also means more people trying to get to work. and because this is america, it also means more people starting and growing businesses, and they will need to connect to workers. a very recent example when the

big blizzard in january shut down boston's public transportation massachusetts general hospital had a real problem. according to the hospital, nearly half of their employees take public transit. so, in the midst of this very dangerous storm, they were literally work overtime to make sure they could get enough staff on every shift. to serve their patients. and that's a situation that is not as unique as it sounds. in atlanta, a university study looked at more than 50 industry sectors that make up the region's economy. and it found that 14 of the 18 fastest growing sectors are among those whose workers rely heavily on local transit services to get to and from work. so so, although atlanta doesn't

suffer from any nor'easters any long-term disruption in the city's system would seriously throttle that region's ability to grow. nationwide, 4 of the 5 projected fastest growing jobs, pay wages less than $27,000 a year. we're talking about retail salespersons. home health aides. personal care aides. general office clerks, many of whom rely on public transport. and the reason our future selves are such debbie downers is that at the rate we're going today, we are not going to be able to keep up. in fact, decades of disinvestment are going to make our job even harder. if there's one thing that people in this town can agree on is is

that our national infrastructure is in a woeful state of disrepair. the american society of civil engineers gave the nation a "c"-plus our roads a d-d-minus. in transit systems nationwide as you well know we have an $87 billion backlog in repairs that's estimated to grow by over $2 billion a year. your elected leaders are aware of this fact. and if they somehow missed it before, secretary fox has recently traveled through many of their communities on a big blue bus, to at all attention to it. his message was very clear and it's very simple. we need to do something now. and we need to do something big. to these urgent reasons to invest let's add another.

the health and well-being of our communities and their people. later this week fta is hosting a conversation called "rides to wellness" that aims to improve cooperation and coordination among transit, health care and social service providers. we will be joined by representatives from health and human services and the u.s. department of agriculture as part of our ongoing efforts to work together more effectively on behalf of the people we serve. with more americans covered by health insurance it is important that they're able to access preventive care and regular checkups at the doctor's instead of at the emergency room. for instance there are 15 free screenings provided by law. and this is fantastic. but it can be really hard to convince someone to go to the doctor before something is broken or bleeding or hurting

them. and that is especially true when they lack reliable transportation to get there. 80% of medicaid's health care costs are attributable to chronic diseases that could be better managed with more frequent care. but you have to get there. improving access to health care and doing it in a more coordinated way is going to be a growing challenge particularly in rural areas that lack transportation options. so as you speak to elected leaders about the urgent need to invest in transit, remind them that you not only connect people to jobs and education, but you also connect them to vital services like health care. so with so many compelling reasons to invest in our nation's transportation infrastructure, the only question seems to remain how can we possibly afford to fix this

all. but i submit to you today is that the real question we should be asking is how can we possibly afford not to. and as secretary fox likes to ask, if figuring out how to provide for the future is going to be so difficult shouldn't we make it worth it by going for something big, instead of something half measure? this administration's answer is the grow america act. and you've heard a lot about it in the year since it was introduced. we will be building and expanding on our proposal this year and the president's proposed budget for fiscal year '16 is a good indication of where we're headed. as the secretary has mentioned, it includes six years of funding for transportation, totaling $478 billion. fta's share for fiscal year '16

is $18.4 billion and 16% funding. and over the sixth year it would grow for a total of $115 billion over the proposed authorization period. the fy-16 budget for fta includes a record $3.2 billion for our capital and investment grant program better known as "new starts and small starts." it would also increase the bus program dramatically providing for mundfunding reintroducing the new rapid bus transit system which would provide $5 trillion for new services. these are in response what we've heard from you in terms of what your customers want. and because the transit industry is changing along with the rest

of the nation we want to make major investments in workforce development to build the skills and train the personnel that we are going to need for the future. if much of this sounds familiar, and it should, it's because by the time the latest short-term measure expires in may, the grow america proposal will be one year old. and yet here we are, having the same conversations and staring down the same decisions. it's clear that not all of us have picked up that postcard from the future and turned it over to see what it says. that's why it's up to you to deliver the message. i know what secretary fox would have asked of you today to tell the truth, the unadulterated, unvarnished unambiguous truth.

