the money that they pay is going for bicycle paths and effects of parks and they want to no why. the other concern is with the current as it is in this idea, their are no places to rest. they want to no why there is not money being spent to create new truck stops, rest stops, places to pull over and have a good night to rest. [inaudible] >> thank you for that.

[inaudible]

and to give back, extending data and it allows you to stay in touch. so the dimension of it. [inaudible] >> well, the incentive to act. >> well, here is my response to that. i fear you. i think that what -- free for your just looking at the roads and highways narrowly i

understand the point, but if you are looking at the broader trend that we are talking about here what i see coming forward is a massive amount of gridlock that we will be hitting the highway systems. and i think that we need to be thinking in terms of, you know an automobile off of the road with a net benefit to a truck driver trying to get from one place to another and can only use about to get their. so a multi- pronged approach is one that i do think benefits the trucking industry. i understand the argument and look forward to more conversation about it. >> question over here. >> yes, mr. sec. this is a much more micro circuit to public question.

nowadays a local nowadays a local transit agency as a sponsor and fiscal agent . worried that you we will turn around and bite us in our triannual for not having satisfactory continuing control over the funding because all of a sudden instead of being an operating agency they are funding agency handing out funding and don't have a lot of control over what that agency does the. >> where are you from? >> oakland, california. >> okay that is something that we probably need to put someone with you to talk about. that that is a very weedy but important issue : i want i want to make sure we get you the right information in response. >> thank you. part one last question.

>> my name is christine, graduate student. i am one of those mola nails has been lucky enough to live in washington, portland, maine, boston massachusetts where their are transit, walking and biking efforts, but i have gone to rural area to five rural rural areas where the arterial road and state highway system kind of promised previously had trained service. i'm wondering as a fellow had said before, there does not seem

to be any kind of strategy for the national train system. we hear bits and pieces of high-speed rail, but many communities were created because they were transportation hubs at the train stops. this is the is the purpose for being, where people and commodities travel from now people are bypassed and are wondering how to rebuild the economy. it seems like the only option for more train services private companies, even private companies from outside the united states. so i am wondering the status of the national transportation strategy related to rail and wondering, is there any chance of funding strategies for these communities to have that service. >> thank you. an incredible resurgence evidenced by the fact that those in south dakota recently. they were stockpiles of commodities that could not move because of so much congestion on

the rail system. unfortunately for us as a country a lot of times it's used passenger service. from the freight systems are tied up the passenger systems are tied up. if you if you carved out the northeast corridor which is usually popular and successful we thought we would see a world of hurt elsewhere in terms of funds provided. if you wanted to come to washington dc by train you had two options, you can give them the 1:00 o'clock train or the

8:00 o'clock train. and that is -- unless you were just really had no other choice that was a whole day trip. so if the the bills up to five i sympathize with your. we're we're trying to work on multiple tiers to try to address this issue. our grow america act would put $19 billion into a real system unlike the highway system today, but it has typically had multiple years of funding. the rail system usually goes from year to year. for them capital outlays are huge, and not knowing what next

year will be like is a huge constraint on our ability to grow the best we can, which leads me to the final.i want to make. not having a plan is a plan. i found that out in 5th grade. my teacher told me that i was not doing the homework correctly. she said, young man, not having a plan is a plan. this country needs to learn that lesson because we are unintentionally driving ourselves and the ditch. it it is a predictable ditch one that can be avoided, and

frankly it is one we need not go into because the future is so much better when we are intentionally charting a course on the rising road is a country. but that is going to take the help of people outside this room. as this report is released we hope it is not only a clear. the jumping off.for a much larger conversation that we need to have. frankly the generation following us.

our department is trying to pull back the telescope and take a broad look at this,, and i would hope that the folks in this room, sound the alarm bell because i think in a real sense the house is on fire. if we can put the fire out but build the house better, we will have a great country for our kids to walk into. thank you. [applause] mr on newsmakers, republican senator john hoeven of north dakota is our guest. he is the sponsor of a bill been worked on in the senate that would authorize construction of the keystone xl pipeline. he talks about the bill and

president obama's threat to veto the legislation. >> the president has been increasingly critical of the pipeline in the safed -- in the last several months. he has to saying the jobs are temporary and not as good as perhaps some other broader infrastructure jobs. he has been saying it won't lower gasoline prices. we can debate the fact all day. what i want to hear from you is what do you think of these negative comments? what can congress do at that point? can he try to approve it? >> we addressed every one of those criticisms and we used his own administration's information, his own environmental impact statements to rebut the reasons or excuses he has given for not improving the project. if he is opposed to it and has some rational to turn it down

