rand paul has a resolution that he introduced, the disapproval regulation -- disapproval resolution. it can be brought to the floor under expedited procedure. we could get at vote on that. >> we heard the congressman not one to give a great to be present on his environmental record. -- grade on his environmental record. what do you think the tension will be going forward between the democrats and the president? >> and much more difficult part is the compromise is the president has cut. his stimulus bill, democrats feel, was not enough. it was allowed for the republicans to target its as not enough. he said for months that he would not accept the plan that

did not include new revenue. our polling is showing a lot of his liberal base is disenchanted with of the compromises he has made going back to health care and the public option. >> you heard henry waxman talking about the super committee saying he does not think the democrats on the committee would vote for any compromise that does not include tax revenues, but cuts entitlements spending. >> that is the washington-speak part of this that is difficult. we are talking about revenues and what the republicans are willing to be going with a plan backed support something that is not -- backed -- that supports something that is not net neutral.

there are ways of doing that. there is some room for compromise. even though the congressman made the points he made, i think this is some room once you close the loopholes. if republicans can allow it to -- can allow it to be scored in a way that would be a net positive. >> thank you for being done "newsmakers." -- on "newsmakers." >> tomorrow, the maker of the center of economic and policy research and james shirt from the heritage foundation look at republicans economic and job proposal. allan coukell discusses oversight of the pharmaceutical industry and the safety of four and made drugs. andrew tilghman talks about --

>> next, a discussion on paying for transportation projects. you'll hear remarks from jim kuhn, tom jensen, a vice president at ubs, and several others. this is almost an hour. >> i would ask you all to take your seats and get started. thank you. i will just introduce our moderator for this second portion of our program.

i will go ahead and turn it over to you. >> can you all hear me? i will talk while you guys are getting your coffee. after that rousing debate, now we are going to talk about details. i cover transportation for national journal and i have been involved with or watched the ins and outs of congress. we have a group of panelist with a wide variety of perspectives on the transportation debate. i will give you a brief opener and then we will talk about it. we are taking questions from the

audience that the folks are collecting and they are giving me some sort of electronic device. we are also tweeting if any of you want to send questions that way. without further ado, let's talk about who we have here. immediately on my right is jim kuhn, chief of staff for the house transportation and infrastructure committee. he has spent 23 years on capitol hill and has seen a lot. he has worked for the air transport association and the boeing company. one of the things i had asked these palace to talk about was how the transportation debate is affecting them. but jim, it is obvious.

he is writing the bill and wants to see more of his family. next to him as tom jensen, vice president for transportation policy at ups. he is right in the middle of a whole variety of transportation issues including commercial fleet matters, ocean shipping, rail, and grass-roots lobbying. in his prior career, he also worked on the hill for former representative stewart mckinney of texas. next to him we have ron kirby, director of -- for the washington council of governments. that represents 18 washington area local governments. they are involved a long range planning on highway and transit systems and he also directed the transportation program at the urban institute at one point. when i asked him how this debate affects him, he sent me

the following e-mail, which i can attest to. he says his customers are the people of the metropolitan region, and his customers are not happy with the plans and programs we currently have available for the growing traffic congestion. at the very end we have the president of the small business legislative council, which has been doing since 1985 and has advocated on a variety of small business related issues for much of his career. he has worked for other small- business trade associations. let's get right down to it. what i would say at the outset is we are in a brave new world in congress. ; a discontented new world. the public is having a bit of difficulty with how the lawmakers are behaving. one of the things that has come

out of that is new, austere budget guidelines from house republicans. depending on your point of view, some would say that is a welcome change. it has been causing a bit of consternation in the transportation world because there is a reauthorization that is more than two years overdue. i was talking to people couple weeks ago and expressing the frustration that for the first time ever, we have a constituency group of on the same page. we have labor, business, research, analysts all saying we want to get something done with reauthorize in infrastructure investment and we are still having trouble on capitol hill. >> the house hasn't outlined six-year bill dealing with problems that a lot of people have with it. cut infrastructure spending by

about one-third. that could be a problem going forward, but i think there are ready to talk about it. the senate has a two-year bill that is attempting to accommodate these budgetary constraints, and that also is causing a few people to be a little worried. the good news is, from my perspective from watching this, members on washington begun capitol hill do seem to be in it dealmaking mode. evidence of this last night when the senate passed a short-term extension riyadh rising the gas tax and the faa. that is a difference from what we were seeing earlier this year when they were still fighting over various things like subsidies. we have six months now to come up with a longer-term deal, and

from my perspective, i think the real disagreements will be about how much money and how long it will be. there are other details involving things like bike paths. my sense is those can all be worked out. it is a question of how much of the top line you can swallow. i am asking all of our panelists to tell us what we can do, how do we solve this? if you want to give us a quick overview of where you think -- what you like to do, and of the rest of you down the line, if you have ideas about how even if we cannot get all this time, the investment in infrastructure will be improved. >> i am glad to be here this morning.

fawn did a great job outlining where we are heading in where we are going. at least six months now, the senate has passed an extension. unfortunately, we have been really good at passing extensions for a number of years, both on the surface and more so on the aviation side where we have 22 extensions. nothing to be proud of, but nonetheless, better than shutting programs down. the only terminology i would change with respect to what she mentioned was, people talk about cutting spending, and i review was that we were trying to stop the borrowing that has been going on for years now. the gas tax is bringing in about $35 billion a year and we are spending $50 billion a year.

