our panelists. great panel. obviously a great day just in general going on for us today. don't forget hashtag vgovbuild. but first i want to introduce heidi, one of our senior congressional and political reporters at bloomberg news and she will be interviewing harvard university professor who has a big book coming out or is out that i think everybody is interested in. thank you all very much.

>> not only is she a best selling author but she's releasing her new book today called "move, putting america's infrastructure back in the lead." thank you so much for joining us. the book really explains with compelling details many of the health costs and even social justice impacts of our outdated infrastructure system, and i want to get to some of those today. first of all, can you please give us a brief synopsis of where we are today and how we're fairing versus other countries? >> so there's only one indicator in the transportation and infrastructure area in which the u.s. is number one and that is number of available airline seats.

that's because we've made it cheap and we like to fly. impact, americans like to fly. europeans will take the train. that's one reason we don't have a good enough rail system in america, passenger rail system. otherwise, we are way down on the international indicators. my friend rodney slater who's here today former secretary of transportation, went to japan recently for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the bullet train in japan that regularly reaches speeds of 200 miles per hour and has only been an average of 32 seconds off schedule in any one year. 50th anniversary. so we have some anniversaries here, too. we're celebrating the 100th anniversary of overhead wiring on our train system. we're celebrating ancient aging, deteriorating infrastructure. in chicago, for example, there are some water pipes made out of

hollowed out logs that date to the 19th century. so we desperately need to modernize, but not just for maintenance. maintenance is not a vision. you can't get anybody to do maintenance. people just want to sell it and move on which is why we abandoned many parts of cities that are now incredibly appealing and attractive because millennials don't want to have cars. that gets me to the gas tax by the way. the gas tax is such an important part of the debate and of course, i favor having the funding to keep things going for repair and reduce uncertainty but the gas tax is an outmoded concept. sure, we should tax anything that moves if we want to pay for something that we care about, but one of the reasons that the highway trust fund is losing money is fewer people are owning cars. cars are getting higher fuel mileage. electric cars are on the horizon. user fees technology now

permits us to charge user fees to pay as you go on toll roads. we have so many new ways we can think about these old issues so we are falling behind in part because of how we're thinking and talking about the issues and not only we have the technology, we could do it it's a question of the will. >> you mention in your book many dimensions of this so i want to break it down a little bit starting with the cost. i was really struck by this number. $70 billion per year in time wasted in traffic jams? >> yes. >> that's the cost. >> productivity. this is an area of big business interest and it's not just for moving goods. moving goods is important. it's an important part of the economy, but the average american wastes about 38 hours per year unnecessarily in traffic and that ends up to a huge amount of productivity loss. delays, delays on cancelled

flights have huge cost consequences for the economy. while we can't do anything about delays having to do with weather but we can do much better helping people get there faster with better coordination of schedules and so forth. >> moving on, another big price tag here in terms of the health impact, you say about $15 billion. >> that's only the health consequences we can measure from pollution, from breathing bad air, from the health consequences for people who live near highways who have higher rates of certain diseases. this is the harvard school of public health that put that number on it and i'll bet it's higher. think about traffic fatalities. think about bicycle fatalities. other countries that are more bicycle centric, we don't have a culture. we have a car centric culture. we have a culture stuck in the

1950s. we justify every big national expenditure on defense grounds going back to the trance continental railroad. it was highly contentious politically, took a long time but national security dictated if you have a whole continent you have to put settlements there and how are they going to get back and forth without trains. everything we've done has been on defense grounds. we don't do that anymore. we need to define this as a mobility issue, an economic growth issue as others have said but a mobility issue. how do we get where we want to go in a seamless connected way. nobody cares which mode of transportation they're taking. as long as it will get them there. and there are people who have to take four or five modes unconnectedly even though their smartphone could now connect them. >> finally something that we don't always think about and maybe that's because it doesn't really have a price tag but that is the social justice impact.

you had a great anecdote in the story about a man from detroit who has to walk five miles to work every day. this is a man in a low income community who wants to pull himself up but in order to do so he needs to go to a different part of the city to go to that job every day. but there aren't the bus connections. there certainly isn't a subway system. can you speak a little bit more about the social justice impact. >> that five miles was a little like abraham lincoln so again we're going back to the 19th century. people can't work if they don't have access to jobs. transit access is just not available in poor communities the same rate as an affluent community. even bike sharing in chicago is not as available in low income communities even if they had credit cards and could get into those bike-sharing stations. i did a little correlation of the cities that get the highest

scores for public transportation and the cities with the greatest chance of moving one generation to the next from the lowest to the highest income level. it's an amazing correlation. the top ten out of 20 overlap. those cities have great public transportation. but even the ones with great public transit like chicago gets good marks, except they're 57th in the country for being able to get to a job within 45 minutes. well if people can't get to jobs, i know that we're going to get great jobs if we invest in infrastructure, but if people can't get there, it will not help build the middle class and lift the poor out of poverty. we will end up with inner cities that are ready to explode because people are hopeless. they also can't get to costco -- i don't mean to mention a specific company. they can't get to discounters

who don't put their stores in low income communities, and they can't carry groceries on the subway or the bus. so we have to put those on the equation, too. we're lucky, by the way, that i'm from massachusetts. tip o'neil when he was speaker of the house added funding for public transportation to the highway trust act. so now it also funds about 16% of it also funds mass transit. but boy, do we need more of it and every city wants it. on a survey of business leaders that we did at harvard business school, the highest item the item that got the most support for investment in our infrastructure future was public transportation. and that was from people who don't necessarily use it themselves unless they commute from westchester county new york into new york city. >> there is that support and yet, before we came here in the green room you said that there's a need for a grassroots

movement. where is that going to come from, and secondly, i want to ask you a about a somewhat provocative statement you make in the book about the difference between our philosophy and other countries that are moving ahead on infrastructure. >> by grassroots i'm not talking about real bottom. i'm talking about this regional thing that we kept hearing about. if you don't get regional coalitions who agree on strategic priorities and then pushing, nothing will happen. and so for example here's one that took 20 years to happen. these things often take a very long time. in houston there was -- voters voted on the first round for light rail in houston and then because the neighborhoods weren't involved although the business community loved it, it took another 20 years before there was support for light rail in houston. so it's amazing how long these things take without a coalition,

without involving the public. i was motivated to write my book "move" to integrate a lot of the things that many people know about that are talked about separately and in isolation and to have us see one picture together that affects every constituency that could make a huge difference. if we don't have that support, people who are elected every two years, if they don't think they're going to be re-elected because their support from their stent stitch sentsies, where do politicians get courage? some are born with it but many see there are big constituencies behind that and they have cross sector constituencies. >> we have four minutes left on the clock so let's talk about some of the things we're doing right. you cite a number of examples. for example, miami and i think you wanted to talk about chicago.

can you briefly tell us what's going on in those cities. >> i'm in love with the port of miami tunnel. if ever infrastructure could feel human and also cost effective, port of miami tunnel is part of the plan to accommodate the larger panamax ships so it has huge economic implications for the port and for commerce. at the same time it has huge implications for being able to get rid of traffic congestion in downtown miami and develop downtown miami for residential uses and pedestrians and bicycles. the port tunnel, first of all, it's a great example because it's just like these long-term -- it was a 30-year dream of a young civil engineer who fortunately became secretary of transportation under governor bush, but it then was killed by the next secretary of transportation or she tried to kill it and it had to come back. it was a private public

partnership whose lead underwriter was layman brothers so the financial crash took care of that. nearly everything that could have gone wrong went wrong, except that once it was approved, it came in roughly on time, a month variance or so, and under budget. under budget. and the community was involved. the girl scouts got to name the tunnel boring machine, hair yet, after harriet tubman of the underground railroad. they had job fairs in every language that you could imagine, but the construction jobs were taem rare temporary. the real jobs are being created because of the port activity and also now just less than a year later 80% of those 18-wheeler trucks have been diverted from downtown miami directly onto the interstate interstate. it's going to be good for everybody and of course less congestion, less pollution in downtown miami, more

development. i call it the quint tuple wins. it's a win for cost convenience safety, job growth, the environment, et cetera. well done, miami. >> let's close by talking about the emerging network of smart roads, vehicles and users. there's been a little bit of talk about this but give us an overview. >> if we're going to have a vision of our mobility future then it has to involve technology. the tech entrepreneurs have to be at the table. i keep wondering where they are. i'm looking around. which one of you started a company to make a flying car? we have one in massachusetts. he already has 100 orders. it's expensive. but we need the tech entrepreneurs. right now we don't have a framework for the new smartphone-related apps. i mean, just apps to find parking which seem simple are going to take cars off the street because a lot of the traffic congestion and pollution