why are we still sitting here six years later and he hasn't done it? and then when you have poll after poll showing 65 to 70% support from the american public and we have a bipartisan majority in the house and the senate and every single state on the root has approved it, why does he still not make a decision? >> you can see the entire interview with john hoeven tomorrow at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the c-span city tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. we partnered with comcast for a visit to west virginia. >> the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is wheeling

transformed into an industrial city in the latter part of the 19th century. it's kind of uncommon in west virginia here in search of jobs and opportunity. that immigrant generation is pretty much gone. i thought it was important to record their stories. it is an important part of our history. most people tend to focus on the front here history. those periods are important. but of equal importance in my mind is this industrial period and the immigration wheeling had. >> it starts as an outpost on the front tier.

that river was the western extent of the united states in the 1770's. the first project funded by the federal government for real production was the national road that extended from cumberland maryland to virginia. when it comes to wheeling, that will give this community, which is about 50 years old, the real spark it needs for growth. and over the next 20 to 25 years the population will almost triple. >> watch all of our events throughout the day on c-span's book tv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv. >> the heritage foundation -- the event included kentucky

senator rand paul, who spoke about judicial restraint and individual liberties. this is 30 minutes. >> good morning. we have had a couple of good days. i know some of few have been here before time. i think the country is learning the conservatives do have some great ideas that could make a better life. i am excited to introduce our next speaker, who is justice come to bowl on the cover of a magazine as he is filibustering the senate. when he was running for office the washington establishment was afraid that if he got here he would cause trouble. their fears have been well-founded. i am proud i supported him. i was told i was stupid and he

couldn't get elected. rand paul has been a fresh face on the political scene. and very important to the conservative movement. the only majority that is left for freedom minded americans is the majority that comes from welding. i believe the libertarian concepts with self-reliance and free markets are certainly consistent with the foundation of conservative thought. the conservative values that built us a strong society and the guarantees that we will have the majority of americans that will understand how we build a brighter future and more

opportunity for every american. folks that are not traditionally interested in politics are interested in a lot of the things that he says and talks about, which is very important to our movement. he has spoken on college campuses he has shown that our ideas are persuasive when presented in a persuasive way. we are honored and excited to have senator rand paul here at the heritage foundation. he has been here many times, speaking on a number of issues. i think he is here to stir you up just a little bit more than he has before. please welcome senator rand paul. >> i think you are doing a great

job and heritage continues to grow. maybe 25,000 people watching online. i asked him if this was off the record. nobody's going to be in there for the median stuff. everyone is going to get a lot of speeches. we are going to pull the crowd. media and cameramen may participate also. i would like to know who in the crowd thinks the judicial restraint is a great philosophy versus judicial activism? who thinks your legal philosophy would be judicial restraint? how many people think judicial activism is the way to go and that's what we should have as an activist core? nobody. this is going to really be a tough sell. does anybody know why justice roberts did not strike down obamacare?

judicial restraint. i guess everybody here is for obamacare, right? obamacare is just fine because the majority wanted it. that is what justice roberts said. we should not get in the way of the majority. do you know where that comes from? that comes from the great progressive. the court has no business getting in the way to the majority. if you aren't for judicial restraint than i guess what happens when a legislature does bad things? what happens when a legislature says we are going to pass jim crow laws? should we have an activist court? i won't bore you with a lot of slides.

we have one slide, where is it going to be? we go back and restart. in each of these cases what should conservatives before, restraint or activism? in the lautner case, state legislatures were becoming more progressive and they were restricting the rights or liberties of contract. states can't interfere with their right to contract. are you for activism or restraint? we move on a little bit later. here's not state governments, it is the federal government. the federal government is passing all kinds of flaws.

he once again have an activist core in the beginning. the majority of fdr appointees say judicial restraint was the way to go. we are looking at brown versus the board, looking at institutionalized racism are segregation. of what is the benefit of judicial restraint? let the states do whatever they want. is that the conservative position? there is a role for the supreme court to meet out justice. there is a book on the

constitution, which is a great book because he talks about it in if we were to say we believe in states rights, could could you be in favor of what john calhoun said. not only he supported slavery but he thought government can do anything it wants. is that the limited government position we believe so much in the small federal government that there is no role nationally to say to a state government they cannot do certain things. when it comes to brown, i am not a judicial restraint guy either. i'm a judicial activist when it comes to lautner and the new deal. but i am also a judicial activist when it comes to brown . the federal government was right to overturn state governments that says -- plessy vs. ferguson is judicial restraint.