it is not sustainable when you have to borrow $15 billion every single year to maintain our bridges and roads around the country. what we are trying to dupe -- there is no doubt that the transformation -- transportation committee is committed to a viable transportation program. we started out in january and the committee travelled around the country to it seemed like every state in the country and had listening sessions and hearings on a bipartisan basis, and heard from folks around the country. when the chairman came back, he could basically a draft bill together that inc. what he had heard around the country.

it was coming back to washington, what we try to put together. some of the main things we heard were that the project delivery process takes completely too long. that was one of the main things in almost every location that we went to bid on average it takes about 15 years for major construction project to get completed in this country from conception to completion. that is just totally unacceptable. there is a lot of common ground to find ways to reduce that process. i think that will save a lot of money over the years. there is a growing regions even from republican leadership in the house, i think that folks believe we should have a viable program, but we should do it without continuing to borrow money. we are looking at every option along with the leadership across

the swath of committees in both the house and the senate to come up with revenues that will meet the needs that we have out there. i think that is very encouraging. i don't think folks in the house nor the senate want to wait six months to get to a long-term bill, so we will work as hard as we possibly can over the next few months to find the revenue that we need to meet the demands that we have. so that is very encouraging, more so than where we were a few months ago. i hope we can get their. it will be really difficult task, obviously increasing the gas tax is off the table. there are options out there, and if we can make them work, we will try to do that. i am encouraged by that. there are a lot of things we can do in addition with reforming

the finance. giving states more flexibility and getting us to where we need to go. it is a multi modal type of legislation with water and we have ports that we need to dredge to meet demands. we have bottlenecks' around the country. i think even the president had some suggestions in his jobs bill that we could probably incorporate into what we have. i think there is not a lot of support for a national infrastructure bank. right now we are looking at how we can leverage more at the

state level. 33 states around the country have infrastructure banks. if we can make that work, we prefer to do it that way and really get the bureaucracy and decisionmaking out of washington and down to the states where those people have their own individual needs. we are looking at that and many other things. i think there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we are working hard to make it happen. >> that is good news for all of us. tom, do you want to talk about what you would like to see? >> the brt of ubs is, we have issues -- the beauty of ups is we have issues. does not matter independently, but it all matters from a fleet

transportation system. the outline of the problems, as everyone knows, outlining the problems is easy. it is the solutions that are difficult. if you leave the building here, in the first five minutes you will see a little brown truck. we have about 90,000 commercial vehicles in the united states. we have 330,000 people in the united states to rely on mass -- many of whom rely on mass transit to get to work. we thing building roads is important, but without new revenue, we have issues. the about this. the package, no matter what it is, we don't own that thing. it starts with the shipper.

if we cannot move the freight for the pipeline, we become redundant. we have additional bills. we increase our emissions and it gets worse. we contribute to the congestion because we have more vehicles on the road. if you take every ups vehicle on the road today and each one is late by five minutes, that is nothing. when you analyze that, even a ze,ntry of -- company our sid that is real money. we are not just worried about the united states economy. is economies around world and how they are interrelated. what do we do, going back to your point. i wish i had a magic bullet. we think it is a number of

things, but we need to focus on the revenue. there is a lot of things that are real good stuff, delivering projects quicker. we have talked at length about this, but if we don't get more revenue, it is pay me now or pay me later. we firmly believe that. it is easier to do that now than down the road. we still believe in the gas tax, warts and all. the big drug issue is not popular, but -- the big truck issue is not popular. moving forward, the challenge for the smart, dedicated folks on the hill who want this to

happen is to get there on the money side, but kicking the can, we are not in favor of that whatsoever. that situation will get worse, in our opinion. we drove 3 billion miles last year. we care about all modes. to the extent we can move in that direction of making it a more multimodal approach, that is fantastic. we recognize that is difficult. down the road, the gas tax problem will become antiquated. there may be some other mechanism to move improvement. if we have to figure out an offset, which is the only way to get certain things done, then so be it. we are trying to move in that direction, but the solution is ramping up. we operate all over the world, so we have very good comparison points. we are struggling here and it is

a very frustrating situation. >> my understanding is that max baucus is on the hunt for offsets in the senate. the extent you are talking about is probably unlikely, at least this year, but we shall see. if you want to talk about -- if you could touch on how state and local governments are involved and also the private sector, at this is a topic of great interest. >> i am on the staff of the metropolitan planning organization in the washington region. it is made up of state and local officials. this is where they get together, and we are looking at highway and transit operations and maintenance for the entire metropolitan area.