is from cars driving around looking for parking. so once we have sensor-embedded roads, i say we shouldn't just repair we should reinvent. every time you build a new road why aren't sensors going into it? why aren't we readying ourselves for the technology future. the department of transportation is trying to get more tech entrepreneurs involved. they've had contests, et cetera, but some of the investors in all of that are foreign competitors. dimeler mobility bought up the department of transportation's winner in its innovation contest and it will help you integrate information that will help you connect. we have it in the u.s. we have the assets. we've got to refurbish and modernize them but we don't connect them. you ought to be able to use the bar code on your smartphone and check your luggage like they can in hong kong, check your luggage in your neighborhood to your

final destination and then just get on something and keep waiving your bar code and get on anything you want to go and have the information about schedules. so we must think in a visionary way about a connected mobility system, and that will help us. inequality is the word du jour by all political candidates. they mean different things by it but if we could lift people out of poverty we could create jobs and stop that wasted time. we could save the health costs. there's a lot we could do if we thought about this in a systematic and visionary way and mobilize leaders not just in washington but when i say grassroots i mean chicago kansas city, denver, light rail in denver, denver only 6% of the people don't commute by cars but they put in light rail. >> thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you, heidi.

[ applause ] hi everyone. my name is peter cook with blum burg television. i'm going to be moderating our next panel. we heard from governor rental that the afcil and the chamber of commerce can't even agree that today is monday. we're lucky to have the president and tamron lundgren. she's the ceo of sha nightser steel industries and this year the chair of the board of the u.s. chamber of commerce. they're going to deliver some opening remarks and we're going to sit up here on stage for q and a session, have some questions ready. we had a coin flip earlier and richard gets to go first.

please come up, rich. >> i don't know whether coin toss is a win or a loss. first of all thank you for joining us today. i'm president of the aflcio. talk is cheap in washington d.c. we hear a lot of noise of priorities, but we see very little action. instead congress lurches from self-inflicted crises to self-inflicted crises, engaging in tit for tat debates and wasting time on political posturing. it makes you wonder what their real priorities are. well, let me give you an american priority, one shared by working people and business leaders everywhere. i'm talking about big public

investments in america's infrastructure. roads, bridges sewers, pipe lines, transit, water ways, ports, electrical grid, internet and phone lines and drinking water. these investments benefit everybody. those investments create jobs, and those investments build america. if you want to spend money to make money, build infrastructure. build bridges. expand ports. modernize railways. safe roads and transit systems can get workers to work and back home every day. companies get manufacturing goods to market. and all of our infrastructure system needs attention. but the most immediate concern is the highway and transit trust

fund. once again it's about to expire. we don't need another temporary extension. it's been extended 30 times in seven years. i got to tell you, that's no way to do business. we need a permanent funding source. states have been forced to postpone and cancel necessary construction. this is becoming another self-inflicted crises. i'm not talking about a pretend crises because one out of nine bridges in america is structurally deficient, and that's from the american society of civil engineers. a bridge collapse is a real crises. failing to pay for infrastructure is dangerous and irresponsible, and we can and must do better. america needs a reliable long-term funding source now

and the highway and transit trust fund to be a top priority. not political jockeying. not trying to get the best sound bite because it's so basic. we've put forward funding sources and explained how it creates good jobs an opportunities for economic growth. we all bare the cost of inaction. every year every single person in america spends almost 38 hours and almost $1,000 in wasted fuel while we idle in traffic. add that together, it's $120 billion a year.

wasted. it buys us nothing. raising the fuel tax would cost less and we would get something for it. here's another cost of congressional inaction. if we fail to invest in our infrastructure in a vast big way, by 2020 there will be a $3,100 per year drop in personal disposable income per household. think about that. $3,100 taken away from each household. so business and working people joined together again today for the kickoff of infrastructure week to tell congress this very simple message. build america. create jobs. do it now. do your job. thank you.

>> good morning, everyone, and thank you, peter for hosting us today. i'd also like to thank rich for your partnership on an issue that unites the business and labor communities as well as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. rich is exactly right to call for a long-term extension of the highway trust fund, and he is joined by scores of public and private sector leaders who are doing the same. there are other looming priorities to contend with as well including reauthorization of the faa, full funding of the water and resources development legislation, and very importantly, progress on the rapid act a sweeping new bill to streamline the permitting process.

these priorities are essential to maintaining, modernizing and expanding the physical platform of our economy, and they must be swiftly addressed and adequately funded funded. each of these has been beset by short-term funding challenges. while this must suggest that our funding challenges cannot be resolved in a meaningful or sustainable way, that's just not true. among all our country's difficult challenges, this one is self-imposed. we can easily fix it if we have the will to do so. and there's growing support from leaders from all sectors of the economy and from leaders on both sides of the aisle. there are funding solutions to choose from. whether that's a modest phased-in, user-free increase private investment through public private partnerships low cost lending through federal or

state programs or other financing mechanisms there is a willing and an able work force ready to rebuild the country. there are strong incentives of immediate job growth creation and economic growth. the time is right. we must push our leaders to take action and then we must move on. we must move the conversation forward and expand our thinking. for so long the focus has been on maintaining modernizing and expanding our infrastructure. those are very important goals that we must continue to achieve, but they must not be the limit of our aspirations. we must begin a dialogue about how to make infrastructure part of a national strategy for durable economic growth, greater global engagement, and stronger competitiveness. other leading economies are not only having those kinds of conversations, they're making plans and they're implementing

them. competitors like china are not thinking about how to patch the next pothole. they're thinking about how to build the next supply chain. many of us in business particularly companies like mine that operate in a global market we've been watching china's infrastructure moves with great interest. beijing is looking comprehensively about how to help companies compete and they're pulling every lever to make that happen. the chinese have an ambitious plan to rebuild the silk road both on land and sea to create more direct trade and transportation routes to europe. the initiative is the centerpiece of their foreign policy and domestic economic strategy. by helping to build infrastructure in places along the proposed route like pakistan

where china just promised $46 billion in infrastructure aid, china stands to benefit in several ways. the initial would allow china to make use of its vast industrial capabilities to meet the region's infrastructure needs. over the course of its own remarkable development, chinese companies and workers have ascended the learning curve and they're in a strong position to build these roads bridges, pipe lines, rail lines and ports. it would also create robust avenues for getting chinese goods and services including a huge domestic oversupply into regional markets. these activities would support china's twin goals of stimulating their slowing domestic economy and helping home grown companies compete in the region. so if you add it all up, the strategy could help china wield greater influence across the asian continent, including

financial integration and trade liberalization. and again infrastructure is the foundation of these expansive goals. so how do you pay for it? to help pay for it the chinese have established a $50 billion asia infrastructure investment, a bank. it has 57 members including germany, the u.k. and italy, and there are plans to expand it to $100 billion. china also led efforts to create the new bricks bank and has established a new silk road fund to promote infrastructure investment. but however one feels about these efforts, it's very hard to deny that they signal the seriousness of china's plans. so why am i talking about chinese infrastructure development at a summit about u.s. infrastructure development?

because competitiveness has long been a talking point in the infrastructure debate in the united states, but it just can't be a talking point. the competition is very real and so are the implications for u.s. businesses and manufacturers as they work to operate at home and compete in global markets. we need to broaden our thinking elevate our ambitions, and figure out how to pay for critical investments over the long term. business and partners in government and labor can and should help to expand the conversation and to drive it forward. let's not just ask how are we going to pay for our system for the next six months or six years. let's ask, what do we want our system to do to advance our country's best interests. how can it be a strategic asset that supports commerce and strengthens our competitiveness. we will be confronted by major infrastructure questions and

trends in the coming years. everything from competitiveness to technology and all their implications. so let's be ready to respond to them or, bet yet, to lead the discussion and help move transportation and infrastructure policy forward. thank you very much, and i look forward to our discussion. thank you. >> we'll have some q and a and chat a little and open it up to questions from you all in the audience. thank you both for being here. as i said at the top, a host of issues where the chamber and the organized labor do not see eye to eye. i saw mr. trumka and on this issue there is so much overlap and the question is raised

immediately, if organized labor and the largest business group in washington are on the same page, why can't this get done. maybe i'll go to you, rich, first. what's standing in the way? you've looked at this issue and battled over this for years. what's in the way? >> it's pure politics right now. in the past this was always a bipartisan issue. there was never bickering. everybody knew that you had to keep the country running. it's like your household. if something leaks you have to fix it. if it needs painted you have to paint it. and the country needs to be replenished so we can stay competitive. everybody knows that yet they can't figure out a way to get it done. it's just politics. there's no other reason for it. they know it needs to be done. they agree it needs to be done, but it doesn't get done. i think that's what frustrationes the american people, business, working people.

this is an issue that needs to get done now. >> from the chamber's perspective? >> i completely agree with rich on this. it needs to get done. i think one thing that congress fails to make a distinction on is the investment in infrastructure is a capital investment, not an expense. so it needs long-term funding not month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter funding. it's like running any business. you can't make investments for growth if all you can do is look forward 30, 60 or 90 days. it's a capital investment that we need to make in the country, not a short-term expense. >> and it really does need to be five or six years so the projects can be planned, they can get done. right now we've had 30 extension extensions in the last several years. >> looks like we're about to get another one. >> i know. it will either be to june or december. but again, how do you plan?