when he get to brown, i am an activist. what is the big bug-a-bear? it's griswold. you say, why are we even having this discussion? does any of this have anything to do with politics or current events? does anyone remember george stephanopoulos' question? a lot of people do not know what griswold was. but it had to do with birth control. the state government said he cannot sell birth control to women. if you are states rights person, you say hands off. if you believe in judicial restraint you are like, that is a state right. or you might say individuals have rights and states cannot tread upon individual rights. then you might say, maybe i am for griswold. and so there is a question again. are you an activist or restraint? some will say the griswold led to roe. in roe you actually have a

competition of rights. between a mother and a child. it is a little bit different than just whether or not you are researching someone's liberty because i think there are two individuals involved. the other side would say there is not, but i do not think roe is as clear cut. why is this pertinent? because we move all the way up to obamacare. when we get to obamacare whether he believes it or not justice roberts laid down the gauntlet and said judicial restraint is why the majority can do whatever they want. not only did he say that he basically said that if there are two equal arguments for whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. we just have to accept that basically the presumption is of constitutionality. this gets back to the idea of restraint. we presume the majority is correct. we presume that laws are constitutional until we can prove otherwise. now, there is a school of

thought that thinks tiffany. randy barnett writes about something of this. he talks about the presumption of liberty, that maybe we should start out with that presumption. i liken it to saying maybe we should be presumed innocent until found guilty. maybe we should presume to be free until we are restricted. yes, i've got one convert! yes! my point is really not to try to convert you from judicial restraint to do just that activism but to think about it because i think it is not as simple as we make it sound. we say we do not want judges writing laws. i do not want judges writing laws either, but do i want judges to take an activist role in defense of liberty? do i want them to presume liberty and put the government on the government to prove constitutionality? i think this is important. and it became very important in the case with regard to obamacare. in that basically justice robert says that it is not his role to

replace the majority will. some of you might say i'm still for judicial restraint. i do not care about any of those cases. we need a better majority. that is an argument. but the question has to come also if you do not have a better majority. if you have a jim crow majority in the south, does the court have a role in overturning something where a person's individual rights are at stake? i think they do. i think it is an important debate because ultimately ideas are important. victor hugo said ideas are sometimes really more important than strong armies. basically ideas are the presupposition behind all of the -- that empower all of us. i think as we look forward to what kind of government we want or what kind of role within -- we think government has it's important to decided to examine ourselves whether we are for restraint or activism. another constitutional question we have is on the separation of powers. this is an equally important question.

there is a professor who recently said there is an equilibrium that is supposed to be there between the different powers. we are having a collapse in the separation of powers. our founding fathers talked about there being an ambition, we would pit one ambition against the other. things are so partisan, if it is a republican president usurping power, republicans will support him. congress would object to having its power taken by the executive branch.

those ambitions would push us forward to more of an equilibrium. it is not just on immigration that the president has usurped the power that is not there. it is also in obamacare, amending the rules. it is also on the power of war. the power of declare war was without question given to the legislature. we have been at war for five months. before christmas, i decided i would declare war and i decided i would declare war on a water bill and people were, like, why is he trying to declare war on a water bill? it is my only avenue for having any power around here. they have been working on this water bill for six years. sometimes they get pretty annoyed. i amended it with the

declaration of war for isis. they are a threat to our embassy in baghdad, our consulate -- it has been -- they are a threat to america. this should not happen with the president alone. these debates have to go on. what is more important than belonging to one political party or another is the ideas of the constitution and how the goal of the constitution, trying to not let too much power gravitate to one body or one person. in the future, as long as i am here, that will be my overriding goal, to limit power, to keep too much power from gravitating to one person or body. this is above and beyond all partisan politics. thank you very much. [applause]

>> we both have microphones here. let's take some questions. >> [inaudible]

>> the way i would look at it, and i say this often because it bears repeating. i think there is a long war going on. it is sunni versus shia, but it is also within the islamic faith. what i call civilized islam and barbaric islam. some conservatives like to criticize the president, why is he being so nice to islam? if you want to meet with a broad brush that everybody in islam is an enemy of the united states -- i do not think that is true.