what is the federal role here as opposed to all of the other players, state, local, and private? when we look at our total budget expenditures, the total government pays about 20%. the rest state and local transit players and about 7% or 8% is private tolls and developer fees. there is a blend of funding sources and the federal government is only 20%. what is the government's particular role? what we need to focus on in the next six months or a year, i think we have the opportunity to rethink and reformulate and refocus the federal role and restructure the federal program. so that it does deliver the things that the federal

government is most responsible for. that is one of our biggest challenges. the program has grown up over time. everybody is saying we need to consolidate these categories. more than that, it needs to be done in a way that we can say this money is -- this federal money is being spent to achieve this federal purpose. that is why the federal government is involved. i think we can get that structure done, we will be in a stronger position than to argue for more revenue. i think the structure comes first. there are four basic categories of federal involvement. we have organized the federal program around these and is is not too big issue of from where we are now. it would be much easier to refrain the program and get it funded and administered. the first category is a safety and state of repair of our major roadway and transit systems. if we have a major safety incident, the first place we go

is the federal government to help us out. therefore, the federal government has an interest in being involved proactively in making sure those things don't happen. i think the modal formula programs are not too bad in that regard, and if they are focused on safety, i think it can be very effective. examples of major programs we have in this region that are very important to us that we have not been able to get out of the existing transportation structure. we have gone outside that structure for special federal funding. in the case of state of good repair, we have secured $150 million a year federal funding, matched the% by our state, to

restore our metro rail system to a state of good repair. that was a separate piece of legislation, not in the federal transit program, but we need to get on top of that problem which was a very serious problem in this region, and for everybody comes to this region from around the country. that objective needs to be worked into the basic federal program for all transit agencies. the second category is high- value new investments. we need a multimodal approach to this. the tiger program, war of all multi modal structure. there is a critical federal role here for major facilities. an example is the woodrow wilson bridge. we had to rebuild that a number of years ago. it cut through three states if you count the district of columbia as a state. it carries a lot of traffic

within this region but it carries a lot of through traffic. a clear case for a federal role. we ended up with essentially 100% federal funding to rebuild that bridge, partly because the federal government owned it and wanted to get rid of it and we refuse to take it. we were able to pull that off and get it rebuilt. you see a very nice structure out there now, and i was involved from the beginning of thinking that all the way through. those are the two major categories. the third category that is near and dear to my heart is metropolitan mobility. i think we need to focus on metropolitan areas and the federal program. we could consolidate a lot of small programs we have no rejigger have now. i think it could go directly to the major metropolitan areas,

may be administered through the states for the small areas i want to read from the federal planning regulations that i have to follow every day. promote consistency between transportation investments and state and local plant growth and economic development past. that has to be done at a metropolitan level. it needs state and local governments working together. states don't do -- states don't do land use, but states to transportation. we have to get them working together to get that linkage. that is a lot of what we focus on at the metropolitan planning organization. another category says promote efficient system management and operations. we have been working very hard since 9/11 to put in place a stronger incident management program in this region that is run by the three state department of transportation and

metro. we have a new organization up and running, watching the system regionally, identifying problem areas and alerting the agencies to coordinate. similarly, we could not find that the existing program. at that time it was called an earmarke. finally we went back to the basic programs to get it funded on of ongoing basis. that was a real struggle and one of our state officials, when we went to him and said let's have you how great it is, he said i understand the value of it. the problem is, it is knew, and we don't have a category for new. where are going to find the money? it was a matter of rattling around with all these program categories in trying to draw money out for something that everyone agrees was very important. that is the struggle we face with the current program

structure. the fourth and final area is the recent developments demonstration. this is an important role for the federal government. one area we have benefited from is the value pricing program that the federal highway administration runs. they have been pushing us to look at pricing of our roadway system, something we are not eager to get out of, but with federal help we have done a lot of studies. we are looking at new and existing roads. we have some major facilities under construction. that is where a lot of our new infrastructure is going to be funded. we have had an enormous amount of help in looking at the new technology that is now available. i remember mentioning the the idea of trolling the beltway tolling the beltway.

the level of understanding at that point was such that people did not appreciate the fact that we are now building toll so this technology has enabled us to do things people did not imagine even 10 to 15 years ago, and i see that as very important. >> thank you, ron. john? >> my group is made up of the small businesses that use the

roads and use the other infrastructures, and we bring a perspective -- first, you talk to any small business in america, and i guarantee that nine out of 10 will use two roads all of the time. these are things they always talk about when it comes to government policy, and in the world of this, six years is probably as close as we can get to permanent. so a long-term reauthorization. certainty, you're going to collect the money from us and use the money for us. let's know where we are going. let's get there. use the money for us. you can talk to any small business and talk about what is going on. this is not short-term stuff. it is the long term. because i want to know if i am a

small business employee or employe year, i want to know if i'm going to have a job not for three months but that i am going to have a job for two years or three years, and then i will have the confidence to bring this economy back, and both you and your employees -- you want to know that there is going to be a job there. the certainty and the permanence of things. going to your point just a moment ago, you can look at a region. i will use one industry. when i say florist, what would a florist think about? and i think what would come to your mind is delivery. they have to deliver in their local community and get that to a location. that is a concern in that region. i want my trucks to get around. the multicolored thing, a lot of

vehicles are the small business vehicles on the roads, and they have to deal with it, too. you would like a delivery. but, do you know what? i am a florist, and i need to worry about something else, because guess what? most of the flowers are grown in california. they are not grown in the backyard of the florist. they do not go out and dig them. they come in from the miami airport and are trucked in around the world, around the nation, excuse me. i am a florist, and i have not only have to worry about roads. i have to worry about airports. i have to get these things done. you cannot just look at a little part. it is all integrated, both with the structures. it is a national issue, and we have to deal with it as a

