these are things that keep us up. one suddenly, people are unable to access this platform that gives their voice this broader megaphone, it is really challenging for us. and how do we do that well continuing to uphold our values? yeah, those are things certainly for me, those are things that are really really challenging. dean lyons: especially for you you get the first call. gabriel: yeah. dean lyons: how often do you tweet? gabriel: several times a day. one of you was tweeting you were

excited to have me here. i responded. was that you? good to see you in the world. just to tread lightly and question the status quo partly for me what i feel is a visible position i am a private person, and i use twitter more for professional services, so you will see me tweeting things like we issued our transparency report. that is the kind of thing i want people to know about. i know there are a lot of other people tweeting about seeing their daughters first steps. my daughter's first steps were experienced by me in the comfort of my own home and were not disseminated in this way, but that is up to each on their own.

dean lyons: i tend to use it professionally as well as well but occasionally i will tweet about my kids, and it sounds authentic to them. i think they respond favorably. gabriel: it is lovely. it is lovely. as a user, some of those moments where i get to see this unvarnished look at people i've never would have had access to -- i love those experiences. to be able to be exposed to interactions between people -- i love those experiences too, and to the extent there is an appetite to see that unvarnished look at me, i am happy to catch up over a coffee at some time, but i am not putting it on display. dean lyons: are there any tweet mr. stricker: you --tweets you

regret? gabriel: that is a great question. maybe because i am a cautious person no, there are none, but i stand by them. dean lyons: this is relatively recent -- i thought it was harmless, my daughter had a civilization's history textbook and i picked it up and started going through it and it mentioned that as best experts can tell, christ was not worn in the year zero. he was born in the year 5 bc, that was the best guess. i tweeted i just learned this, am i the last two? -- the last to know? the birthdate of christ is an important date for a lot of people in the world, and i got a

response. [laughter] it was one of those things that got a little more response than i expected. [laughter] gabriel: if it makes you feel any better, we had dr. neil degrasse tyson out in the bay area area last week, and he came by the office and i was asking him about an extraordinary exchange he had -- it have seen the -- i think it was last christmas, and he tweeted out that on this day, december 25, we celebrate -- i will do a bad job of paraphrasing, but this is the spirit of it, for you fact-checkers -- "on this day we celebrate a man who was born, and by the time he was 30 revolutionized the world. happy birthday, isaac newton." it turns out people assigned

very special value to december 25, and he heard an earful about that, but to your question any tweets that we or others regret -- he certainly was unapologetic and having made that. you know, i think again, people are provocative in their lives. he is certainly a provocative member of our society, and i think he is probably just as provocative now as he was before twitter, it is just that we all get to experience it along with him. those types of behaviors, i love seeing. dean lyons: that is part of why the university is such an exciting place. the marketplace for ideas is open, and that is why we love it here so much. gabriel, thank you very much for being here today. gabriel: thank you for having me. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] dean lyons: thank you you all for being here. >> federal medications -- federal communications commission chair tom wheeler testifies on wednesday. we will be live with the senate commerce, science, and transportation committee at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> coming up here on c-span, a conversation with transportation secretary anthony foxx, and then remarks from labor secretary thomas perez about workers rights and safety issues. that is followed by the news directors of buzz feed and gawker discussing changes in the news media and twitter's

communication director on his company's impact on free speech around the world. >> on the next "washington journal," steve king will discuss ongoing iran nuclear negotiations and immigration. after that representative brad sherman of california talks about the israeli elections, the iran nuclear program, and request is military force against isis. later, a conversation with daniel metcalf. he will talk about the personal e-mail server used by hillary and what it means for transparency and availability -- hillary clinton and what it means for transparency. you can join the conversation with your phone calls on facebook -- and on facebook and twitter. >> this weekend, the c-span's

city store has partnered with viacom to learn about columbus georgia. >> inside of the museum, the remains of an iran clad built here in columbus during the war. the oval shapes are actually the gun ports of the jackson, and the jackson is armed with six rifles. the particular rifle we are firing today is one of the guns still specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama, and completed in 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now, and the jackson is right here. that is why the facility is here

. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad, and to show people there were more than just one or two. there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday at noon eastern on c-span3's book tv. >> monday, josh earnest was asked about the senate's delay in voting for attorney general nominee loretta lynch. here is a look. >> senator mcconnell laid out a timeline yesterday that suggested it could be mid april at the earliest before her nomination goes to the floor. is that a timeline the white house would be willing to accept, and if not what is the alternative, or how do you get her nomination voted on earlier? secretary earnest: this is the responsibility of the united

states senate to vote on the president's nominees, and there has not been a legitimate question raised about her aptitude for the office, so the delay is unconscionable. it is unexplained. and, the thing that i will -- that warrants mentioning here is, you will recall, as i pointed out ms. lynch has been waiting 128 days to get a vote in the senate. the reason that time period has been so long is because the president nominated her back in november for this job, and at that time we saw senator mcconnell himself say ms. lynch would receive fair consideration -- i think it would be hard to say he lived up to that promise -- he also said her nomination should be considered in the new congress through regular order. so you essentially had senator mcconnell in november telling

the president he should delay submitting her to congress until the republicans were in the majority. i have been asked a number of times since november whether or not the president trusts senator mcconnell, whether or not senator mcconnell and other members of the republican leadership -- whether their word is good with the president. senator mcconnell said the nomination should be considered in the new congress, but yesterday when senator mcconnell was asked on cnn about whether or not he would act quickly to confirm her, and to explain the delay, he said the nomination has not taken that long if you consider when it was actually taken up, which was this year. he continued to say "the democrat majority in december had a chance to work on the nomination earlier, but decided to delay it until early this year." he failed to point out that was that his request and he is in position to delay her nomination

even further, despite the fact and i will say it again, no legitimate question has been raised about her aptitude for the office. despite she submitted -- despite the fact she submitted eight hours of testimony and answered written questions. there is no question republicans are playing politics with the top law enforcement official in the nation and it has to come to an end. >> transportation secretary anthony foxx called on congress to pass a long-term transportation funding bill. he participated in a one-on-one interview where he highlighted a 30-year plan to update u.s. transportation infrastructure. this is an hour. >> good evening.

we are pleased to have the secretary of transportation, mr. anthony foxx, as part of our renewing america series, to discuss beyond traffic, and how the current state of our u.s. infrastructure is so very important to our u.s. competitiveness abroad. i guess you have been all given the housekeeping rules already. i guess i would add it is as important as ever to turn on -- turn off your phones or to vibrate, because it is on record and you would be on record as someone that failed to turn off their phone. so, mr. secretary, welcome to the council on foreign relations. secretary foxx: thank you. >> i have seen you speak on other occasions and you are a very impressive speaker, so we are looking forward to this. secretary foxx: thank you.

>> before we take a deep dive into beyond traffic, this is a group of international enthusiasts and foreign policy wonks, maybe you could remind us why it is that our infrastructure is so important to us and internationally, our competitive position abroad. secretary foxx: thank you for the question. i want to thank the senate -- the council on foreign relations for having me. it is great to talk about -- talk to an audience who focuses on so many things happening across the world. to spend a little time talk about -- talking about the role u.s. infrastructure plays in the global space -- look, we as a country where the inventors of the modern aviation system, the automobile, and many other

innovations that have occurred in modes of transit and transportation. so, just from the standpoint of america continuing to create and innovate within transportation i think the entire world has seen the impact of this country's focus on that. beyond that, we are very much a thread that as the global market expands, as goods need to move across the world in a timely, efficient, and safeway that american transportation networks are going to be critical. our rail systems and highway systems are sometimes referred to as a land bridge for international travel because their goods literally, cross our surface systems to get to another point in the world. we have ports that are going to increasingly become important. we saw, just recently, with the

west coast ports and the labor issues there, that what happens when some of our ports start to slow down and become less productive -- we also have challenges with east coast ports being drenched to a level of depth that will be respective to the vessels moving around the earth soon. we have an aviation system that continues to evolve, and international standard-setting that now happens at iko, but innovations that continue to be worked through such as next gen and a lot of the discussion we have had because of recent flights that were lost, in some cases, about the use of technology and tracking planes.

