in the congress? >> i think a lot of it has been the fact that elections seem now to go all the time and people -- there is no time between elections.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captions performed by national captioning institute] >> autism affects one in 88 families in america. it is something we learned about when we needed to give my granddaughter the kind of attention she needed. you learn it is all part of a joyful journey. so even though my granddaughter at the time was only 5 years old, she has brought a lot of joy into our lives, and we have learned to grow recognizing her limitations. the fact we don't have those same limb -- limitations allows us to be grateful. we understand a lot about it. we feel there -- there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done in understanding autism. there is research underway.

there is growing awareness regarding autism around the country, including world autism awareness day. >> what questions do you think need to be asked in order to get more answers? >> the questions that need to be asked are many. first of all, the early detection efforts. if we can detect autism sooner, we can do more early intervention. second of all, informing parents and family plebs about what it is that you can do and what the options are once you have a child who is autistic. thirdly, no one understands it. so perhaps there is research, one wants to get to the root

causes of autism. >> professionally, what's next for you? >> i am fooling very good about the future. some opportunities may be in the public sector again. right now i have to take care of my family and live up to be what i consider to be my highest moral responsibility. so i will be working hard and taking care of my family. >> ken salazar for governor, maybe returning to the senate. is elective office in your future? >> it is not something i am ruling out. i just don't know, because i will have chapters beyond interior. i think i have had one of the most wonderful and joyful lives i -- anyone could have.

to have served in the cabinet as eighth in line in succession to the president, to have done the things i have had the opportunity to have done, i feel very good about where i am at. i don't know what the future holds, but i have that same faith that my parents had in their children that the future is a very bright one. so i am excited about it. >> you seem happy and content. >> i am. you know, my mission is accomplished. we set out to do five things in this department when i agreed with the president that i would come out and run it for him. now that is almost four and a half years ago. now the work we set out to do, we have done it. i feel good about having accomplished the mission, and i feel great about my successor being an outstanding secretary of the interior, and i am optimistic about the united states and i am optimistic about the world. >> secretary salazar.

>> thank you. and thank you to c-span and what you do to educate all americans. >> we talked to outgoing secretary ray lahood. he outlined the short and long-term future of high-speed rail. he also talked about texting and driving. america's highway infrastructure. his political career. the current state of the republican party, and his professional relationship with president obama. this is 35 minutes. >> transportation secretary ray lahood let's begin with some of the policy issues you have dealt with here at d.o.t. one of them has been texting and driving. you have said that americans are addicted to cell phones and blackberries. why? >> well, we started this campaign four years ago. we've had two summits here in washington. i've attended summits in texas

and florida. we've really stirred up a lot of interest in what i consider to be a very important safety program. every american has some kind of a phone or texting device. every ad you will. we think we can use them where we are at. i think we should use them. i've seen people using them at church, funerals, weddings. we've gotten into very, very dangerous behavior because we think we can use them behind a wheel of a car when we're driving. and it's just not safe. when we started our campaign, only 18 states have passed laws. now 39 have passed laws. we're working on trying to get all 50 states to pass laws. we think it is kind of like when we started our seat belt campaign here, nobody was buckling up.

26 years later, 80% of us, the first thing we do is buckle up when we get in a car. we -- 28 years ago we thought we could not get drunk drivers off the road. now we have d.u.i. laws, mothers against drunk drivers. so what we need is good laws, good enforcement, and people taking personal responsibility to butt these devices away, both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road. >> in looking at this issue, have you ever wondered what's in the psyche of the american individual that feels they are compelled to respond to an e-mail while driving? >> look, we just gotten in a very bad habits because we think we can use these. we're attached to these and we think we can use them. and you can't use them and drive safely. you just can't because you don't have both eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel. you have the cell phone on your ear and if you're looking down for four seconds texting your car goes the length of a

football field. talking about 5,000, 6,000 or 10,000-pound vehicle and it's going the length of a football field. very, very dangerous. >> when it comes to the roads that these americans are driving on, you said that america is one big pothole. >> for many years, steve, we were number one in infrastructure. over 50 years we built the interstate system. no other uncountry has the kind of interstate system that connects the entire country like the united states. we made the investments. we taxed ourselves at the pump. we used those taxes to build an interstate system, to build bridges, to build transit systems, trains and light rail but we're behind now. we're not number one anymore because we haven't made the investments. so what you have all over america are deteriorating roads, bridges, 50-year-old transit systems that need new cars, new tracks and we need to really