national issue, and that is why we have to have government involved in it. we want certainty and want to deal with it as a national issue. one last point. earlier, the word "deal marking -- "dealmaking" was used. i can guarantee you that for the better part of two decades, i have found compromises, compromises that were win-win for everyone. so where are the solutions that will work? whether i agree with the labor opposition or not, what about the ones that work for environmentalists, whether i agree with them or not? the reality is i have a national problem. i need a national solution, and we have got to get back to the

point where we allow our legislators -- cut them some slack. let them find a solution. they can work it out in the senate if we give them room to work it out. [applause] >> just one quick clarification. am i to assume from what you're saying about certainty and long term that your membership would be willing to pay a little bit more if they knew it was certain and long term? >> i think the issues have been addressed. if you are going to get it done, you are going to have to pay for it. we are most familiar with the gas tax, so if we go beyond that, they will say, "what does that mean? a little more? or whatever?"

there was a good point that was made in the debate before. let's find out what the priorities are and find a way to fund it. >> i have got my own questions, and then we have some who have submitted. if you can wait a few minutes. i think gm will probably have something to say about this, and also ron -- i think jim will probably have something to say. partnerships. i think the thinking is with more private-sector investment, the government does not need to be spending as much, which is helpful when the government does not have a lot to spend. can you talk about where you think that can be streamlined? and also, it sounds like a lot of the issues you guys are talking about in the house bill are not particularly -- they are

not the kinds of things that are going to -- somebody over in the senate. also, ron, your experience. if you can tell us some mistakes about public-private partnerships. so, jim, do you want to talk? >> i think we want to try to create an atmosphere to allow private-sector financing of some of these projects. a lot of times, people will suggest that public-private partnerships and highways is polling -- tolling, and that is true, but there are other areas where public-private partnerships make sense, in the rail sector and others. there are funds out there. there is money out there they are willing to invest. we just have to make the terms

of the agreement work for them. so, again, it is a process where we are trying to find every avenue of resources to finance strong, multi modal transportation systems, and we are looking at that and think that is a great idea. >> -- >> i think there is a way to the private-sector dollars in there. it only hopes the situation. >> ron, do you have examples? >> let me start with the mistake. i think the mistake potentially is that public-private partnerships can do a lot more than they really can. they -- maintenance. it is not the way of getting the government out of some parts. but there are some important areas.

we have a public-private partnership on the beltway. what i want to point out to you, a success story, if you go north on the red line, you will see the new york avenue metro station. that was with land developers, involving warehousing around the area, and the king to the district and the federal -- and they came to the district and the federal government and ask to have a rail system built for them, and everyone thought, right on. and then we got federal funding. the ratio ended up a little bit different in the end, but that project from the time it was conceived to the time it was open, it was less than five years, partly because it was not controversial, but that funding blend was just critical, and i think we made a mistake when we

did not get a big enough share from the private sector. >> very good at negotiating. >> right. that is another thing to watch out for. they tended to be very good negotiators. however, everyone is just delighted with the outcome. the new york avenue area has been totally transformed by that station. >> ok. yes? >> the issue came up about whether this is a good deal or a bad deal, and i wonder if pennsylvania would like to have that money back? we're with the $12 billion go? i mean, in chicago, the chicago skyway, right? where did that money go? backed into roads? no, into the general fund. ask the people in indiana. we use a toll road right now. where did that money go? into the toll road?

no. meanwhile, investors have changed over. the tolls are going through the roof. if you ask the users out there, it is a different story. this may be goes back to the issue that the money is put into the infrastructure, it works. do not get me wrong. good government purposes, that is a whole different story. that reflects our perspective of user-financed, user-pay systems. >> i wrote for "national journal," and i believe it was from your staff, but i believe we were talking about the real problem in these partnerships is that you have a very big investors coming in and dealing with local governments, who are not very sophisticated. i think one of the things that he is trying to do on his staff is come up with a way they can equalize this a little bit, and the only other thing i would make as a point, i was provided with a statistic, which is that

only 24 states and the district of columbia have used public- private partnerships, and most of those occurred in only eight states. it works in some places and not in others. but moving on to a more political question, for whomever wants to tackle it. from the earlier debate, grover norquist was targeting government waste and fraud and abuse. are transportation projects being held hostage to that broader situation about how government is wasting our money? do you want to -- how do you feel? >> i think that is a little deeper there, i think -- a little deep there, i think. i think there is an idea that the highway program has gotten away from its core purpose, and

some would argue, just for an example, bike paths or sidewalks, that gets a lot of play. there are some who believe we should not fund those. and there are obviously those who believe we should. the question is, should we? and to what extent? and who is going to make the decision? so it all comes back to my earlier comments about reforming the programming and getting it back to where it needs to be and focusing on the things we need to do so we do have a national program, but at the same time, you know, not have a one-size- fits-all. >> to take out the hostage part of it, the overall conversation about the world government