so, there is a lot of innovation that i think is still out there to be embedded in the world, and again, i think the u.s.'s role is as an innovator, idea generator, bringing innovations into the marketplace, but just the sheer importance of our physical infrastructure cannot be understated because we literally help the world will. mr. slade: well, mr. secretary you have only been secretary now for a year and a half, but you have been a busy secretary. let's talk a little bit beyond -- about "beyond traffic, a very impressive document -- all 300 pages of it. there is a shorter version on the web. it is jampacked full of trends, impacts on our system. from those trends, you call them the choices we have to make -- maybe you can share the contents

of that document, and what it is. secretary foxx: so, "beyond traffic," is the latest effort to assess the condition of the american transportation system and to forecast over a longer horizon than we typically have the ability to do on capitol hill and out our -- out in our communities, what trends are happening to us that we need to think about now and i just do. just a couple of things we were able to find out in the course of doing this study -- first, we are growing. this country is going to have 70 more -- 70 million more people trying to move around in the next 30 years, so what i say to people is that commute that takes one hour today, get ready, it will be longer 30 years from now if we do not do more. in some cases doing more mean some of the things we have done

historically which means adding lane miles to our highway systems. in some cases, there are areas that are more constrained now -- mostly urban areas where it is an practical, and you now need to think about doing something different with modal choices, adding pedestrian features, different choices, different ways of moving around -- so the sheer growth the country will experience is, i think, a troubling trend given how much we are investing and how we are investing today. there are generational differences in how each generation uses transportation. i am still from the school -- you know, when i was 16, the thing to do was to go get a car. that is how you got the girls. you know, that is what you did. mr. slade: i am glad you got the girls. secretary foxx: some people did.

depending on what kind of car you had. but, anyway -- this generation, this millennial generation, has a totally different perspective on transportation, and many of them are not looking to go buy a car. prickly, some of them are not even going to buy a house these days -- frankly, some of them are not even going to buy a house these days. they have a different relationship to they are more likely to be on the interior of an urban metropolis, use bicycles, transit facilities. this generation is looking for a quality of life, so to speak that allows them to move fairly organically between things, and they do not want to have a lot of accoutrements on top of that. anyway the bottom line is i think that is a trend. we will have to see how long it

sticks, but assuming that it does, we have some challenges with how we are spending because right now out of a $70 billion budget, we are putting $40 billion into a highway system, and if we have a generation of folks that will not be as focused on the use of that -- we still have commerce that needs to move that way obviously -- that may need we need to think about a balance that involves a little more transit too. mr. slade: as secretary, you have responsibility over a lot of different modes of transportation throughout the united states -- not just highways, but airport rail, seaports. it would be unfair to expect you to fix everything in the united states right? as you also know from your period as the very successful mayor of charlotte, north carolina, there are a lot of local and state authorities as well.

so, could you talk a little bit, so we get the groundwork here, what are the respective roles of the federal department of transportation versus the state so that people do not set their expectations too high? it is --secretary foxx: it is a great point, and one way refer to in "beyond traffic." by the way, this is a real page turner. >> it does not have cliff notes. secretary foxx: there is a cliff notes version. to answer your question squarely, how things are built depends on the mode of transportation you are talking about, so for instance, freight rail systems are largely privately owned. so, a lot of our engagement with the freight rail system is on private sector engagement. our highway system is largely state-driven, so the states have a huge role to play in the

maintenance, as well as the continued expansion of our highway system. our transit systems are, yet again, a different level of governance because those are mostly local. so, the large transit systems across the country are largely a creature of local government, or some type of authority that except an area of local government. so, we are all over the map when it comes to how governance shapes transportation. i think that is one difference you find in the u.s. versus another part of the world. a lot of places -- you know, france, they build french highways. they do not referring to a state. we do that, and that makes things more complicated. mr. slade: yeah. one of the fascinating statistics were projections in "beyond traffic" is that in 30 years 75% of the u.s. population

is expected to live in these mega-regions, the northeast corridor, the gulf coast, the chicago of -- hub, so that is going to rejigger this federal state divide even more, right? there will have to be even more state cooperation, but what you think the federal government can, or should be doing to facilitate that cooperation? it is really going to change the map. secretary foxx: the "beyond traffic" study does not say this because it is intended to be more of a descriptive document than a prescript to document, -- prescriptive document, but what i believe is the federal government -- actually, although government, is going to need to be -- all of government is going to be more attuned to these issues. i come from a city that is on