tell congress about the many good projects that are stalled, the ones that will create jobs and ease congestion and bring us into the 21st century in a bold way. a postcard today can take many forms. though i still like getting the old-fashioned kind on a paper with a stamp. it can be a knock on a door. it can be an e-mail. it can be a tweet. for the younger generation maybe it's a post to instagram with a picture of stalled traffic. or an overcrowded rail platform. or a picture of someone they love boarding a paratransit is van to go to dialysis. the bottom line is that the message has to be seen. it has to be heard and it has to be acted on. let's go out and do it. thanks so much. [ applause ]

>> thank you administrator mcmillan. now, i want to turn the program over to our session moderator dan amendez senior vice president director of america's transit at ae com. dan, please. [ applause ] well, good afternoon, everybody. welcome. and thank you very much acting administrator mcmillan for communicates the message from secretary fox and the update from fta. please do send secretary fox all our well-wishers from avenue that and a speedy recovery. i'm diana mendes as phil mentioned. i'm delighted fob your moderator

where we'll having having a lively discussion with the federal. >> translator: sit administration and the rail way association. i'm now joining administrator mcmillan. we're also hearing from sarah fineberg who joined the administration january 9th 2015. in this capacity, she managed a $20 billion rail investment portfolio and helps develop and enforce rail safety regulations and oversees research and technology development programs. prior to coming to the fra, miss fineberg served as chief staff to the secretary of transportation. providing strategic advice and counsel regarding operational and legislative initiatives across all modes of transportation. now, updating us about the major goals and initiatives of the federal railroad administration we'll turn to miss fineberg.

please join me in welcoming her. [ applause ] good afternoon. it is such a pleasure to be here today with my colleague and friend therese mcmillan. in you know in my old world as the chief of staff of secretary fox, i always appreciated the commitment that this organization shares with the administration's goal of making our national transportation network safer, more interconnect interconnected more reliable and more efficient. to the president, michael your board, your members and staff, thank you for your partnership and support over the years. i am so honored to be with you today as there are no greater friends to the department of transportation. now, i'm a pretty frank person so let me get right to my main points and then we'll get to the moderated conversation. today, i want to spend our time

talking, first, about safety and the importance of bringing a fresh perspective and new thinking to some old problems. and then about rail and surface reauthorization and the incredibly important opportunities we see there. but first safety. as all of you know and much to the credit of the people sitting in this room over the last decade total train accidents are down. derailments are down. highway grade crossing incidents have declined. the rail industry in many ways is safer than it has ever been in history. that is all good news. and all of you deserve great credit for these improvements. but most recently, some of those numbers look to be ticking up on us again. over the last year the number of incidents at grade crossings increased by 9%. and the number of fatality at grade crossings increased by 16%. and while this less figure is less of an issue for the commuter rails to worry about

just this morning, the? ? reported on fra data showing the number of fiery and violent rupture accidents also on the rise. so my point is this. those most recent statistics alone serve as a stark reminder that our work is not done. we still have a long way to go to get to zero accidents, zero injuries and zero fatalities. you know just two weeks into my new job at the fra, a grade crossing accidents occurred in new york killing six people and jurg 15. three weeks later, another passenger rail grade crossing accident occurred in california and a metrolink crew member died and 27 other passengers were injured. stark and painful reminders that we have a ways to go to make grade crossing safer. i understand will add we have news of another grade crossing incident just an hour ago in north carolina. so we're hopeful that will be

less dramatic on everyone there as well. so that's just reason why safety is the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal. but in addition to our own legislative proposals we have to take independent actions as well. just because a problem san old problem, maybe one we think will never be fully solved doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a fresh look and ask ourselves what more can we be doing. following the metro-north grade crossing incident, i immediately asked our fra staff men and women who have literally dedicated their entire careers to keeping people safe at or near crossings to take a fresh look at how we approach safety. last week i called upon law enforcement agencies to staff up more pa patrols at grade crossings. to increase the efforts to issue citations to drivers who don't obey the rules of the road. and to immediately begin employing best practices to our communities in that the coming

weeks we will have more to announce. about incoming dangers of grade crossing dangers. and how we might be better to increase funding to assist local communities who might want to improve safety at crossings. other than the friends and families of grade crossing victims, of course no one understands the pain of these incidents quite like the train crew us and operators. these incidents are truly devastating for everyone. and we shouldn't lose sight of the price that so many of your own colleagues have paid. as we have said on many safety items over the years we look forward to working with all of you, partnering with you and to bring down the jub of injuries and deaths. on to reauthorization. you know, there's a lot of talk in washington about getting a rail and surface reauthorization done this session and we are so encouraged by that progress. few thing hads could be more important or more valuable use of the congress' time.