generally and the waste in it, does that help your policymaking, or do you feel that is separate? >> i am not so much focus on waste as i am process -- not so much focused on waste as i am process and the dollars for what we need. at least up until the past year, it was earmarks, and some people call that waste, and other members call that their bread and butter, so it is all in the eyes of the beholder. i think it is to create program to get it back to its original intent, and that is to maintain our interstate system and to maintain our roads and bridges

around the country and our transportation systems, and so, that is what we are focused on. >> anybody else want to weigh in on this? there are a couple of -- i guess we will continue on the broader issues in congress, the question about the problem with the transportation bill. does it depend on the results of a super committee? this is for jim, i think, mainly. [laughter] >> i think, obviously, the super committee has an enormous task in front of them. i think they need to find $1.40 trillion over a 10-year period, which is a herculean task. i, obviously, from my vantage point think we need to move a long-term six-year bills sooner rather than later -- six-year

bill sooner rather than later, and that is our goal. >> the folks negotiating the transportation bill in congress, -- that the super committee is going to get in the way -- >> we need money. >> right, right. >> they cannot cut us further than has been done. >> lucky you. a question i have, and i think this is mainly for our business folks on the panel, but i have noticed over the last year or so, and i have spent a lot of time covering this, that every now and then, you have a group that will talk about traffic congestion, which is something all of us experience and all of us are frustrated by. in a case where this actually affects your bottom line, i am curious as to why that argument

does not seem to be making as much headwind on capitol hill in terms of pushing people to actually move forward. is that because that is something we all experience and do not believe the government can fix it or that it takes too long, or is there some other reason? or maybe just people need to get together more and talk about traffic congestion. maybe i hate traffic than. john? >> from a small-business use, we are not there where you can focus on the construction side or the public-official side. small businesses are all over the place. traffic congestion is my problem for me today. i am putting somebody on the road at 4:00 a.m. so they can

get to a destination because they want to beat the traffic, and you cannot get service after 2:00 p.m., because i have to get my people back from wherever they are going to go. it is hard to connect all of theirs dots -- those dots. you do not tie it all together the same way, tied together with construction or the public sector. >> is this something you talk about among your groups? let's say, for example, this project -- >> if you get a group of small businesses together, associations of small business, you get the c.e.o.'s, and you start, and you say, "traffic congestion," and then you have one-hour of conversation -- discussion. you realize you all have the

same problem, whether you are a florist or an air-conditioner manufacturer. and you say, "wow, we all have the same problems," but that on happens when you get together. >> an interesting kind of phenomenon the last couple of years. we have had some major companies coming to ups and saying, "you guys do a good job at moving our stuff, but help us understand how we can move in a better, -- move it better," so we are doing consulting, as is fedex. what am i suggesting? there are some non-traditional new stakeholders to care about this issue. they will talk to their state and local officials and their federal officials, but when the usual suspects show up, who are all here --

we know what your agenda is. but i think it is the nontraditional stakeholders you really have to get involved. we are seeing more of that. i would suggest that the chairman and members of the congress who folks know are really in pivotal positions for policy, that they get involved, as well. "help us navigate how we can move." we are not building roads. we know that. and if we are putting out their more vehicles and more commercial vehicles -- if we're putting out there more vehicles and more commercial vehicles -- >> former speaker newt gingrich and john boehner have said we need to pay for increased transportation with revenue from new oil and gas drilling

rights. do you agree? and you can decline to answer. >> i agree with speaker boehner. >> well done, sir. [laughter] this is another in the weeds question, but we are watching ourselves get older. baby boomers are retiring. addressing what will be the increased demand for parrott transit -- for paratransit. this is for anybody. >> there is a real growing need. it is the fastest-growing component of the metro budget. i think we need a blend, improvements to how we deliver those services, and i think there is an important federal role in meeting those needs, and i think it is a very important

demand. >> talk about nontraditional stakeholders. we are just about ready to wrap up, but i would just like to give everyone the opportunity to have the last word. what do you fear? let's go right down the line. >> well, i mean, i think, what i thank the chairman hopes and what the leadership hopes, the transportation bill in the coming months. i can assure you there are efforts on going, where we will not leave any stone unturned to try to find adequate resources to try to find out programs. we are going to have significant reforms. i think the bottom line, as they say, if the will is there, if the way is there, so i am

hopeful now, i am optimistic. it is really going to be a tough challenge. but there is enough people looking at it now, and, hopefully, we will get a bilson. -- a bill soon. >> it has to become a larger, broader, -- let's rebuild america. let's do the right thing. i hate to say it, but if there is catastrophic -- it will happen. that is a back route to go -- a bad route to go. what does congress do? overreact or do nothing. not to offend anyone. this has got ripple effects in the rest of the economy, and i

know folks are trying, and folks on the hill are trying, but to bring a broader group together to say this really matters with the country moving forward, that is our concerned. the problem exacerbates itself. >> one thing i feel is most important is that we we articulate the program -- that we re-articulate the program. i am very encouraged about what is happening in the senate in that regard. it is just too complicated. too many categories. when you have a new initiative, too hard to go back in. i think there are multiple ways of doing that. the gas tax is important. it would be nice to increase it, but that is tough politically.