make the investments, have a vision to get us back to being number one in infrastructure. we're not there right now. >> so how do we get there? >> make the investments. the debate in america is not about what we should do. everybody knows of a road or a bridge that needs to be fixed. everybody in the big cities has a transit system that's 50 years old. it needs new cars, new tracks. we need to really have a debate here in washington, congress does. and i think you're going to see the president really step up on this once we get beyond guns, immigration and sequester. i think you'll see the president talk very boldly about makings investments in infrastructure. we need to have a debate about how we're going to pay for all the things we need in america. roads in a state of good repair. bridges that are safe. transit systems that have new

cars and new infrastructure. >> but it all costs money. >> it all costs money and that's what the debate will be about. how do we pay for it? the highway trust fund was to build transit systems and to do the things we wanted to do. but because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars or receipts have gone down. and as we go to hybrid cars and battery cars we know the trust fund is not going to be enough to do what we need to do. >> bob mcdonald has a proposal that sadse get rid of the gas tax and put a tax that will generate more money in virginia. is that something nationally that we should look at? >> in state where is they have raised the sales tax a penny or

two and put it in infrastructure, they raised a lot of money, they've helped transit systems, built bridges. these referendums have passed all over america. people get it when it comes to fixing up their roads because everybody has a road in front of their house. everybody drives these roads. a lot of people now are using transit and they know that we have an aging transit system in america. people get it when it comes to how do we do it, how do we pay for it. and governor mcdonald has changed the paradigm so to speak in terms of putting this out as something that is being debated pretty strenuously in virginia. >> is china beating us whether it comes to roads, bridges, and infrastructure? >> china is beating us. we're being beat everywhere. china, asia and in europe. europe has got it all over when it comes to passenger rail. china is building airports. two years ago or three years ago when i was in beijing just traveling down the runway on the airplane leaving beijing, i saw 88 cranes at the airport.

that means that they're surpassing us. they're building roads, they're building bridges, airports, high speed rail. we've been left in the dust when it comes to asia and europe. >> will we see high speed rail until this country? >> absolutely. high speed rail is coming to america. we've invested because of the president's vision. in the first two years in this job i visited 18 countries looking at high speed rail. and the common denominator, the common theme in all 18 countries, the national government made the initial investment. president obama in the last four years has made the initial investment. $12 billion. over $3 billion in california. over $2 billion in illinois. upwards around $2 billion in the northeast quarter to fix up amtrak to fix up the tracks.

we've made the investments. there are companies in america from overseas looking at making investments in california, in illinois, along the northeast corridor. the people are so far ahead of the politicians on this and the president has a vision for passenger rail in america which is what the american people want. they want to get out of their cars. they want good transportation. they want alternatives and passenger rail is certainly a part of that. and in california, they will have a train in 10 years that connects san francisco all the way to san diego north, south, 200 miles an hour all new infrastructure. >> let me ask you about the cost. and the politics in all of this. as you know, the looming issue in this country now and in the next decade is a growing debt and deficit, $16.5 trillion. why is it so hard for democrats

and republicans to sit down and forge a compromise? >> well, i think because it's a big issue and because you know, people have their very strongly held views on this but we should take a chapter out of the book during the time i served in the house. i served 14 years. five of those years we had a balanced budget. president clinton a democrat was the president. i'm a republican. we were the majority party. speaker gingrich forced a compromise within president clinton and we had a balanced budget. you can have priorities. you can set the priorities. part of the priorities -- set aside so much for deficit reduction which is what we did during that period of time. so much set aside for deficit reduction.

the economy surges a little bit. you get more tax dollars in and we did it. it can be done, steve. and it can be done when one party is opposite of the other party and you do it by sitting down with the common goal of balancing the budget. but is your brand of republican politics welcomed in the republican party today? you got a zero rating from club for growth. you work for bob michael described as a moderate republican. has the party changed? >> the party has changed. but the principles haven't changed and the priorities haven't changed. people still come to washington, get elected to the house and senate with the idea, we've got to fix the deficit problem. and what they do is take a chapter or look back at history to see how others did it from opposing parties.