the fact that the house of representatives took an important first step just last week in adopting a rail reauthorization measure is say huge sign of momentum. and i congratulate shareman schuster and everyone who worked so closely with him and his staff to get that. but we need to do more. we need a apprehensive rail reauthorization package that included funding and safety assistance to commuter railroads to implement tpc. as this process moves ahead we look forward to working with both chambers of congress as they craft a measure that builds sustains and enhances a safe and reliable rail network for both passenger and freight rail service. we are their ready partner and we will do anything in our power to assist them in moving a package forward. after all, we have a lot at stake here. as just heard they are res so eloquently say, our grow america proposal a six-year transportation funding bill would give states the funding

certainty they need to bridge the nation's infrastructure gap. as all of you know rail is unique when compared to other modes of transportation isn't that it lacks a committed sorgs of federal revenue. grow america will provide predictable, dedicated funding for rail with the establishment of a rail account and a new information trust fund. for the rail industry, grow america means a $29 billion investment over six years to improve rail safety and invest in a national high performance rail system. the act also builds on current investments to vastly improve the system in areas ranging from ptc implementation to enhancing flexibility and financing programs that will better enable the rehabilitation of ageing infrastructure. grow america would make changes to improve existing programs. among other topics, the act would enhance the rift program making it more accessible and flexible for borrowers.

revamp amtrak's planning process to address immediate and long-term goals such as addressing the backlog of state of good repair needs. advanced safety research by focusing on risk reduction and new equipment testing. assist the railroad industry in implementing ptc as the back bone of the next generation of rail safety. grow america would also create new programs that will focus on both current passenger rail service and the development of future passenger rail service. these programs include the establishment of new amtrak grants that would provide a longer term view of maintaining passenger rail assets and services in good working condition. the rail service improvement program which will provide competitive grants to drive development of high-performing passenger rail networks. this program also includes funding for ptc implementation for commuter railroads and support for state and localities

to mitigate rail and grade crossing improvements in rail line and relocation efforts. simply put to close rail infrastructure gap and setting the table for the next generation of safety. these are forward-thinking large-scale improvements that come with some extremely important by-products. the creation of good paying jobs and the strength of our national economy. and bridging our nation's infrastructure gap gets more important with every passing day of an action. it's no secret that our ageing infrastructure and gaps that exist in our transportation system must be dealt with were and soon. congress is aware of these needs but only congress can act on them by passing grow america. i believe congress will ultimately take action. but it's up to all of you to make sure that congress gets it right. we must build on the proposal put forward bit house in order to see a comprehensive rail

reauthorization bill enacted that would address rail safety. benefit our freight partners and other modes of transportation. continue to support the successeses of our inner city passenger rail networks. and provide the resources and predictable, dedicated funding to both address our backlog and make the improvements required to meet the passenger and freight mobility needs of our growing population. we will all benefit from a comprehensive bill. rehabilitating our ageing infrastructure simply cannot wait any longer. thank you. and i look forward to working with all of you and taking your questions. [ applause ] >> well, thank you, miss feinberg for your remarks. and certainly both you have gave us very inspirational and insightful speeches, but certainly, clearly communicated that it's up to all of us to

make the future successful. so we're going to take some questions from the floor. but before we do i'd like to start out just talking about funding and financing. obviously, demands increasing and funding and financing is becoming more and more challenging. so one strategy to address potential long-term financing involves public/private partnerships. and i'm just curious what you see as some of the great success stories and what advice you might have for those seeking public/private partnerships. >> sure. >> am i all right? >> yeah. >> so i think you're exactly right. public/private partnerships we're seeing increasing numbers of them all the time. i think what secretary fox and