>> it's much more expensive when you do it that way. it's no different than building your house and doing change orders instead of taking the time and scoping it out, creating a budget and then utilizing that budget over the long term. and so, some reports have shown that these extensions have increased the costs by 30% over what we could have spent to do just the little that has been done to date. >> but the reality is would you agree at the chamber we're looking most likely at either something at the end of the year or a two-month patch? do you have a preference if there is a patch how long it should be? >> from our perspective it should be just long enough to allow congress to create and pass a long-term bill. >> what's your take? >> we would agree. i'd rather see june and pass a long-term bill after that. because the more we keep kicking the can down the road, the more it keeps hurting the country and the further behind we get. we're looking at over $3 trillion right now that needs to

be invested to make the country healthy again, to make it competitive again. the longer we kick the can down the road, the bigger the bill gets and the more individuals pay, like waiting in line, wasting gas, but also losing salary down the line because business becomes less competitive. when they become less competitive, workers getpaying the price for their inaction and every business is paying the price. >> do you get a sense that there's been a change in the conversation or the tone in washington right now about where this is headed? you hear senator hatch, chairman ryan at the ways and means committee talking about the possibility of corporate earnings overseas somehow that being the funding stream that gets this off the block. do you see something different today than six months or a year ago? >> i think there's been conversation about reanticipate

treeation as the solution but it doesn't really make sense because they're talking about a holiday. again it's a short-term gap. we need comprehensive tax reform, not corporate tax reform solely. we need comprehensive tax reform. what we should be looking for for funding solutions, as rich pointed out, a user tax funding through public private partnerships additional funding through federal and state programs, but we should be looking at transportation-related revenues that are sustainable long term and have growth built into them. >> i don't disagree. there's a number of things that can and should be done. i think we need to use the user tax. we need to look at vehicle miles traveled, a program being tried out in the west because you're coming up with electrical cars. the gas tax hasn't been increased -- >> americans don't like the idea of the government watching where their car goes. >> they already do if they have

a cell phone in their pocket. i hate to tell them that. look, there's a lot of ways to do it. if you say let's do it, they need to agree on a target. let's say we need to fix the problem. come up and be honest about that, and then define the problem. the society of civil engineers have already defined the breadth of the problem, the magnitude of the problem, and say we're going to fix it and here's what it will take. then come up with a funding sources. it can be multiple, but they must be long term so that everybody can plan so that the states can plan, so that the construction companies can plan so that everybody can plan without wasting money. >> we heard earlier today in the earlier partials, there have been ideas about handing this money off to the states, let the states, the folks at the local level deal with these issues because they understand their transportation problems better

than anybody else. tell me why that doesn't make sense. >> i think to a certain degree obviously state involvement is very key. but we have a comprehensive national transportation network that is a huge competitive advantage. we operate businesses across all lines, so you have to have an integrated federal policy. you have to have federal involvement in order to support a national structure. >> she's absolutely right. look, you remember we were going to do high speed rail, and two states said we don't want high speed rail. if you leave it up to the states, there would be 50 different policies and railroads would go to the border i guess and end. that's why you need federal policy. this cannot be 50 states doing 50 different things. it has to be a federal policy and an integrated system. how would one state do the electrical grid system? how would they do enough for

ports? how would they do inland water ways? it doesn't make sense to do it on a state by state basis. it must be done as a national plan. >> let me ask you another question that you get sometimes in this debate is montana cattle rancher paying my gas tax in montana, yet some of my taxes are going to help the banker in new york get on the subway and get to his job. why is that fair? >> that montana farmer gets a lot of subsidies back into that state a lot of different ways. in fact, some states like texas get more subsidies than anybody else, as well as louisiana and mississippi. it's give and take. you have a national system. you're going to create a transportation network that's going to benefit everybody. the products that montana cattle rancher gets could be cheaper if they're brought there by a good

rail system that delivers feed and delivers different things that he or she may need. so they're going to benefit in the end by having an efficient system and having the country becoming competitive. they can also get their products to market or export those products a whole lot easier when you have an efficient system not one in every nine bridges is about to break down. >> at the end of the day right now there are federal taxes that are associated with transportation. they haven't been raised since 1993. gas prices are at their lowest level. cars are more efficient than ever. the infrastructure that's been built, a lot of it was not intended to last this long so that farmer in montana or i come from a state oregon where there's a tremendous amount of agricultural commerce. when those supply chains block up, those products go to waste. when the ports aren't efficient,

those products can't get out to 95% of the consumers in the world who are outside of the u.s. it exists now. what we're saying is that upgrade the infrastructure to make it globally competitive, so enable people to sell their products more efficiently and at less cost. we need to invest. >> is it hard to imagine any final solution here that doesn't include an increase in the federal gasoline tax? >> i think if you speak to leaders on both sides of the aisle they all know that in their heart. it's a question of who wants to put their chips on the table first. >> i don't see a solution that doesn't include hiking the gas tax. it's done, it's there. it's available. we're another 30 days away from an expiration. if you're going to do a totally new funding source, it's going to take a long time and we'll have to kick the can down the road for another two or three years before they get that

funding source perfected. so i c major part of it. >> both of you mentioned the competitive side of things, what's happening in china. for a lot of americans who may not be able to go to china and see what's happening there or in other parts of the world tell us -- you obviously have to travel the world. a lot of your customers are out there. you've been over in china as well. what's really happening out there? where is it you can see america's getting its lunch handed to it?frastructure conference, i'll begin with infrastructure. the roads, bridges tunnels, airports, ports run at an efficiency level that far exceed ours. if it takes us x-number of days to get our material from the middle of the country to the coast in order to export it it takes them less time for that time period. if you look at china china is actually suffering from a lot of the same things that we're suffering from. they've got a slowing domestic economy which means that they've got pressures on employment

which we do as well. they've got oversupply which we do as well. our country is a place where people want to bring their businesses. there are many u.s. companies that are bringing their businesses back onshore manufacturing businesses, because our electricity, our power is cheaper. our laws are clearer. we have an able and ready work force. it's that work force that has really suffered and has not gone back to work since the global financial crises. i'm sure you see these same statistics. while our unemployment rate appears to be improving, the participation rate hasn't improved, and so many of the people who haven't been able to participate are the ones who lost their jobs in the financial crises. so one of the things that we agree on over and over again is jobs, jobs and jobs. and when you improve infrastructure, it attracts business. the chamber a few years ago did a transportation performance

index which showed a huge positive correlation between infrastructure that works and foreign direct investments. so people coming onto u.s. shores to make cars, to make appliances, to make tools to manufacture. so that's where we're getting our lunch handed to us is we've got the platform to really become another industrial manufacturing center. we've got to take advantage of that by creating the platform that allows people to do that. >> each year our rail, our port our roads, our airports fall further behind and we become less competitive. you asked about china. china needed a deep water port. they didn't have one. so in four years they built a six-lane highway, 21 kilometers into the china sea. they created a port that did 14

million containers. this is in four years. and in two more years that same port will be handling 21 million containers a year. now, that's what they're doing. that's the competition. and we sit around. it would take us two lifetimes to build a six-lane highway 21 kilometers into a sea and then build a port that could handle 14 million containers. do we need that? absolutely we need that. we have a grid system that is falling apart. we have water lines. we have a break every two minutes. every two minutes in this country a water line breaks somewhere. seems like all of them break here in d.c. but they're everywhere. it's a tremendous loss of resources and efficiency.