the vast majority of islam is peaceloving and civilized, but it is five or 10% of islam, that is a lot of people. there is also a long war between a barbaric form of islam against mainstream islam and against the west. we have to defend ourselves. printing cartoons should not engender people murdering. france has to defend themselves. we also have to defend our diplomatic missions around the world. i put a lot of blame at the feet of hillary clinton for not defending the embassy or the consulate in benghazi. i think she did a terrible job. [applause] and i think it is inexcusable when you are asked for security

that -- that you not provided. the same goes for baghdad. i do not want to be in the middle of a long more because i do not think there is an answer, at the same time, we cannot leave our embassies unprotected. we either come home completely and bring everything home or we defend our embassies. at this point, we defend our interest. that is not mean we have to be involved in every war and skirmish. if there is any one true thing that is irrefutable, every time we have gotten involved to topple a secular dictator, it

has been replaced with chaos and the rise of radical islam. that would be the war in libya the republican war in iraq. there are more problems with the rise of iran as a problem because there is no counterbalance in iraq anymore. some of these problems aren't solvable. we should defend our country and our people. >> senator paul makes a good distinction. there is a civilized, more religious islam. making that distinction is very important in solving the problem itself. >> i agree with your definition [indiscernible] to your point about separation of powers and the intention of the founding fathers, how do we get that into an everyman

definition because it does transcend partisan politics. >> some people do not understand that. >> one simple sentence unelected bureaucrats should not write laws. all of the bureaucracy works for the president. we've abdicated our role as congress. people say obamacare was 2000 pages. the regulations are 20,000 pages. so much of it is being done without her knowledge. there is a debate over defunding the immigration in the executive order. i am for that and about 1000 other things in every bill.

you are trying to tie the hands of the president, people say. that is our job. i do not care if it is a republican president. the power of the purse, those are instructions. the matter which -- as a consequence, they do many things we did not intend. regulations that are written very expensive, they ought to come back. jim was the lead sponsor of something when he was in the senate. any regulation written by a bureaucrat that is very expensive has to come back and be voted on. that would go a long way towards reasserting authority and the balance of powers. >> i thought -- your father is one of the founders of the libertarian party.

one of the main thrusts that you are against regulations. are you for regulations in a constitutional way rather than more red tape? >> absolutely. i will give you an example. we passed a law that -- the clean water act says no one can discharge pollutants. i think if you have a company and you have been seen and dumping it in the ohio river you should be punished. that is a federal government regulation. however, that was passed in the 1970's. discharging pollutants -- over time, they have defined dirt as a pollutant and your backyard as a stream. we spend $100 million policing

private property. we are forgotten about this stuff we're supposed to be doing, which is the ohio river and the oceans and the great lakes. there is a role in government and communal property, but we have gone way too far. kim lucas put clean dirt on his own land to raise the elevation to sell lots in mississippi. he has been in prison for 10 years. he is still in prison for putting clean dirt on his own land. whoever put him in jail really ought to be in jail. >> [inaudible] they were making a libertarian case against the epa. do you agree with that? >> i have mixed feelings. you are talking about the authority given for the trade agreements.

>> trade promotion authority. >> there is an argument to be made on the separation of powers that by giving this authority for the president, you take power that should be congresses. there is another argument that this is really a treaty. i am also a big believer in free trade. free-trade is a good thing. there have been libertarians or libertarian conservatives who voted against some of the trade deals. i think it is a valid point. i have voted for the trade deals because, like a lot of things in washington, i have weighed the good and the bad and the good of trade has caused me to vote for things i think are not perfect. the perfect way is to lessen our trade barriers.

unfortunately, what we have been offered is not exactly that. trade helps the poorest among us. the average person who shops in a walmart type store, saves about $800 or $900 the year because of free trade. >> let's thank senator rand paul. >> on the next washington journal, a discussion on legislative and political strategies in congress. and former national security council director richard nelson discusses u.s. counterterrorism efforts to prevent lone wolf style attacks on the homeland. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. " washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> dr. anthony fauci our guest

on q&a is on the front line battling against infectious diseases. >> we have drugs right now that when given to people who are hiv-infected, i could show you the dichotomy in the early 1980's if someone came into my clinic with aids the median survival would be six to eight months. half of them would be dead and eight months. now if tomorrow when i go back to rounds on friday and someone comes into our clinic who is 20 plus years old, relatively recently infected and i put them on the combination of three drugs, the cocktail of antiretroviral therapy, i could actually predict and say we could do mathematical modeling to say that if you take your medicine regularly, you could live in additional 50 years. so to go from knowing that 50%

of the people are going to die in eight months to knowing that if you take your medicine, you can live a normal life span, just a few years less than a normal lifespan, that is a huge events. >> director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, dr. anthony fauci sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. on the martin luther king holiday, we are featuring all day programming on c-span 2's book tv and american history tv. monday morning at 9:30 on book tv cornell west on six revolutionary african-american leaders and their impact. and 4:00, vanity fair editor gail sheehy on her life. then at 9:00, former congressman allen west on the importance of preserving the core values of family, faith, and freedom.