the border near south carolina and part of our influence was from south carolina. the reality is the economy does not always tickets at two political jurisdictions. it focuses a lot more on workforce, assets within a given region, what have you. unfortunately, a lot of our decision-making right now is just within political jurisdictions. so, another feature of all we have proposed last year in legislation was an effort to encourage local communities to organize their transportation thinking along a regional cluster as opposed to just one county or one city, starting to look at themselves as clusters of regional activity, and making transportation decisions that adjusted to that. i think that is a trend we will need to bend towards as a country to be as successful as possible. mr. slade: i do not want to go

off on a tangent, but recently in the press there was a governmental and -- side on the detroit crossing. on the one side we had the u.s. and she can, and the other canada -- michigan, and the other, canada. would you use that as an example that it is tougher to get things done on our side than it is on there's? secretary foxx: i think we have many examples. there was a bridge project that was supposed to happen between the state of washington and the state of oregon. the politics outlined for a point in time, and then the state house, or state senate changed in the state of washington. they did not want to do the project. the project sort of falls apart.

we find these types of challenges all the time. so, the windsor project is a little different, because it has an international dimension to it. mr. slade: which is why i raised it for this -- secretary foxx: i understand. it is a little different because the canadians are really putting up a significant amount of the capital cost of doing this project, and notwithstanding a lot of efforts we undertook as an administration to figure out a way to do more cost-sharing. mr. slade: yeah. well, if we could, maybe, for a moment, focus on, probably the most, or biggest from a budgetary perspective, mode of transportation, the highway system, and move from a proscriptive -- proscriptive to a prescript of, because there is a bill -- prescriptive because

there is a bill before congress the administration has put there to reauthorize the transportation system. it is still sitting in congress while the current authorization runs out in two months right? could you talk about some of the key features of that bill and what will happen if you do not get something done in two months? secretary foxx: yeah. well, anybody find a pothole on the way here? [laughter] secretary foxx: seriously. potholes all over this country are atrocious, and they are getting worse all over the place. what a lot of people do not realize is the transportation infrastructure, the road systems they use, are really and amalgam of the federal local states and governments working together. we have had 32 short-term measures passed by congress on

surface transportation, and having been a mayor, this is what it means. if you have a one of $2 million were more project -- if you have a $100 million or more project you might sit on it because if you do not know what is coming, it makes it harder to design a project, go through the headaches of public input, the push-pull of getting a project done. so, i think what washington has told the rest of the country is just stop, and that is the opposite of what we need to be doing. within that context, the president has opposed the grow america act reflecting a 50% increase over current levels. we think we should be doing ia -- doing a whole lot more highway maintenance.

we should have a national freight plan that has money behind it as a country so we can make sure we maintain our place as the most efficient effective, and save system of moving commercial goods across the world. we think we should have funding set aside for these local communities that have figured out how to cluster themselves along areas of economic spheres of influence and we think we should have some greater protections for safety for the traveling public that we do not currently have as a public today. so, the grow america act is a huge step forward, but we need congress to pass it, and if they are not going to pass that, pass something. mr. slade: yeah. maybe if we could talk for a minute about one of the elephants in the room, the federal highway trust fund. that, by way of background, ever since eisenhower, our federal

highway interstate system has been built out through this trust fund, which is funded solely by a gas tax, right? i -- gas tax right? if i recall correctly, from "beyond traffic" there is $30 million of revenue currently being generated by the gas tax. $40 million is being spent just to keep the current spending, but $80 million if we are going to make the vestment that we need, so we have -- the investment that we need, so we have a real problem with the gas fund. it is basically insolvent. so what are some of your thoughts, the administration's thoughts, anyway, on how to plug the gap? an increase in the gas tax? there seems to be a bipartisan lack of support for that. it will it be hitting up the

general fund continually? the president has proposed a one-off, 14% income tax on foreign income which might spark interest in this room, too , or tolls right? there is the possibility of revisiting the tolling system for the interstate highway system. secretary foxx: well, this is a very important point. the highway trust fund has been roughly running 15 billion dollars short on an annual basis, and in recent years congress has tried to patch together -- patch it together using a variety of legislative duct tape and chewing gum to keep it afloat. i would say in response to the question, i think it is misguided on our part to think that plugging the highway trust fund is a substitute for making the investments in our infrastructure that we should take.