it's not that complicated. i come from a part of the country that was once represented by abraham lincoln. abram dirkson who helped lyndon johnson pass the civil rights act. and he was from an all--white community. but he did it because it was the right thing for the country. look, we come from a part of the country where people have worked together and cooperated together. during the 14 years that bob michael was the chief of staff, tip o'neill was the speaker. ronald reagan was the president. during that eight-year period they all worked together to fix social security and the tax cuts which they passed during the recession during 1982 to 1985. they all worked together. they came together and they made progress. >> did the politics change from michael to gingrich? >> well, they changed in style i would say that. but look, newt was speaker when

bill clinton was president and we got to a balanced budget. and they did it by talking with one another, working with one another and ultimately compromise. and i think the style -- look, newt's style is different than bob michael's style. but in the end, they did what was good and right for the country. >> when did you first meet bob michael and how did you become chief of staff? >> well, i grew up in peoria. when i was growing up as a young boy, bob michael was our congressman. he served for 38 years. and so i had known him. i had known no other congressman during the whole time that i was growing up but i got involved with another congressman, tom railsback, who was before bob michael, and who was a few miles away. worked for him and then worked

for bop and then ultimately gravitated towards the top of the staff and became chief of staff and i was fortunate enough to succeed bob. >> what did he teach you? >> what he taught me the only way you ever get anything done in this town is by people talking to one another and compromising and working things out. that's the only way big things get solved. i learned as a staffer he surrounded himself with a great staff. and lessened to them. -- and listened to them. he got elected to congress at 32 years old. but he was a staffer, eight years -- for eight years prior to that for his predecessor. what we learned though is that you surround yourself with good people. you listen to them. you listen to your constituents. you come here and talk to one another. and you forge compromises in order to get the country's

problems solved. >> so for you, moving from staff to a member of congress, what was the biggest adjustment? >> i would say that i had a lot more power as chief of staff. i knew a lot more what was going on. i was in all the leadership meetings. and then when i became a freshman member of congress, i didn't sit on the leadership meetings anymore but obviously i knew who speaker gingrich was because he was the whip under mr. michael. and i had worked with newt. and so we -- the big change really is having the vote. when you get elected to congress back then we represented 620 people. -- 620,000 people, and you have a vote. and that vote is the most important thing you get elected to do. showing up and making sure you vote. there's a lot of things members of congress do. the most important thing is

having that vote. when i got that voting card, i knew i was a member of congress. and that was the big difference. >> let me ask you about a couple of moments. first in 1994, you were one of three republicans who did not sign the contract with america. what kind of pressure did you get from newt gingrich and why did you decide not to sign it? >> i think they were disappointed that i didn't do that. i think that i felt that -- there was a gimmick. i don't know. i'd been around -- i'd been a staffer for 17 years. i had worked with newt. he was in the leadership. i was the chief of staff to the minority leader. and i just thought it was kind of a gimmick that i didn't really want to participate in. >> did they put pressure on you? >> i think after i was elected i probably suffered a little bit for not signing it. >> you presided during more house sessions than anyone else. how did that come about?

>> because of speaker gingrich. his office is the one who decides who the speaker pro tempore is, the person who sits on the chair on a regular basis. during the time i was chief of staff, i spent a lot of time on the house floor and i watched democrats who were the majority party then, i watched a lot of them preside. i learned a lot about the house rules. i learned a lot about how you get things done on the house floor, how you use your rules to get your issue to the forefront. and that was a big, big help to me. really nobody else in my class -- we had a class of 83. nobody else in my class really had that kind of experience and know-how. plus, i knew a lot of the members on both sides of the aisle. the one thing that i knew is that when you sit on that chair, the one thing you have to be is fair. and you have to make sure that you follow the rules of the house. there is no partisanship on the

person who sits in the chair. you call them in the way that they should be called. you don't reflect political views on a particular member that's speaking. you do it in a fair way that reflects the rules of the house and the decorum that i think people want to see in this speaker. and i think because of that, because i had had the opportunity to observe that over several year, we did it in a way that i think speaker gingrich liked very much. >> and obvious, all of it captured on cameras. are you aware that the cameras are in the house chamber? or is that moved to the back of your mind? >> not at all. i've never really thought about

the fact that there were cameras when we were in the chair speaking on the floor. i was oblivious to it really. >> you preside over the impeachment president bill clinton. is that something that you wanted to do? >> the way that it happened and the way i heard about it is one of speaker gingrich's staff was if he is going to preside. and he said no that he wanted ray lahood to do it. and i think steve, over that period of time of five years, i had developed a reputation for fairness for doing it by the book, for making sure that everybody was treated respectfully. that everybody got to say what they wanted to say within the time frame within which they were given to say it. and there was a respect on both sides. and because of that the style that i used that speaker gingrich decided. it was his call. >> looking back at the impeachment of bill clinton as a member of congress was it the right thing or was it a mistake? >> henry hyde was the chief of staff in the judiciary committee.