the president have both said which i think is really important is that it is part of the answer, but it is not the answer. so i do not want to take public and private partnerships as the reason why congress does not have to pass a big comprehensive bill. but it's fine for them to supplement a bill. it's certainly one path forward that i hesitate to put too many eggs in that basket. we still need a good bill. >> i think other thing to think about, too is certainly, we want to broaden our sense about what effective private sector participation is in the private industry. so, for example, a lot has been turned to transit-only development. but capturing the value of that development for transit i think is a very important and very rich area to build a good relationship with the private sector. because not only in the more

common way where you may get contributions towards the construction of a project what about capturing thattian going value for ongoing operations and mains. so we've been working closely with a number of our agencies with a lot of creative work that's going on out in the industry right now. we want to bundle that up and see if there's a more aggressive way that we can encourage that type of partnerships. in bringing the private sector forward. >> so the federal railroad administration has been working on a number of improvements to the railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program. >> we need a lot of improvements. >> you can share with us -- and we're happy to see them advancing. can you share with us some of the improvements that you see? >> yes. we are very focused on this. first, i give secretary fox a lot of credit. he has said that one of his

priorities is is that by the time he walks out the door on january whatever 20th 2017, that he would like that account to be at zero, which means we have about $35 billion to loan out. which if anybody knows how loan programs work, it is going to be difficult. but it's a very good challenge to have. so, we're doing a couple things. one, we are trying to think more creatively about potential applicants. i think we may have been a little narrow in our view of the right applicants with this program previously. so whether it's the mayor of new haven who wants to come in and talk about what union station in knew haven needs. or whenever it's recall emanuel wanting to talk about new haven station. or the potential for the ability

for stabilizing a crew i think we would be much more open to that we're much more creative on hoot who the applicants would be. and also to work a little faster. this administration has to walk a fine line as to improving infrastructure projects but obviously being very careful with taxpayer dollars and making sure that all of that money is going to get paid back at some point. so while all the long-terms are excellent, it's important that money comes back. i think it's taking time to get over some of those barbs but also working through being more efficient in how to get through the process and get those loans out the door. >> great. so is so, as you're looking at and evaluating projects to be a program, or railroad investment program, how has the current climate affected how you look at

and evaluate projects? and what advice do you have to people to make the projects competitive and attractive to federal investment? >> well i think certainly, for new starts and small starts we've put -- you know we actually have, you know, statutory criteria we have to examine. so by its own design, there's a number of different factors that we evaluate. i think they'll give them the incredible competitiveness of the program. clearly, those agencies that are able to leverage the federal dollar well, will be able to play in that pool. and there's another aspect to that that's very important as well. once you get the project built, you have to run it. and that's not a small -- a small issue.

i think one of the things we've seen with a number of different agencies, addressing the point as i did in my remarks with secretary fox has said over and over, you know we have to expand for the growth that we see in the country. we have to be nimble about the types of investments we can pursue. it's not just heavy rail and light really. but it is brt, but at the same time you have to be in a stable enough environment that once that project is done and that is conclude, you're able to operate and maintain that system. and we invest in the system over time. so it's really -- i think, to be competitive you need, to i think, demonstrate that you have a handle on that holistic view. and you that can convince us as the federal government, as a partner, that you're able to be

on that. >> would you like to add? >> i would just say that invested in trying to make these programs work. and so, being in touch with us on the front end, talking through a project, talking through a loan application talking through the financial audit, all of that, we want to be able to loan this money out. and so we are not going to suggest you that figure it all out on your own and then turn in a big package to us and we'll mark it up and say no thank you and send it back. you get in touch with us on the front end, and we can work with you and make sure the application is in great shape so we can move things along faster. >> thank you for that. so safety, obviously is at the forefront of all of our minds every day. i'm sure you have advice and insights to share with the audience as different safety programs are starting to come online in advance of the new safety regulations.