it doesn't have to happen. they've figured out that infrastructure creates jobs. in the united states you do an infrastructure job. for every three construction jobs that you put to work five other jobs are created in other industries, in materials and transportation. it's a no-brainer. it is truly a no-brainer and we don't do it. >> quickly we have a short amount of time left. a question or two right here? there should be a microphone floating around. >> i want to ask -- >> identify yourself. >> leslie blakey coalition for america's great ways and trading. we work on freight and goods. i want to ask a provocative question because i know you've been trying to get something going here all morning. besides needing to raise the gas tax which we do and i know greg

here he's going to say the gas tax is paid by highway users and it really needs to be highways and and when we get to our freight system we're talking mega infrastructure and important needs for prioritizing that infrastructure. so i'd like to ask the business community and the labor community represented here about the idea of needing dedicated funding for infrastructure and models and needing to draw on a dedicated source of funding possibly coming from a business freight fee. any possibility that the business community could support that? >> a freight free? >> a fee that would support freight infrastructure. >> a new dedicated source of funding for freight, for multi-mode, any thoughts on that? >> i will say that with respect to the comments that i made

before there are multiple sources of federal, state private, public and user fee taxes that need to be looked at to address the whole chain of transportation needs. and so i think that to solve the problem and to create the capital funds that we need we need to look across the board at a variety of different funding solutions. >> i agree it needs to be permanent. i agree it needs to be dedicated, and i would be willing to look at that fee and other things as well. sort of roll a deck together so that no one segment of the economy picks up the whole tab for all of it, that it's fair to everybody, that we can create jobs, we can invest and get a return. we're going to get the money back. every person out there is going to get the money back that we put into infrastructure. >> on that note, i know there

are more questions but we have a tight timetable with the vice-president coming up. i want to thank our guests for being here and i have a message for everyone here. we ask you not to get up at this moment because of the vice-president's rival.arrival. we're going tore be serving lunch. you're not glued to the chairs but you're glued to the chairs. if you do leave you won't be able to get back in. the vice-president will be speaking shortly. thanks again. i appreciate it. coming up live here on c-span 3, senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee hearing on technology advancements to improve u.s. border security efforts. witnesses testifying will include the u.s. border patrol deputy chief and officials from the homeland security department and u.s. customs and border protection. senator ron johnson of wisconsin chairs the hearing. senator tom carper of delaware

is the ranking member. the hearing is scheduled to get under way at 2:00 p.m. eastern time about ten minutes from now, but we were hearing that it may start a bit late because of a vote on the senate floor. we will have it live though whenever it gets started. in the meantime, a conversation with tennessee congressman john duncan from this morning's washington journal. >> in the studio this morning, congressman john duncan republican of tennessee, sits on the transportation and infrastructure committee. sir, i want to begin with transportation issues and that's the developing story out of philadelphia with the derailment there of that amtrak train. what's your reaction? >> i have a lot of concern about that. i serve on the railroad subcommittee and i've been on the infrastructure committee my entire time in the congress and certainly the lit initial reports i've seen that show it is a very bad accident and we need to -- we'll need to look into that as much as possible. the entire northeast corridor is

very important to our entire economy. a lot of people, in fact, i've traveled that corridor many times myself. so i'm sorry that it happened. and we'll have to look at all the causes and do what we possibly can. i've always supported funding for a good rail system in this country and it is -- i hope to see if we can stop this from happening again. >> there is always a debate in washington about the subsidies that amtrak gets, the fact that it runs at a loss every year. and in its infrastructure, what are your concerns with with amtrak? >> well, you just named the number one concern of all of the republicans we want to make sure the taxpayers are getting a big bang for their a lot of money into that and we got to make that operation more efficient and more cost effective. i remember years ago when former congressman bob walker did an

amendment to cut it by oneent, just to show the congress at that time wasn't willing to cut anything. he said if there is a need for this service, he -- he said somebody will take it over. he said it is something called free enterprise. you may have heard of it. t, you know we have -- we're supporting the funding for it but we're trying to win as much as possible the taxpayers off the hook as much as we can. and stop wasting a lot of money like on the food services has been ridiculously expensive. >> here is a chart put together by economic website, the source is amtrak showing an operating loss from 2009 between the years of 2009 and 2014? despite generous taxpayer subsidies, amtrak showed losses every year but the losses are declining in 2014.

the railroad showed a strong result with an operating loss of only 227 million. >> only in washington would that be considered, i guess good news, that they only lost 227 million, but at least it is show something improvement. i think that's because we have been on them so hard about it, and we're going to continue to do that. >> what does the money go for? >> well the -- >> the taxpayer subsidies? >> it has gone for everything, for their entire operation, their salaries, pensions, i mentioned the food service i think the last figure i heard was they lost $800 million over a ten-year period on the food -- just the food service part. so, you know, we're trying to stay on them and make that better. >> what about the infrastructure. has enough money been spent on the infrastructure? >> well most of the rail infrastructure has been improved

by the railroads and they have done a great job. the freight railroads are a complete success story and environmentally, economically and in every way. and so we just need to get amtrak to operate more like the freight railroads do. >> does amtrak ride on those same rails? >> yes. >> so they are maintained by the private companies and there are, what four major private railroad companys? >> well, there are really six. what they call class one railroads, but four -- four that are the most famous, i guess, you would say. >> this is not possible -- this possibly might not be an issue of infrastructure then what we see, this story in philadelphia? >> it could be. i don't know yet. >> what about derailments? we were showing our viewers earlier that amtrak had a series of derailments and that the number has gone up in recent

years. what are your concerns? what is going on there with this? >> i don't know the answer to that. you know maybe an increase in the number of trips that are being taken. i'm not sure. i would have to -- i would have to check into that. >> what about the role that railroads, amtrak plays in this country, versus other modes of transportation? >> well, i think all of us wish that amtrak could do better and that we could have a good rail system all over this country. we just haven't been able to effectively do that because of the tremendous success of the airlines. i chaired the aviation subcommittee for six years. i know more that but i think that's, you know, that's been the major decline or cause of the decline in the past rail

systems. i think there are areas where pastor rail could be effective if it is operated in a cost efficient way. >> where does the resistance come from? >> the resistance to change is the cost involved. >> what are the costs? >> the money is huge. been talking about, for years about a pastor rail system that -- in florida and especially the biggest one is out in the high speed rail system they talked about and started work on in california but the -- even the initial costs are extremely high. and, of course all the programs in washington are -- the costs are sort of low balled on the front end and then we find out that they -- they explode after a program gets started. so we're trying to be real careful about that. and not get into some very, very

expensive program that is going to go far yandbeyond what the initial cost estimates are. >> we're talking with john duncan, republican of tennessee, represents the second district there. you recently wrote in "the american conservative" a return to the peace party. what is the peace party? >> well, i think traditionally the republican party had a -- could make a good claim to being the peace party. i -- the theme of my article that i wrote for "the american conservative" magazine was that in my opinion we're long past the time when we need to stop trying to run the whole world and we need to start trying to take care of our own country and our own people. and i think that the people in this country don't want permanent, forever wars. and i think that if -- if we turn out to be seen by most people as the war party, then it

is a recipe for defeat. i said that republicans traditionally have believed in peace through strength not peace through permanent war. and i think the foreign policy of the republican party the foreign policy of the country has been hijacked in recent years by a group that are generally referred to as neoconservatives when george will said in a column in 2010 that that was a group that was magnificently misnamed and he said, really in reality, they were the most radical people in this town. so that was the theme of my article. and i mentioned in there that i sent my first paycheck as a bag boy at the a&p grocery store, $19 and some odd cents, and i worked in almost every republican campaign, federal, state and local, for 50 years

now. so it saddened me to have my party become almost a permanent war party. i mentioned the president eisenhower warned famously against the military industrial complex. and i think even he would be shocked at how far we have gone down that road. >> want to show our viewers a headline this -- coming from on monday coming from an interview that 2016, potential 2016 contender jeb bush told fox that he would have authorized the iraq invasion too. you voted against the iraq invasion. senator rand paul, running for president, told a reporter about jeb's iraq position. that's a real problem if he can't articulate what he would have done differently. what do you think? >> well i've been in congress a long time. this is my 27th year. i was here for the first iraq war. and i voted for that war because i went to the briefings by colin

powell and condoleezza rice and general schwarzkopf. and they convinced me that saddam hussein was almost like another hitler and then i watched -- >> that was under george h.w. >> i saw saddam hussein's so-called elite troops surrendering to cnn camera crews and empty tanks and i understood then that the threat was greatly exaggerated. when the second iraq war rolled around, i read everything i could get my hands on looked at it very closely and had tremendous support in my district. and it was a very very difficult vote, but they called me down to the white house and put me in a small room with condoleezza rice and george tenet and john mclaughlin the top two people at the cia. and there was a headline in the washington post the day or two before that said a war with iraq lawrence lindsey, said a