but there are a lot of beneficiaries of these investments that we can tap. some of these creative funding packages. land developers, tolling, the rail line we are building to dulles -- more than half is coming from -- that is the kind of funding package we need to be looking for. >> john, last word. >> long term, certainty, get it done, and, you know, do it together and get it done. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, all of you. >> thank you. on behalf of the national turner, -- the national journal, i would like to thank you all, including grover norquist and the rest of our panelists and you, our audience. we hope to see you at another

national journal event. we have an event on september 22 with secretary timothy geithner. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> take care of yourself. >> the first thing, you hear the boom, you see the flash, and then the next thing you hear is them crying out in pain. the second thing is if i have lost anything special, you know, schumaker -- shoot me. >> tonight, the director of a

documentary about someone wounded in afghanistan. they follow the journey of him coping with the loss of his legs and his rehabilitation on c- span's "q&a." >> the group known as the blue dogs held a conference. they are urging some to take a bipartisan approach and, quote, go big on cuts. this is about 30 minutes. >> i would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to express the blue dogs' opinion on the fiscal super commission, the ways in which we can better the lives of the american people, do what is right for the american people, put the political parties aside. it is about a sensible middle. it is about stability and confidence in the markets. how to create jobs.

when you have a type of commitment that this group has shown over the years, this is not something that has just been a commitment and then fashionable in the last six months or the last year because it is a fashionable statement to make. this has been a commitment that the blue dogs have had for over a decade, and we know that it is time for the american people to have leaders like this stand up for them, not the political parties, to stand up for what is right, so it gives me great privilege to introduce john barrow, our policy co-chair, to talk about our policies and also talk about a letter we will be sending to the super committee. >> i am john barrow.

since the blue dogs were founded back in 1995, the principles that have united us have been our commitment to getting our nation's fiscal health back to order, balancing the budget, and bringing down the national debt. those are the things we started with, and those have united us ever since. that is what we started with, and that is where we are right now. there are a lot of uncertainties facing the business environment, economic uncertainty. the blue dogs believe we are not going to be able to address any of these uncertainties unless we address the fiscal uncertainty. those are unsustainable deficits spending and an exploding national debt. unless we get better control, we cannot address these uncertainties that are a -- that are affecting the business community. to address policies and adopt policies to deal with the fiscal

uncertainty imposed by our government's finances. under the leadership of two, we are developing policies to address the fiscal uncertainty facing our country. they are going to be addressing this issue, but right now, what i want to do is turn this over to our co-chair for communications, mr. mike ross, of arkansas. >> banks. in all of my years, i have never seen this so hostile, and i blame members of congress for that. the members have become backed into their quarters, so

intolerable of one another, it has made even having a simple conversation across the aisle nearly impossible. this extreme bipartisan, or i should say extreme partisanship is not what the american people expect out of elected officials, and it has got to come to an end. the national debt is the single biggest threat to our economic and national security. those of you who know the blue dogs know that we have been talking about this for over 15 years. it is time for members on both sides of the dial to stop paying lip service to buy partisanship and get to work -- for members on both sides of the aisle to stop paying lip service to bipartisanship. to encourage the members of the super committee to call a timeout on the 2012 elections at least long enough to do what is

in the best interests of this country, and we ask members of congress to do the same. i would now like to turn this over to my colleague who chairs the committee of fiscal responsibility, kurt schrader. >> as he said, we have been talking about this for a long time as blue dogs, and i think the message, aside from working together, the anger is not towards any particular policy. it is that we are not working together. it is, what are you going to work on? our message, i think, to the super committee is if you just do what you have been legislated to do, it is not going to cut the mustard or be big enough. you have to do what the blue dogs'blue print is about, which is -- you have to do what the blue dogs blueprint is about.

the entitlement systems are in grave danger right now. we have got to really talk about more than just our discretionary programs, which are one-third of the budget right now. that is the real charge. they have to go bigger than anything that is expected to them, and i think this would be a statement whether this congress has america's back at the end of the day. to invest in america, given the mess in europe. if we do the right thing and go big, solve our problems, but everything on the table, including process reforms, i think that is a huge confidence message that you heard mike taught about, really creating the jobs that this president is talking about that. and the most experienced member of the blue dogs, jim cooper. >> i am from tennessee.

this is a rare moment in history, a moment where the committee can either come up with a solution or force us into an across-the-board sequestration. it is very important, that's was just said -- as was just said, that the super committee go big. that is on the path to a four trillion dollars solution -- a $4 trillion solution. it would be an arbitrary solution. so the super committee has a heavy responsibility to come up with what will have to be a bipartisan answer to our problems and come up with that by thanksgiving and then have house passage by christmas.

that is so much more preferable to sequestration. we must encourage it. that is what our letter does, sending the blue dogs would be willing to step up and do the right thing for the country -- saying the blue dogs would be willing to step up and do the right thing for the country. to put the country first, not political party, to try to make sure we get a fiscal solution to our problem now, when we have the opportunity to do so. so i appreciate your being here and look forward to your questions. thanks. >> any questions? >> the legislation sent up to congress. the idea of spending more -- the near term and then get more fiscal austerity --