what would you advise people to think about and get prepared for? >> well, with federal transit and it's interesting because, you know, sarah and the fra have had a federal safety portfolio a long time. and as all of you no a great challenge for the federal transportation association is that nat gave us significant regulatory authority. so we've been working very closely, afta has been a great partner in getting the message out. as we're starting with this new authority, a couple of thing critical. first of all, throughout the d.o.t., safety is our number one priority. there can't be enough attention to this. but for our transit, our challenge is also recognizing

approaching safety one size won't fit all in terms of a regulatory framework. that simply just won't happen. and so, we've been spending a lot of time you know, explaining and building on what's going to be the centerpiece of our work which is a safety management system approach, an estimates approach. used extensively in the aviation industry. faa has deployed it some time. and explored by a number of our agencies. and the thought is you approach this not as a check list of all the things you have to get right but as a risk management. you look at the risk circumstances of your operating environment, your capital environment, your worker safety environment. and you build a program around your risk management portfolio. so, you know, that's not a concept that's very easy to put on paper and to have.

and we're working very hard to get all of the various elements through the rule making process, from the nat top-20 requirements continues to be a top priority. >> so, my advice is, i touched on in my remarks, we are when faced with new thinking with very old problems, where we've made a ton of progress. and i think, you know there's inclination to say, oh it's mostly driver error. what are you going to do about somebody trying to beat a train? what are you going to do when someone is ultimately a little disorienteded at a grade crossing? we're trying to bring new thinking to an old problem. so the crude by rail issue is a brand-new problem.

it's a problem we're having because we're incoming an energy efficient country which is wonderful. i don't think everyone is thinking about the challenges that come along with energy efficiency. those are problems that we've been tackling a long time, particularly in light of the volume problem throughout the country. how do you incentivize the history. how do you incentivize the railroads. how do you put certain expectations in place such as zero policy for anything that happens on a chute roudte. comprehensive thinking for old problems and new problems. >> actually, that sets up a point i'd like to reiterate, too. you know we've tried very hard had under this administration. and secretary fox has made it a

key point in you know, the bureau of traffic framework that was put out there. we have to stop thinking of ourselves in our little boxes as a transportation system. and safety is one area where that really does come to bear. secretary fox has done an enormous amount of work emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian safety. as a transit mode that's really critical to us a lot of people get to our system walk and biking. or or will leave our system walking or biking. sarah's thinking this is highways or cars or pedestrians in cat its of trespassing and the challenges associated there, so, you know, this whole notion of an s & s construct not only

with safety mode but how it interfaces with other systems as well. so it's exciting time to be thinking about safety in these different dimensions. >> i guess particularly with the new technologies and the ability to do better analytics to really address the most pressing needs. so, i'm sure we have some questions in our audience. i'd like to offer the opportunity for members of the audience to ask their had questions. please let us know who you are and where you're from. >> i'm peter fargo from grand rapids michigan. thank you, therese thank you about the postcard. i really like that idea. you mentioned something really good i thought about the whole thing about taking photographs and sending them.

and leading into instagram and using that social media. which hash tag should we use should we use hash tag talking stuck in traffic which ones so everybody starts being in the same conversation on that? >> oh wow that's a good question. maybe we should have a contest. >> #growamerica. >> stuck in traffic is a good one, too. >> there's so many elements. >> #dosomething. >> right. i want to bring up something that peter stressed so much in your tenure as chair of afta, how about #it's about people. i think a large part about this, if it's not an abstract concept this is about moving the american public and the things that they need to do.

and i think in all of our conversations, it is so easy to lose that piece of it. so an improvement to reflect something that is a critical part of our conversation. >> i do like that idea of having a contest. we should take that back to d.o.t. and have a contest. it reminds me of an internal contest, naming grow america. at that point people have been up all night for months and weeks, we're exhausted. at some point on our way out the door, we'll have to bring out the list of names. >> so make sure everybody gets it. >> okay, terrific. thank you. >> yeah hi i'm jeff wharton with impulse out of north carolina. my question pertains more towards the workforce and the jobs part to acting administrator mcmillan. we know just last week an initiative, a pilot project came