war with iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. and i asked about that and condoleezza rice said, no it wouldn't cost that much, it would be $50 billion, $60 billion and we get that back from our allies which had to be the greatest underestimate in the history of the country. secretary rumsfeld also gave that kind of figure. but i told -- i ask at that meeting, i said, if you're going against every conservative tradition in the country of being against massive foreign aid and huge deficit spending and conservatives being the biggest critics of the u.n. and you go to the u.n. to force a u.n. resolution i say if you're going against all those conservative traditions do you have any evidence of any eminent threat and they didn't? and george tenet confirmed that in his first speech at georgetown university, the day after he left the cia, so i've been concerned about the way we

have gone. you know we have got an $18 trillion national debt. and i think if we spent the entire federal budget in the middle east, we couldn't solve all the problems over there. and so what i've said is, and there are people and groups who make a lot of money off of these interventionist foreign policies, and if you oppose that, they just very quickly use the slur of isolationism. but i don't have an isolationist bone in my body. we ought to have trade and tourism and culture and educational exchanges. i think we shouldn't be eager to go to war. i said in this article, in the american conservative magazine i had quotes from former senator taft who said that we should go to war only to protect the liberty of the american people, and even then only as a last resort. and president reagan said -- set forth four conditions on going to war and even he said at the

end of -- even if all four of those conditions are met, war should be at last resort. >> let's get to calls and get our viewers involved. mark is up next in connecticut democrat. hi mark. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm still on the tpp, if that's what we're talking about. >> well we can ask the congressman. he possibly will have to vote on trade, so go ahead mark. >> caller: okay, well, my point is, well you know, each of our states in the past i mean i don't know the exact numbers now, but you know, we're larger than europe. each of our states has had an economy larger than the countries of europe, and we should be fairly well self-sufficient in being able to provide being self-sufficient within our own states. then provide a surplus to trade among the states and then beyond that have enough to you know

trade globally. if we keep building towards that type of goal. if you go back to mccarthyism were you a communist are you a communist, do you know a communist, within a generation and a half would say, we're sending everything to them. and i don't understand how that happened, but i just think that we're large enough and have a large enough economy to not have to kowtow to any of the agreements, especially when we see the past results. >> okay mark, congressman, what is your view on trade and this debate in washington over the promotion authority as well as transpacific partnership? >> well i never voted to give any president, republican or democrat, fast track authority. i don't think the congress should see that much power to the executives. i have concerns about that. also, while i believe very

strongly and international trade, i think -- i'm very skeptical about multinational trade agreements for this reason. i think the united states with only 4% of the world's population, we purchased 25% of the world's goods. that means every country in this world desperately wants into this country. wants trade with this country. i think that what we should do is negotiate individual trade agreements with each country rather than multinational agreements, because i think we have given up a lot of leverage we could have used to benefit our workers. >> davie in silver spring maryland a republican. hi davie. >> caller: hi. okay, my question is about mitch mcconnell. and he -- i don't know if he passed the bill but he introduced the bill to give congress the final say on the iran nuclear negotiation.

but mark said, hey you have to bring that bill up because the constitution gives the senate the authority to say vote it up or down, only needs two-thirds of those present. by passing this bill, he made it doubly hard because the president vetoes it they have to have a majority to overcome the veto and he probably won't get it so he shot himself in the foot. what do you think about that? >> well, i don't -- i think it is good for congress to be involved and to express its opinion on any agreement of this nature of this importance. i don't have any problem with that. and it passed senator corker's bill passed in the senate 98-1. so i think almost everybody in the house and senate feels the same way or great majority anyway. i do hope that we can reach some sort of peaceful agreement with

iran. >> to dave in hammond, indiana, independent. >> caller: good morning, congressman. >> good morning. >> caller: i got a couple of problems here. i used to be a republican. i'm a right wing conservative, i guess you could call me. i don't understand this infrastructure stuff. how does the federal government have any authority to tell indiana what to do with their roads? i mean, if the people of indiana decide that nothing but gravel roads, no bridges, you know have to get on a little boat, take your car, if that's what the people of indiana decide to do with their state, how is it that the people of tennessee get to tell me you got to send us your money and we'll tell you how to build your roads? how is it any of the federal government's business? where do you get the constitutional authority to do that? another thing, on this trade stuff, why don't we take and get a -- what i would call a reciprocal trade. say we got two countries england and china.

england says bring all your stuff in, you can sell anything here and we're not going to charge you anything. then you got china, they say, we're going to drop our currency 20% so we can get a trade -- that's fine. you can do whatever you want with your currency but when it hits the american shore, we're going to tack 20% on. if apple wants to build a plant in china and use slave labor, that's fine, you can do it. you can sell the phones in china. but if you send the phones here what is going to happen is we're going to jack that labor rate up and bring the price of that iphone up to $1,000 or whatever it would work out to. that's my opinion of -- >> all right dave. let's have the congressman weigh in. two issues for him. >> two issues. one thing i think you'll be pleased to know the republicans have been devolving much of the authority over the spending on roads and other infrastructure projects to the states. the federal government has been providing most of the money but we have been giving most of the

authority to the states. there is an important, i think, federal role in transportation because people in california sometimes use their ports in texas and vice versa. people in ohio sometimes drive on the roads in tennessee and vice versa and people in new york sometimes drink the water in florida and vice versa. so all these are transportation and infrastructure type needs. and use the ports and so forth. as far as the -- what was the second -- >> he was talking about trade deals. >> okay, oh yes. well, i can tell you i agree with what he said. we haven't been nearly tough enough with the chinese. and in my opinion. i don't think china would have ever stood for -- as huge a trade deficit from the u.s. as we have had with the chinese. and i think we just should have been saying to the chinese we want to buy things from you, but

you need to find some things you can buy from us to bring our trade deficits more into balance. that's one of the things we could have been doing and should have been doing in our trade negotiations. >> jody on twitter. why only with the gop president you spend like crazy on war and tax cuts, but when americans want infrastructure, money drys up? >> well, that's my sympathies are in line with hers. we have spent far too much on very unnieceecessary foreign wars. i don't think that's been fiscally conservative. i'm a fiscal conservative. and, you know, i have a favorite quote, president kennedy in 1961, in a famous speech at the university of washington said we must face the fact that the united states is neither

omnipotent nor om initiatenicient. we cannot right every wrong. and therefore there cannot be an american solution to every world problem. and now the only difference is we're only 4% of the world's population to 6% like we were when he said that. but george w. bush ran on a platform that said we need more humble foreign policy. and but when he came in he didn't act in that same way. i was -- i was very disappointed. 80% of the republicans in the house voted against the bombings in bosnia and kosovo and what president clinton was doing. then when we had a republican in the white house seemed like the party -- some people felt they had to switch their positions. >> powder springs, georgia. tom is watching us there on the line for the republicans. tom, welcome to the conversation. you're on the air with congressman john duncan of tennessee. go ahead.

>> caller: yes, thank you for letting me talk. this idea that we're going to have high speed trains all over the country that's been something that has been talked about for 20 years. that's not going to happen because let's say somebody takes the train from new york and they move along really good and get to d.c. but they want to take the train to florida or to here in atlanta or west. they're going to go on freight railroads that like the csx lets the passenger train poke along at 72 miles an hour. they're not going to compete lucky if they can compete with carrier pigeons. so i think that needs to be a discussion that should be had that maybe there are more corridors or areas where we could have high speed trains, which would actually help the freight railroads a little bit. >> okay tom.