>> we think any jobs package should be paid for, but we are not here to talk about a specific piece of legislation. that is a small part of what we are talking about, when you talk about a $450 billion program that should be paid for. we are here to talk about cutting government spending $4 trillion, and we are here to urge the super committee to go big and too, you know, called a timeout on the 2012 elections, and let's put this country youre party -- and tom, know, call a timeout on the 2012 elections. to really not just kick the can down the road but solve this problem, not only for our generation but for future generations, and we can do this, and that is what we are really

here to talk about. i think for jobs, i think i can say for all of us, we are for creating more jobs. >> yesterday, your party suffered some pretty big losses. a referendum on the president's leadership and the economy? >> going to degrade this coming season. [laughter] -- going to do great this coming season. >> i do not think it is too big a shock that we lost the race in new york. i think we all know that there were a lot of local issues, if you will, involved in the outcome of the election yesterday in new york, and there are some saying this will be another bad year for the democrats.

i disagree. going republican, and it had a republican congressman in it. in new york, there were a lot of local issues involved. >> in new york, republican candidates, social security and medicare. there really was not a difference between the parties. putting politics on hold, how to the democrats differentiate themselves? -- how do the democrats to differentiate themselves? >> i think everything is on the table. we cannot have an increase of revenues the way the fiscal commission has proposed. it was to lower the rate and broaden the base, and you cannot do that without some sort of reform of entitlements. you would be lying to the american people if you said you could do it any other way. you cannot do it without putting everything on the table. the problem we have in this

country. it is much easier to put an extreme right person or an extreme left person on the screen and let them fight about it. the truth about what we need to do as a country and as members of congress, and at the end of the day, jim cooper said this four years ago. there is no truer statement that could be made. to do what is right for the american people first, even if it costs us our jobs. 10 years from now, they will say that is the greatest congress to have ever served. think about that. that is what we have to get to as a nation, and we are leaders. we are trying to lead here when everyone else is running to their political corners. everything has to be on the table. >> you spoke about cutting

spending $4 trillion. you said everything should be on the table. >> well, let me clarify when i said we needed to cut $4 trillion in spending. that would include tax reform. there is something wrong with a system where some corporations are paying 0% in corporate taxes, and others are paying 30% to 40% in corporate taxes. that would obviously be included in the $4 trillion. in terms of social security and medicare, look. no one is going to vote to cut benefits for seniors and for folks who are near medicare /social security eligibility age. no one is going to do that. politically, it would be suicide, and the fact is that we have got to reform a and a

system to make sure it is therefore my children and grandchildren while protecting the basic benefits that are provided to seniors today and seniors that will be coming on line in the next few years. i do not think either party, i am sure, in the fall of 2012, you will see one party accusing the other of trying to do something with the social security check, but i can tell you that neither party is going to do that. social security keeps half of the seniors out of poverty. if they fall below poverty, therefore, they qualify for food stamps, housing, and the list goes on and on, and it could well cost the government more, and there would be a net effect in terms of reduction, so i am sure in the heat of next year's election, there will be a lot of play on social security and medicare. let me be clear. no one is talking about cutting benefits for seniors today and those that are near retirement.

we are talking about reforming the program for our children and our grandchildren to ensure the solvency of it for a long time and make sure it is there for them as well, and i think it is very important that we make that point, and i would call on the leaders of both parties to not make this an issue in the next election. >> pretty big sources of savings for the super committee. specifically, what one of them be raising the eligibility age to 67 -- what one of them be raising the eligibility age to 67? >> remember where we are in this debate. many americans do not realize that medicare is a government program, and many of us here

regularly back home, "keep government out of my medicare." we have to start first with diagnosing the problem, helping all americans understand the true nature of the program. so we have a lot of work to do in that regard. a lot of people think social security and medicare are bank account programs, and the money has been stored up just for them. that is a widespread misconception. there is a lot we can do to let them know that the money they pay in this month go out next month to somebody they have never met, a complete stranger, getting an idea of pay in, and then your return on these investments is another feature, so we have a lot of work to do as a congress and the media to help people understand. there is another set of issues dealing with government accounting. we put most of these pressures,

a vital programs on the government credit card, as opposed -- we put most of these precious, vital programs on the government credit card. legally, they are not even promises. they are scheduled benefits, and most americans are not aware of that. so we have a lot of work to do here as a congress to start getting people's heads in the game to understand the true nature of the dilemma. i think once americans see how large the problem is, we will be much closer to a solution. once you have a more accurate diagnosis, the treatment options are more obvious, but right now, we are not close to that. the letter has already been drafted and i think cent. private conversations with members of the super committee and members of congress in general, to help them focus. unless you are the committee of

jurisdiction, and unless you have taken a couple months off to study this, these are very difficult issues. this is why they have not been solved in the past. that is why elected officials need to step up and do the right thing. >> who are more likely to have a difficult race? these members of congress or those 12? >> -- it is easy to understand that we are willing to step forward and leave, and we are asking them to follow us. -- we are willing to step forward and lead. >> a problem in the special election. you are talking about the upcoming election, but we are still dealing with the fallout from last night. >> in general, the american people, not the fringes. i am not talking about the far right 10% or the far left and%.

but they have had a bellyful, and they need to hear from the sensible middle, the blue dogs. 80% of where the american people is. it is unfortunate that 80% is in a small caucus, because we are only listening to the french grups. -- to the fringe -- groups. it really gets down to each candidate and each district, and when you make sure that the folks in your district know that you are working for them, and not the political parties, you get reelected. >> with what you're talking about, are you confident that the composition of the super committee will allow them to reach this kind of agreement?