out on geographic hiring practices. the question i have if we can get some definition on the local hire as it pertains to rolling stop procurement. as manufacturers we employ a variety of subsuppliers all throughout the u.s. and we're just having a little difficulty understanding what the intent is when the geographic hiring pertaining to rolling stock procurement. and is it the intent that we're going to be looking at moving factories to in order to accommodate the local preference? >> the local hire initiative has a couple of elements to it. one is as you mentioned is the pilot program. it's very important. it is a pilot program for communities and entities that want to explore -- well and particularly for fta because we have statutory requirements for,

you know, competitive procurement, is to say, to lift what has been interpreted as a prohibition on geographic hiring. this is for folks who want to explore what this is about. this is not mandated that you have to do it. but we want to more systematically explore whether geographic practice does in fact impose constraints on the competitive bidding environment. this is a way to get experience on the ground with entities who want to pursue these and see how it applies. given that it is a broad pilot test, we wanted to look not only at construction but also as procurement. so we don't go in with a specific -- the whole point about a pilot program you're to bring your ideas to us. for communities to bring ideas to the department of transportation as to how they would want to implement a geographic hiring preference, and under what circumstances.

and importantly, in the pilot, you are supposed to be able to demonstrate, you know, what your -- what your objectives are, how those were met. how the preferences actually did impact bidding environment that you saw. so we're going to be gathering data based on these pilots that will be very important. so we're not coming in with a preconceived notion about it. we're actually setting up a pilot to get ideas from local communities. >> thank you. sir? >> you're both absolutely correct. the mantra is safety, liability, two more, serviceability and maintainability. question, for those of us small companies who are in the business of r & d, for example

in the railroad route crossing issue, is it able for us to get our thoughts over to fra so we can develop these ideas so we can make those accidents completely avoidable. >> yes, so, first of all, you can e-maille me, sarah.feinberg @dot.gov. we have a whole policy and development on fra that is constantly helping to think about these things. they do human factor research. they do research in pueblo. they run trains into each other and see what happens but they also work on human factors and new technologies that are coming that might help us down the road. so that's all easy to find on our website, but you can also just e-mail me.

>> thank you. >> this is also, just very quickly, i think sarah and i will grab as many opportunities we can to also plug, you know the work that's being put forward in the be on traffic document. a huge part of that 30-year view is full arena of new technologies and innovation. secretary fox has been very blunt in his assessment the transportation industry, particularly, the public sector is always chasing innovation. and he wants to have us start thinking about how we can get in front of it and harness technology to the use of what we want to do rather than constantly sort of being behind the curve. and so a large part of rethinking, if you will that that document puts forward, certainly for the transportation industry is this how do we get ahead.

and make sure that we are not just doing research for the next technology that might be available in the next couple of years. and the next 25. and the next 30 years. and how do we weave that into our planning and development. so, not only the immediate things we might be able to put in place which are critically important, we also want to have your thoughts about how do we take ma more forward view. >> hi, my name is ben johnson i'm from northern california i'm from tri transit in antioch. my question is basically two things number one is if we do not get funding that's the first thing. if we don't get this process going through the legislature, where are we going with the projects anyway? because if we've got 15 that we don't have funding for and then '16 is coming and an election

coming and new cabinet members coming in, et cetera, that's going to create a monster of a problem for a lot of people so i think that's my concern we talk about you just made a good point, about the curve. getting ahead of the curve, well, if you go into china. i've been to china and seen their process. i've been to korea and seen their process, i can say looking at those processes, they're ahead of the curve they planned it. especially in japan, they're really ahead of the curve, they had high-speed rail and so did china. but china had a few problems but my concern is if we have shovel-ready programs already ready, how do we get them up to the top of the list? because sometimes i see that they don't get to the top of the list. and, so, awhat can we do as being an agency nfa to be on top to

do the funding and be able to do that. we have a program now that the governor of california just approved the high-speed rail project. well, it still needs the funding to get it finished. and if it doesn't have the funding, it's going to stay out there in the middle of nowhere and just sit there and we can't get it done. it's an important project, it will show in the united states what high-speed rail will do. we just need to move forward and get those up. maybe you can give me some ideas of how i can bring it back to the people in california to figure out how we can do that. >> right. well, a couple points, one i think the good news is we have a couple things going for us. one is that even though it feels like bad news that the surface transportation -- that the highway trust fund is going to run out in may. it also means that something has to be done, right? >> sure. >> we have not gotten to where