peg on twitter says we need a ten-year plan for infrastructure and a commitment to bring our highways railroads and airports up to date. >> well, that's what i've said not only in this article, but i've said in speeches all over the country, that we need to start to take better care of our own country and meet the needs we have for our own people. we simply can't afford with an $18 trillion national debt to do all the things, all over the world, you know. i have great sympathy for people who are going through problems in other countries and i think we ought to help out to a limited extent during humanitarian crisis. we simply as president kennedy said, we simply can't solve every world problem. and i do like -- infrastructure work in this country because those are jobs that are going to be done here in the u.s. and not outsourced. as far as high speed rail, most of the republicans, you're not going to see any high speed rail

funding in a republican congress unless and until it becomes much more cost effective and attractive and can be done by the private sector. >> okay. houston, thomas, independent caller. >> hey, good morning. the best thing to do about high speed rail is we spent $300,000 an hour on a national security jobs and transportation part of our national security. and nied toeed to ask you a question what happened to the fcc bylaws on fairness. thank you. >> are you following what he was asking there at the last part? >> no. i really wasn't. >> okay. we'll move on. lori in new york, democrat. hi lori. >> caller: good morning. thank you so much for having c-span and duncan i'm finding myself agreeing with you a lot of things here and i'm a liberal and a democrat but i do appreciate your not rush to war and all of that. so but my feeling i'm going back to the infrastructure and the

high speed rail and i'm just astounded when you asked the question that you weren't able to ans sorewer so many things and you're on the committee. i would like to hear a few remarks and why is it -- why are they running such a ridiculous, you know loss, and can't our government, you know, just sort of make some sort of inroads on what's going on there. we have enough information and everything else going on here that we should be able to you know, to -- you should look into this and find out what's going on, do your jobs. i'm very upset with the senate and the congress but just let's get these things together. people lives run around these things all the time. you're right. people drink water from florida from new york, and blah, blah blah. i agree with that. it is great. but let's get some answers on this. we do need to be, you know, safe here and understand. i think this is a bigger threat than some of the terrorist

stuff. that's my comment. i thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. and we are certainly going to look into it. i didn't come over here with all the facts and figures on rail because i was asked to talk on another topic. but i will say that the main reason that amtrak has had so many losses and is because government -- governor rendell, many years ago, when he was mayor of philadelphia testified in front of the house ways and means committee and said government does not work because there is no incentive to save money, so much of it is squandered, there is no incentive to work hard, so many people do not. because people are paid the same -- >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. we're going to leave this recorded segment now and take you live to capitol hill for a senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee hearing on border infrastructure and technology. ron johnson of wisconsin is the

chairman of the committee. you can see him walking to the right of your screen. tom carper is the ranking member of the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. we'll hear today from witnesses will include the u.s. border patrol deputy chief, also officials from homeland security department, and u.s. customs and border protection. live coverage on c-span3.

this hearing will come to order. our ranking member is still a few minutes out, so we'll get under way here. when he gets here, i will express again the fact that we're very glad that senator carper's stop was in wilmington. he was on the train that derailed and, of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and victims of that tragedy. our thoughts and prayers are also with all of our law enforcement officials that you know, step out of their door stop every day and risk their lives for our public safety.

and rather than me say it i can't say it better than what secretary jeh johnson said in the letter. i would like to read this. dear colleagues, this is national police week. this week we honor the sacrifice and commitment of the men and women in law enforcement. we pay special tribute to those who have given their lives in the line of duty and offer support to their families. the past year our department lost two border patrol agents in the line of duty. this week's agent ss names will be added to the memorial in washington, d.c. i'm also mindful of border patrol agent xavier vega jr. who last august was killed during a robbery while fishing with his family in texas. whatever you are this week, i encourage you to honors to who have chosen the law enforcement profession. ski i ask everybody here in the hearing room, in honor of those

individuals that secretary johnson was commending as well as all of our law enforcement officials that have given their last full measure just if we recognize a moment of silence. thank you. i can actually ask consent to have my opening statement read into the record. and i guess what i would like to do is get right down to testimony. it is tradition of this committee that we swear in witnesses so if everybody rise and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you, please be seated.

>> our first witness is assistant commissioner randolph d. alles. pronounce that right? alles. okay. i rarely get it right. don't feel bad. randolph alles is the assistant commissioner for the office of air and marine of the department of homeland security. oam is the largest aviation and maritime law enforcement organization. he served as the u.s. marine corps for 35 years, retiring in 2011 as major general. assistant commissioner alles. >> thank you, sir. and good afternoon, sir. good to see you again. you may recall we last visited our site in corpus christi in january. thank you for coming down to see that. i would encourage any members of the committee to come visit our sites. i think that's very beneficial in understanding what we do

better. as you noted, the office is a critical component of our later border strategy. the personnel operate 257 aircraft, 283 vessels and sophisticated network across the u.s., puerto rico and the virgin islands. oam's critical and maritime missions fall into four areas main awareness, investigation, interdiction and contingency operations and national taskings. we not only contribute to the security of our land border, but facilitate efforts with the coast guard to secure the coastal shoreline through the coordinated use of integrated air and marine forces. since the consolidation of air and marine assets 11 years ago we have transformed a border air wing composed of light observation aircraft into a modern air and maritime fleet with sophisticated surveillance sensors and communication systems. we are working to increase the connectivity and net working among all our air and marine

assets and continuing the effort to reduce the number of our aircraft type and position our assets for highest utilization increasing the operations. i would like to highlight a few of our assets and describe how technology is force multiplier that respond to threats to our nation's borders. first is the -- our mq 9 predator that plays a critical role in the border strategy and management by increasing situational awareness so that air, land and maritime environments. it just returned from deployment in el salvador where it contributed to seizures of $362 million of contraband. second is our multienforcement aircraft, with sophisticated technology systems allow it to be effective over land and water, replacing several older aircraft, single mission aircraft and inside so it will

be beneficial for us. beyond that, we use our cbp, beyond our borders, our track and airborne early warning aircraft which have been central in countering natural operations in the transit zone and also against transnational criminal organizations moving drugs out of the source zone through the transit zone and in towards the united states. we work in conjunction with aviation assets, interceptor vessels to operate in coastal waters to combat smuggling and protect u.s. ports from acts of terrorism and we have our air marine operations center national task force that focuses on criminal use of noncommercial air and advances. so chairman johnson and the ranking member when he comes and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the capabilities and our efforts and in securing our borders. i look forward to taking your questions and look forward if you can come out to our sites. thank you. >> thank you. our next witness is assistant

commissioner mark borkowski he is the assistant commissioner for the office of technology and innovation and acquisition with u.s. customs and border pro section of the department of homeland security. he's responsible for ensuring technology efforts are properly focused on mission and well integrated access across cbp. mr. borkowski served as the component acquisition executive. prior to his deployment he served as the border initiative program. mr. borkowski. >> thank you, chairman johnson and senator booker. appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i represent the acquisition community. our responsibility is to deliver the stuff that the operators need. we buy it. i know there is some question about the distinction between us and dhssnt. let me highlight that a little bit to start. dhsnt makes sure there is stuff there. it is not always ready. we don't always have systems technologies software that we

need. so first has to be there. once it is there, we have to figure out how best to get it. that means we have to know what the options are we have to do the business case analysis, we have to figure out how many to buy and have to understand why we're buying it. and for that of course, we ask the people in uniform, the green or the tan or the blue uniforms, the folks on either side, they describe what we need. it is our job then in acquisition to somehow put that in practice and deliver capability that those operators can use to produce mission outcomes. our focus, the thing we have gotten the most attention on recently has been the technology for surveillance between the ports of entry. as you know, there is a program called sbi challenging program. we concluded it was not the right system to go across the entire border and much too expensive. we scaled down our ambitions somewhat and selected a much more modest portfolio of systems

that the border patr fr imagine handheld long range beinocular like sensors to more complex systems on high towers with radars and cameras connected in a command and control center and the purpose of those systems is to give the border patrol better information about what's on the ground, what the threat of that activity is, whether it is a migrant or somebodhave done things in arizona, traffic migrated or for a variety of other reasons. south texas is an area. what we have done is because we were successful in the arizona technology plan, in saving money, we have been able to divert resources to south texas and largely that has been based on dod re-use. congress has been very strong advocate of us partnering with the department of defense, to use what was already taxpayer investments to leverage those for our capacity and we have been very successful with that in south texas. for example, we're flying aerostats now and we now have surveillance that we probably would not have had until 2018 or