a colleague of mine from illinois. he and i were both from illinois. i knew henry very well. i believe that he was a very fair person. i feel that the hearings that he held, the testimony that he took led him to believe that the committee should have voted out four articles of impeachment. i think henry hyde as chair of the judiciary committee was fair. that's the reason i felt it was incumbent on the house to look into that. >> did you learn about how the house worked or that moment in history from your vantage point? >> that was probably the most historic time that i'll ever serve in the house and maybe one of the most storied times in the -- most historic times in the history of the house of representatives. because what happened, steve, on the first day there was a lot of speech making from both sides of the aisle in presentin the case. on the second day, the first speaker was bob livingston who had already been selected to be

the speaker to succeed speaker gingrich who had decided he was not going to be speaker anymore and our conference had decided that bob livingston was going to be the speaker. and on the first, on the second day, the first speech was bob livingston announcing that he was not going to stand for speaker because of his own personal issues that he didn't feel that he should be elected speaker. and the air went out of the chamber. we all thought we would be coming here listening to the final debate and then voting on the four articles of impeachment. so that first speech set a tone that took the air out of the chamber. one democratic member comes up to me as i'm in the speakers chair and says do you think that we should suspend and take this up and figure out what we should do? another member came up to me and said if we could put the votes together would you consider being a candidate for speaker if i can find enough democrats?

you know, so that really changed the whole second day. once we got beyond that there were many meetings going on behind closed doors trying to figure out who the next speaker was going to be. as the debate continued and at the end of that debate, we voted on the four articles of impeachment. so a very, very historic time for the house of representatives not only because of what we were doing with the four articles of impeachment against president clinton but the fact that we were -- the speakership was left void. >> did you want to be speaker? >> absolutely not. i knew that was not in the cards politically. >> bob michael for 38 years always in the minority. he leaves and the republicans gain the majority. was he disappointed that he didn't serve as speaker? >> i think if he were sitting in

this chair and you were to ask that question he would say yes. 38 years us a in the minority. 14 years as republican leader, minority leader, longest serving minority leader in the history of the house. look -- you can't -- you always want to be the top person in jobs like this. and i think that he missed it by one election. >> did you want to move up in the republican leadership if not speaker then various other -- >> i thought that being in leadership was a good way to be more effective but, you know, i realized that i was probably too independent minded and too focused on my district and not maybe focused enough on more legislative activities. and you've got to toe the party line. and ray lahood was not a party tower. >> so many times we hear the congress is broken. is it broken when it comes to issues, parties crossing, the political line to reach across the aisle and forge an

agreement? >> i think washington is not broke but it takes a long time these days to reach the kind of compromise. we didn't go off the financial cliff. and everybody thought that maybe we would. and we didn't because it was a compromise. mitch mcconnell got together with joe biden and it was passed. we're coming up on the sequester and people are wondering what's going to happen with that. people are talking about working together. the president's talking about working with republicans on immigration. republicans and democrats are talking about gun legislation. that could not have occurred a year ago. but they have discussions now in a bipartisan way. people meeting together, talking together. i think people have come to realize, the only way big things, significant things, big

problems get solved in washington is when people talk to one another, work with one another, and ultimately compromise. >> are they talking now? >> a lot of people are talking now. they're talking about gun legislation. they're talking about immigration, sequester, talking about how we fix our financial problems and i think you're going see some big -- some big issues get resolved here in a bipartisan way. >> i want to ask you about president obama in a moment. but putting him aside you've worked with every president since ronald reagan as a staff or a member of congress. explain your interaction with these presidents over the years. who do you remember the most? >> as a staffer, obviously, i was a staffer for bob michaels during the reagan years. and then vice president bush, herbert walker bush was elected president. so we obviously worked closely for four years where that administraon