congress is actually so dysfunctional they're not going to at least extend it right? but what we need is a big bill, but something will be done before may. and i have been in the very uncomfortable spot of looking at my watch thinking okay, we've got five days seven days. how much money are we going to make it? but something has to be done. so that's a vehicle, first of all, for something big to be done. meanwhile, it's important to be exactly as you said, be really efficient with your projects get them started. i don't think any member of congress, republican democrat tea party whatever nobody wants to be in a position where you've started a project, allocated funds and you can't continue with the project. it doesn't matter who's in the white house or who is in charge of congress you don't want to have it stranded either. i think that's going for us. you need to make as much

progress as you possibly can, so that when this administration leaves there's an effort to continue those projects in the next administration. and, the other good news i think we have going for us infrastructure and transportation has always historically been topics, issues, that bring parties together. so it's one of the few things even if this very partisan political moment that we're in, that's likely to get worse as we head into a presidential election cycle it's one of the few things that usually brings people together. so it's less likely to be affected than everything else. >> i just have one other question, in regards to rail, and it has to be with the process of getting the, for instance, our major process right now is moving the rail through the cities. and i happen to be one of the cities that we're moving it in. we're looking to actually have a facility in our city. but the problem is our communities are, you know, because of all of the problems

they've had. and the crashes that you mentioned before that are up is how do we appease the people of the community to appease the people to get them on another level where we actually do this? i know there's issues with rails not being level. and there's a lot of issues out there for maintenance. and that's an issue with financing. and so, how do we get the financing to -- or how do we get the rails people to listen to what we have to say? i think that's probably one of the worst things i've seen dealing with the rail. you try to get them to come to your city to talk about what they're planning and how they're doing it. i notice union pacific just recently has been giving a big boom of how good they are on the tv. and i'm hoping that we can figure out a way to get that together because, you know when people march it doesn't do

any good to march and stand in front of the trains, we talk about incidents, that's how they get created. so, i just -- it's important to me, as a public official besides board, to figure out how to help my sfecity and the transportation industry at the same time. >> right. how can communities and railroads get along better right? >> yeah. >> that's an age old question, right? everybody should be good neighbors to each other. but, look i mean you know, i think it's important to remind communities that those kind of resources will tend to make their lives better easier, more efficient, help them take care of their families. it's really important to remind the folks coming in that, you know, the community is supposed to be their partner. not just, you know, some place they blow by at 70 miles an hour and wake up everybody in the middle of the night with a horn. and so you know i don't know. i feel like i'm giving political

advice, but i guess to the extent i'm giving political advice to both sides, i would say, be good to each other be good neighbors. and if it gets really bad call us and we'll try to bring everybody together. >> yeah. it's easier said than done. >> yes. >> always challenging. yes? >> hi. i'm lisa waltrink with sound transit in seattle. we've had a few projects that had fta fwh and fra oversight on the same project. some compliance issues got a little complex and i, for one, got a little confused. are there any efforts going on to try to simplify or coordinate compliance issues across the modes? >> yes. and we use the term harmonization. there's actually been a number of where coordination of

programs and/or oversight between the modes -- i'm very familiar with those circumstance that you're working on. and, frankly, you know any particular project will have its own circumstances. and in this case we had ftwh and fta, you know, up through, you know, washington leadership working to figure out a way to deal with that. circumstance. there's been a lot of discussion, for example, between fta and fra in terms of better coordinating arnepa requirements for projects where there will be a freight element and a passenger rail element and the project that serves both and we need to be able to ensure we're making sure people are not doing

things twice. certainly on a case-by-case basis we've tried to anticipate that. and as sara had said you know early intervention is much more helpful than getting down, you know, toward the end. so, that also involves working in partnership with the project sponsor to make sure that we coordinate up front as well as we can. but beyond that you know, there's been i think a lot of folks generally on streamlining. that was a major focus in map 21. it continues to be a focus under the grow proposal, grow america proposal. so, without going into a lot of specifics, don't have it in front of me here, it does continue to be an important element and a theme that both secretary fox and deputy secretary victor mendez delivered to us in the modes on a frequent basis to do as much