2019. that's a quick summary of our progress and what acquisition does. i look forward to answering your questions as we go forward. >> thank you. our next witness is deputy chief ronald vitiello. i knew it. vitiello. deputy chief of the border patrol, he has served as an agent in supervisory roles of tucson and chief patrol agent of the rio grande valley sector. deputy chief vitiello. >> thank you chairman johnson, senator booker. it is a pleasure for me to be here to appear before you to discuss how technology and tactical infrastructure acts as force multipliers toward the u.s. border patrol border security enforcement efforts between the ports of entry. i'm pleased to represent the crucial contribution made to the homeland security enterprise and dhs. this is a special week in washington culminating in the national police officers memorial on the south capital lawn. we observed chief fisher and the

secretary commemorate the valor of the fallen specifically in the unveiling of two new name on the memorial. we honor them and the 115 other guardians the nation lost in 2014. while the basic border patrol mission has not changed in the past 09 years the operational environment in which we work and the threats we faced changed dramatically. today, our mission includes deterring acts of terrorism and preventing and responding to other criminal activity. the effective deployment of fixed and mobile technology, tactical infrastructure is critical to border patrol operations. with the resources, our front line is more informed effective and safer. the border patrol works closely with the acquisitions colleagues within cvp and dhs to develop

and deploy technology and infrastructure. the deployment of tactical infrastructure including fencing, roads and lighting is a critical component of our security efforts. it denies deters and slows down illegal entrants providing more time for agents to respond. detection technology supplements physical barriers by extending the visual range. ground sensors alert agents to movement and activity while mounted cameras and sensors on aircraft fix towers and border patrol vehicles can be controlled remotely to verify targets. all of this technology and infrastructure works together and ultimately enables the border patrol to gain situational with a irnessawareness and forewarn of any danger. the border patrol evaluates our posture and adjusts our capabilityies to secure our borders. we work to identify and develop technology such as tunnel

detection and monitoring technology, small unmanned aircraft systems tactical communication upgrades, and border surveillance tools tailored for the southwest and northern borders. there is no doubt that technology is a critical factor in the border patrol strategic plan, which implements a security approach based on risk. the strategy going forward will emphasize joint planning and execution advancing counternetwork approach, and a dhs wide unity of effort. thanks for the opportunity to testify how technology and tactical infrastructure help us secure the border. >> thank you. our next witness is director anh duong. close? >> yes. >> wow. one out of four is not too bad. director duong is the director of borders and maritime security vision in the science and technology director of the department of homeland security. she focus on developing technologies to put into operational use along our sea, land and air borders and ports of entry. miss duong came to the u.s. as

refugee of war from vietnam and spent 25 years working in naval science and technology directing all of u.s. navy explosive research and development. miss duong. >> good afternoon, chairman johnson, and senator booker. good afternoon, chairman johnson and senator booker. thank you for this opportunity to testify along with my colleagues from border protection with whom we work closely. the science and technology directorates mission is to deliver effective and innovative insight, methods and solutions for the critical needs of the homeland security enterprise under the leadership of undersecretary broaders, we have direction and defined our visionary goals, which are driven by the 2014 quadrennial homeland security review white house policy, congressional guidance, and secretary johnson's unity of effort initiative. these goals are screening that

matches the pace of life, a trusted cyberfuture, protecting privacy, commerce and community enable the decisionmaker actionable information at a speed of thought responder of the future protected, connected and fully aware. and resilient communities, disaster proofing society. three of these goals are relevant to border security. screening at speed, enable the decisionmaker, and responder of the future. all three require a common enabler, situational awareness in order to screen people and goods with minimum disruption at the pace of life, enable decisionmakers at various levels and arm responders with information to keep them safe and fully aware. from an operational standpoint given our broad border against a multitude of ever changing threats. the need for situational awareness is paramount. smt uses technology to improve

situational awareness, which in turn enables security. considering both smt visionary goals, and today's operational needs, we're pursuing an enterprise capability to provide improved situational awareness across the homeland security enterprise, called the border and coastal information system or basis. this work includes integrating and fed rating existing stand alone data sources, developing new sensor systems to create new data developing an integrating decision support tools and analytics to translate data into actionable information and sharing information with partners. the development for the basis is ongoing for the maritime environment. work for our land borders start started in fy 15. to the border situational awareness and providing new data

sources, numerous systems are undergoing assessment while providing interim capability. examples include a system in arizona to detect illegal border crossers, a tunnel activity monitoring system in texas, a canada/u.s. sensor sharing pilot, and a system for detecting and tracking small doc aircraft in washington. technology is an essential ingredient of effective border security. smt will continue to collaborate to bring technology to operational use and help and enhance the border security. i thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify under this very important subject. >> thank you. our next witness is rebecca gambler gambler, she is the director of the u.s. government and accountability offices, homeland security and justice team. she leads gao's work on border

security immigration and dhs management. prior to joining gao, she worked at the national -- for democracy and international forum for studies. >> good afternoon, chairman johnson and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify at today's hearing to discuss gao's work reviewing dhs efforts to acquire and deploy various technologies and other assets along u.s. borders. dhs has employed a variety of assets in its efforts to secure the southwest border including various land-based surveillance technologies, tactical infrastructure, which includes fencing, roads and lighting and air and marine craft. gao reported on dhs' management and oversight of these assets and programs including numerous reports on surveillance technologies under the former security border initiative, and the current arizona border surveillance technology plan. gao has also reported on fencing and other tactical infrastructure with about 652

miles of pedestrian vehicle fencing currently in place along the southwest border. my remarks today will reflect our findings in three areas related to dhs' efforts to secure the border. one, dhs' efforts to implement the technology plan, two efforts to modernize radio systems and three office of air and marines mix and placement of assets. first, cbp has made progress toward deploying programs under the arizona border surveillance technology plan including fixed and mobile surveillance systems agent portable devices and ground sensors. and these technologies have aided the border security efforts. however, we have also reported that cbp could do more to strengthen the management of the plan and technology programs and better assess the contributions of surveillance technologies to apprehensions and seizures along the southwest border. for example, cbp has experienced delays in some of its

surveillance technology programs and the plan dates for initial and full operational capability for the integrated fixed towers, for instance, have slipped by several years. we have also previously reviewed cbp's skethzchedules and life cycle cost estimates for the cost programs under the plan and compared them against best practices. overall, the schedules and estimates reflected some but not all best practices. and we found that cbp could take further action to better ensure by more fully applying best practices. improved situational awareness and agent safety. cbp has also begun requiring border patrol to record data with in its database on whether or not an asset like a camera assisted in an apprehension or seizure. these are positive steps but cbp needs to develop and implement

performance measures an analyze data to fully assess the contributions of its technologies to border security. second with regard to radio systems, earlier this year we reported that cbp and ice had taken action to upgrade their tactical communications infrastructure. for example, cbp and ice completed various modernization programs for their tactical communications such as upgrading outdated equipment and expanding coverage in some areas. however, agents and officers who use the radio systems reported experiencing challenges such as coverage gaps and interoperability issues which affected their operations. we also found that cbp and ice could take further steps to strengthen and record training on upgraded radio systems provided to officers and agents. third, with regard to air and marine assets, in 2012 we reported that the office of air and marine could better ensure that its mix and placement of assets were effective and

efficient by for example, more clearly linking deployment decisions to mission needs and threats, documenting analyses used for the placement of assets and considering how deployments of border technology affect requirements for air and marine assets. we found that these steps were needed to help cbp better determine the extent to which its allocation decisions were effective in addressing customer needs and threats. in closing we have made recommendations to dhs in all of these areas and others to help the department in its efforts to manage and implement technologies infrastructure and other assets to secure the border. dhs agreed with some of these recommendations, and has actions plans or under way to address some of them. we will continue to monitor dhs' efforts in response to our recommendations. thank you for inviting me to testify and i would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you. our next witness is michael garcia, he is legislative

attorney for the congressional research service where he worked since 2003. in his capacity, mr. garcia has focused on issues related to immigration and border security, international law and national security. mr. garcia. >> thank you, chairman johnson, ranking member carper and members of the committee. i'm honored to be testifying before you today regarding the legal authorities and requirements related to the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the u.s. borders. the primary statute governing barrier deployment is section 102 of the illegal immigration reform. section 102 was amended in 2005, 2006, and 2007. these revisions coupled with increased funding for border projects resulted in hundreds of miles of fencing being deployed along the southwest border. however, it appears additional

defense deployment halled edhalted after 2011. section 102 a expressly authorized dhs to deploy barriers and roads along the borders to deter illegal crossings. section 102 b provides that fencing shall be installed along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border. but fencing is not required at any particular location when dhs determines that other means are better suited to obtain control. and in section 102 c allows the dhs second to waive any illegal requirement that impedes the expeditious construction of border barriers and roads. in recent years, attention has primarily focused on section 102 b and c, so i'll focus my comments on those provisions. prior to the most recent amendments in the 1996 act, section 102 b required dhs to