there are not blue dogs on the committee. a lot of these people represent the bases there parties? >> if the blue dogs were of the 12, we would have a solution. the economy would be strong and vibrant. the stability would be there. the economy would be rebounding. the trillions of dollars sitting in the business world today, the uncertainty, would be back in the game, and we wish that we were on that committee. at least one of us. >> if you had members of the blue dogs and members of the tuesday group on the super committee, i am confident they could have gone big and solved this problem for future generations. our concern and the reason for our letter is because of the political makeup of the folks on the committee. we are concerned that they are going to take their orders from their national party leaders and not really called a timeout for

the 2012 elections, like we are asking them to do -- and not really call a timeout. >> there was no sense of what i saw yesterday of the willingness to tackle this moving forward. >> getting our message out. that is exactly why we are here. >> taxes -- the president. about what the president has proposed, peace now -- piecemeal. >> we are still seeing the details as they are rolled out. i would not call corporate tax reform a tax increase. i would call in bringing fairness and equity to the system.

i think he is rolling out more in the next few days. >> the super committee at the end of the day. whether this is a proper place, i do not think that is what the president is talking about. at the end of the day, the jobs package, it is not as important

as we are talking about it. they are going to posture. they are going to come out with their rhetorical statements. i think as we are talking about, at the end of the day, our job is to put pressure on them. our job is to talk to responsible colleagues on the other side of the idol who want to solve these problems. -- on the other side of the aisle who want to solve these problems. get those trillions of dollars off of the sideline. you need total tax reform. look at them more quickly.

like jim said, give it to the smart people who have been around. we do not want to offend people with expertise. we will leave that to the left and right fringe groups who are trying to get the ball down the field. >> the resolution for the raising of the debt ceiling. i am wondering how you feel about that? >> i think it is up to each individual member. we have not taken a position on that. each member will be able to vote the way he or species for what is best for their district -- the way he or she sees what is best for their district. >> job creation. do you agree with that? >> we released our balanced budget amendment. it is getting good reviews from both republicans and democrats,

so if there is anything out there for the moderate approach the blue dogs have put out there -- not the fashionable thing to do. everyone is running to get their proposal. we have had this out for, what, 15 years now? it is very fashionable to have these proposals. where were you 15 years ago? >> the blue dogs were doing balanced budget amendments when doing balanced budget amendments were not cool. >> competitive races. many are pointing to the president's low ratings. how concerned are you about this? >> i think i have done a pretty good job of representing my district, constituent services with in my district, and he lost my district last time. -- constituent services within

my district, and he lost my district last time. it may be difficult for some of them, but i do not think the blue dogs. this is the way we will be successful again in this next election cycle. we want to make sure we are giving what the american people are asking for, not what the political parties are asking for. >> if the president does not do well, in a conservative-leaning district, that member may not do well. on the same ballot as the president. the folks who are going to vote against them for that reason are going to vote against them anyway. my district. being on the ballot with the

president had nothing to do with my decision. just take my district, for example. you know, i was fortunate and won by 18% last year, but if you look at 2008, which was a presidential year, versus 2010, a non presidential year, there were fewer votes cast. that will be more people voting in this congressional district in arkansas next year, and it was not tea party voters staying home last year. heavily democratic. 10,000 less of votes in 2010 versus 2008, and i think that gets missed, and i think some advantages, to those of us in swing districts running in a presidential election -- some in bandages -- some advantages come to those of us in swing

districts running in a presidential election. >> -- >> i think a balanced budget amendment is a very powerful symbol. a lot of people do not trust congress, and a balanced budget amendment is a way of taking it beyond the control of congress. i think in general, it will bolster confidence. congress will, over time, start doing the right thing again. america is in jeopardy, because right now, there is a terrific loss of faith. i do not need to tell you that. our congressional poll ratings are at all-time lows, because people see us on tv, and they do not think we are putting the country first. at least the blue dogs, is small group of individuals, is trying to put the country first. there are other good hearted men and women who are trying to do the right thing. they need to come to the fore so

the country's interests are put first. >> what do you take away about any sort of deal or a big deal? >> i think we have to pray that one or more of them is willing to consider this on the other side. the bowles-simpson got everyone from dick durbin to tom coburn to sign on to the same thing. if that was possible then, it should be possible now. this is the solution that paul volcker are among others have said this should be the minimum

that we should consider. to get together privately at first and then have this before thanksgiving to put the country first. >> what kind of mechanisms do they need to make sure this stays in place over the coming years? .

>> they are worried they will be villano villano villified. >> given the current fiscal situation -- >> given the current fiscal situation in the united states,

would you advise more stimulus spending as the than the president is proposing in his jobs plan. >> my personal opinion is, in order to create jobs it has to be about confidence and the way to get confidence back in the market is to get a long-term fiscal plan. you can talk about fiscal, the real plan is for members of congress to grow up, be adults, and put what's on the table that we have seen, whether it be the blueprint, the fiscal commission, other possibilities that may exist out there. that's how you create jobs, with certainty, long-tpe