as we can with the authorities that exist and also pursue things going forward should they need statutory change. >> what's very interesting about those streamlining initiatives is the common theme that it is up to all of us to make that happen. it's not for a federal agency to have to sort out. yes, there needs to be a statutory framework and a consciousness and awareness and partnership. at the end of the day, the community all do need to come together. so, very consistent with your messages and your remarks. yes? >> thank you. i'm jackie dupont walker board member l.a. county. in case anyone doesn't know, that's california. i really want to thank you both for the updates today. in l.a. county we have a high percentage of unemployment and underemployment that impacts

areas. particularly where some of our projects are actually under construction. the light rail. we're very excited then about the innovative public transportation workforce development program. that has come out. and so ms. mcmillan, cue share under the ladders of opportunity grant, a timeline for awarding those? because it's extremely important for the neighborhoods and communities in which we're doing the work to see more immediate benefit if we can actually create those apprenticeship opportunities. and we have the strong support of our unions now and a lot of parnships. andist been frustrating to try to provide those opportunities quickly. so f we knew this was coming, we could be prepared. lots of staff members are here. they could go back ready. assuming we're going to be one of those grant awardees. >> as much as i would like to i can't give you a definitive timeline, in large part because

of what we have been seeing and this the dilemma we have with any discretionary program, we have so many more -- first of all, we have an increasingly and unabating interest in our discretionary programs no matter what it's for. we are always oversubscribed. you know just throw some examples out. i think the tiger program has been oversubscribed six to seven times every single year. when we had our ladders of opportunity bus program, we had 14 times more requests than money available. and similarly with our workforce, you know, our product by some degree pressing workforce means every year we put out a new workforce grant we get more and more applications. your point is very well taken that these efforts are only useful to the degree you can get them out as soon as we can. so we will be putting great attention to evaluating the

projects and like you, want to see them get on the ground as soon as possible. >> thank you. >> hi. good afternoon. i'm with the british consulate based in new york. my question has to do with public/private partnerships. i agree with the comment that ppss are not silver bullet but given the scale this country needs and infrastructure obviously it has to be a key piece of the puzzle. last year the president announced the build america initiative led by secretary lew and secretary faulk. one of the main priorities was to educate, work with state and local governments and educate them with regard to p-3s because in many cases they're negotiating with the private sector and they don't necessarily have the expertise, given some of these projects are once in a lifetime. it's very important that, you know, at the federal level we're able to provide a center of excellence where we can work with state and local governments to get them educated, to get them to understand you know

where p-3s might be helpful, where it might be useful. so i just wondered if there is sort of an update on how that work is coming or ambition you have working with our state and local governments. >> so you're exactly right. the president, secretary lew, secretary fox announced that last year. it is in the process of being implemented and stood up. i think ultimately it's going to live at the department of transportation. there are -- the goal would be to act as almost a concierge service to potential projects. both with streamlining and assisting and getting them moving quickly and helping people understand the process and the deal-making and providing some expertise for towns, entities. and it's actually moving along quite well. and starting to staff up and no

particular announcements today. it was not one of those announcements that sort of happened, went off into the ooeter and we all forgot about it. under way and getting worked on all the time, so -- >> yes. you talk about the issue of pedestrian safety getting the passengers to the bus stop. the transit agency owns the bus might own the sign post at bus stop. juror dealing with it might be a county road, it might be a state road. how do these pedestrian safety initiatives work across all these different agencies and levels of government? >> it works probably as differently in every community as every community exists. one of the things that is a -- as i mentioned being a major initiative as being overseen by the secretary's policy is the bike safety initiative and also the secretary launched the

mayor's challenge for bike and pedestrian safety. and there's a number of -- i'm going to speak to this in broad terms since i don't have any of the details. you can find them on the website. there's a number of bike safety -- bike and pedestrian safety challenges going on across the country. and the idea is to select a community and, in fact, to your point, do a deeper dive into a particular safety challenge. whether it be in a very busy intersection where you're trying to access say, a major transportation -- in our case a major transit station. or it could be a corridor where there's been a high incident of bike accidents in the past or whatnot. and begin to work with the community, so fhwa or fta would be sort of a lead agency. but coordinating with the local community to identify the nature of the problem and