construct double layered fencing along five specific stretches of the southwest border. the current version of section 102 b no longer requires fencing to be double layered. and provides dhs with discretion regarding where fencing should be installed. although section 102 b is characterized as requiring 700 miles of fencing, the provision actually states that fencing shall be deployed along not less than 700 miles of the southwest porder border. it prioritizes the amount of the border and the amount of fencing used by dhs. last year dhs stated that fencing had been deployed along roughly 652 miles of the southwest border. there may be questions regarding the firmness of the 700 mile language. section 102 b states that notwithstanding its requirements, dhs is not required to construct fencing at

any particular location, where it deems fencing inappropriate. this clause could be interpreted to meanwhile dhs must deploy fencing along 700 miles of the border, it is not required it deploy fencing at any discreet point. a broader reading of this clause might permit dhs to construct fencing along less than 700 miles of the southwest border if the agency believes fencing is only appropriate along the lesser mileage. however, there are a number of challenges to such a reading. as an initial matter, the notwithstanding clause does not say that dhs may construct fencing a-long a lesser mileage of the border it says that fencing isn't required at any particular location. if dhs may construct only the amount of fencing it deems appropriate, it is unclear why section 102 b would state that fencing shall be deployed along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border. the legislative history of section 102 b and several courts

description of the provision also seemed to give greater support for understanding the 700 mile requirement as a firm one. dhs officials have seemingly taken differing interpretations of section 102 b over the years. a court's consideration of this issue may depend upon whether the meaning of section 102 b is seen as ambiguous and dhs' construction is deemed reasonable. in any event there is no statutory deadline for when the required fencing must be completed. and it is also not clear who would have standing to bring a legal challenge against the fencing strategy. turning to section 102 c, this provision grants the dhs secretary the power to waive legal requirements that may impede the construction of border roads and barriers. wafer authority has been used to facilitate the construction and the upkeep of border projects. but this authority could not be used to waive constitutional requirements. thus for example, just

compensation needs to be given to priority property owner whose land is condemned for purposes of barrier installation. this concludes my prepared statement. i'll be happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you mr. garcia. i'm kind of interpreting your testimony that congress might have passed a law that wasn't crystal clear? i guess i would be prepares for the floor in with regards to the train accident. i know senator carper was on that train and got off early. i'm very happy to see he's here and well. and i want to express my thinks to the loss of life and the more than 100 people in the hospital right now recovering from their injuries. i just want to ask this one question before i have to run. ms. gambler. from the notes that i have customs and border protections

spent about $2.4 billion to complete 670 miles of border fence. the vast majority was a single layer fence. designed to keep vehicles from crossing. if congress were to implement the defense that would require more land acquisition, more supplies, more labor to build and a man by border patrol i'm trying to understand the payoff and the cost benefit analysis in our estimation. according to the gao, undocumented entries to the united states during the time actually fell 69% between 2006 and 2011, which is pretty impressive. but the drug and contraband seizures nearly doubled. and so are you -- you're an expert looking at cost and benefits and challenges associated with border fencing and technology. if congress eventually approves another understanding the cost benefit analysis. and what in your opinion would

it be as the 700 miles is put into place? >> so i think that's a very important question. and it goes to something that gao has reported on both as it relates to fencing but also as it relates to other assets, as well, to include technology, collecting data and develop measures and metrics to assess what contributions they're getting out of different investments. whether that's fencing or whether or not that's technology or other assets. and so what we've recommended is that dhs take steps to, you know, better collect the data better develop performance measures and metrics so that we can be able to answer the question you just asked which is what are the contributions that we're getting out of these, the different structures and technologies we're putting in place. >> before we throw a whole bunch of money at the problem try to figure out what is going to get us the best results for the money that we spend given the ultimate array of decisions we have between assets like

technology, drones or fencing. >> dhs has defense that would allow them to assess on the technologies front what contributions they're getting out of the technologies they've deployed to seizures and apprehensions, for example. using the -- for the towers that have been deployed they're starting to collect that data now, and what they need to do is start using that to actually analyze and assess the performance and progress they're making. >> so before politicians make decisions, you really think there should be a data-driven decision through thorough analysis? is that what you're saying? >> we certainly think it's important for them to assess the performance of the systems and how that's contributing to their efforts to secure the border. both as it relates to fencing technology and other assets they might put in place. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you for your time. >> thanks. we'd like to turn it over to our ranking member again. we're all very pleased on the committee you got off in time. so if you'd like to say a few

words and give us your opening statement. >> thank you. thank you. and i want to thank the folks on our committee, and frankly, a lot of my colleagues and people around the country would express, just personal feelings that those riding that train last night from washington up to new york are feeling and thinking. i ride a train a lot. and get to know the people who are like the crew on the trains. and i think you ride with a lot of the same people. and never imagine when i got off the train last night that six people from that train would be dead this morning. and we prayed for all of them. and particularly for the -- and also, just a prayer of thanksgiving for the first responders who turned out late at night and the difficult circumstances. a lot of folks were heroes last night and heroines. but a lot of passengers who did extraordinary heroic things. so let's keep them all in our thoughts and prayers.

i used to be an amtrak board member. so i've been involved in train accidents as a board member. and sometimes with loss of life and sometimes just a lot of damage. and this is never easy. and especially hard, as you know. but appreciate all the feeling that people have expressed very much. i want to also express to all of you a heartfelt thanks for you being here and for what you do with your lives, and trying to make our lives in many instances a lot safer and better quality of life. grateful for that. i'd like to express my thanks for letting us participate in this preparation and putting together, i think, just a really good panel of witnesses. chairman and i and the board is not too many months ago. and we had the opportunity of all walks of life.

and one of the questions, what do we need to do more or less of in order to secure the borders? and we heard a lot of things. but one of the phrases we heard over and over again is technology is the key to securing the border. technology is the key to securing the border. i could not agree more. i could not agree more. and i look forward to hearing from our panel today about the technologies and other tools that conserve as what i call as force multipliers for our agents on the ground. i'm sure my colleagues and our witnesses would agree that we need smart, targeted border security investments. and to me this means placing a priority on acquiring advanced cameras, sensors, radars so our agents have realtime situational awareness along our borders. for example, been very impressed with vader technology on our drones and surveillance towers. but i've seen along our borders. also means working with the department of defense to reuse equipment no longer needed in theater and places like

afghanistan such as the aerostats now we use along the rio grande valley. finally, means making sure the assets we do have are being used effectively. if we have an airplane, helicopter, drone in the sky. those assets with the right kinds of cameras and surveillance equipment to ensure we're not just flying blind. navy guy for many years, retired navy captain. and i remember many a day we used to chase nuclear submarines when we weren't in southeast asia all over the world. and the idea of fighting nuclear submarines, using binoculars and not so effective. frankly, the idea of looking for people in a search and rescue mission using binoculars from a p3 aircraft, not so effective. and when we sent aircraft without the right kind of surveillance technology, we're wasting a lot of fuel and a lot of people if we're not careful. one of the things i'd like to really hear from our panel today about what technology is working along the border what's working

so we can deploy more of that, find out what works, do more of that, find out what doesn't work and do less of that. i'd also welcome hearing from each of you today. what isn't working so we can reduce our expenditure on those activities. i know dhs has struggled in the past with some technology deployments that we hope to talk about some of those lessons learned. from what i understand, dhs with the help from our friends at gio has already made many improvements in the acquisition policies. and we look forward to hearing more about that today, as well. we applaud that. and one lesson i've learned over the years, you can't manage what you can't measure. we talked about this a minute ago. that's why it's vital that dhs continue to develop better metrics to measure the progress in securing our borders. and another lesson from the trips i've taken to the mexican border is things do change. things do change. and we've seen that as a move away from california, to arizona, all the way down to the south texas area over the last

couple of years. in this last year with the flood of the last two years was a whole lot more young people coming up and looking for a place to just find refuge. that may explain why i think our agencies have to be nimble. not a big one for us being prescriptive prescriptive. maybe together working together we can figure that out and be good listeners. we also need to listen to many experts who have told us that the border security can be won only at the border. and those who say cannot just be won at the border. and i don't think it can be won only at the border. we have to take some other steps to address the factors it brings to the borders. to me that means passing comprehensive immigration reform. and also means trying to identify what are the factors causing tens of thousands of people every year, every year to try to get out of honduras guatemala and salvador. and i said many times, we're contributing to the misery by

our addiction to meth amphetamines, crack cocaine and so forth. lack of hope lack of economic opportunity, president's -- i think, good plan there, and the vice president is sort of deserves our support. the other thing is i think we need comprehensive immigration reform. made a good stab at that a couple of years ago. i hope we'll come back and finish the job before long. and so that would that would pretty much sum up what i want to say. i'll close with this. we care a lot, i think almost everybody on this committee would be described as