somewhere along the lines we got this impression that if we just got the trust fund plussed up, that would resolve our problems. the reality is if you just got the trust fund level off into last year's numbers, you would still be about $11 billion $12 billion short, just on the maintenance that needs to happen on an annual basis in this country. i think the problem we have is everyone wants things to be like they were in 1956, and we are not in 1956 anymore. we are in 2015. i will say one other thing. just -- you know, i had an opportunity to watch a little basketball over the weekend, and i watched duke play a game, and for the first 24 minutes, coach k looked like he would prefer to be someplace else. at the end of the game, he said

it was like an out of body experience -- the team was not doing anything we told them to do for 24 minutes. the last 16 were fine. as the secretary of transportation, i am having an out of body experience every day because i go to these places, i see the bridges, the roads, the potholes, and it is "-- it is, like, not the country that i grew up in. i am criticized for being such a champion of congress not doing something on this, but it is not being pollyanna --. the country really -- pollyanna -- the country really needs this. our kids need this. if they do not have it, we will be taking something away from them that they need, and i do not think that is right. mr. slade: you do not think the

low price of gas right now is going to encourage congress to up the gas tax? secretary foxx: you know, look, the reality is i think we're going to have to have a different system, and, you know, look, we have proposed a system that would, at least, for six years, give us a substantial bump in the amount of money that goes into our trust fund using pro-growth business tax reform. you know, i think it is like, everyone wants the ribbon-cutting but nobody wants to do what it takes to get there, and i think we are at a point right now, what we are in a much deeper hole then most of the country realizes. we are in a much deeper hole. it is a serious problem, and i would be committing malpractice if i did not continue to try to say it. mr. slade: i forgot to mention

that you are a lawyer. malpractice is on your mind. [laughter] mr. slade: maybe we can go back for a moment to the question of the state, federal local divide, because some would argue one of the reasons why congress resists reauthorization is two in effect, encourage the de-evolution of funding responsibility at the state level, and, in fact, that seems to be happening. senator wicker recently referred to the fact that the states are a laboratory for fiscal innovation here, passing taxes experimenting with tolls, and that sort of thing. is that, maybe, de facto what is going to happen? is it, to some extent, realignment of responsibility in a direction where it is ok? secretary foxx: i wish we were

having a real conversation about what that means, because what that means, in my view, is that we will do even the same maintenance of effort we have been doing. i think the revolution means we will be doing less -- less maintenance, less new capacity building. look, you look around the globe, there are countries that are experiencing population declines, and maybe that is a decent strategy for a country experiencing population declines or declines in the amount of commercial goods movement but we are expecting exponential increases in both of those areas. so, it is, like, what do we not get about this? i am promising you, it is going to be more expensive for us to doubt all around for years years, and years, then it would

be to just bite the bullet develop a strategy, stick to the strategy pay now, because it is going to be a lot cheaper than trying to pay later. i have this conversation with secretary duncan a lot because i think education and transportation have a lot in common in the sense that they are both long-term. if you do not invest today, you will see the outcome tomorrow. you will see it in increased costs, and i just think that for the country -- if we get those two issues right, the country has a very bright future. but, if we keep battling along, it is going to be a tough time. mr. slade: now we get to my favorite topic, which is public/private partnerships. this administration has been a big supporter of ppp's as one

way of encouraging capital into the transportation secretary -- sector. there has been a lot of high profile 3p -- the solution in pennsylvania, the rapid bridge program, which has been high-profile, i think, with you. i think, some 34 states throughout the country have 3p programs, and other countries canada, and a lot of countries in europe have relied heavily on this system. so, what does the administration think about this? are there things in the pipeline to encourage further development of this technique? secretary foxx: yeah we think there is an increased role for the department of transportation to play in public/private partnerships, and i will give you a couple of examples. first, you know, while there are

increasing numbers of states that are setting up public/private partnership offices, there is still a little bit of residual fear out there in the public realm around public/private partnerships. part of what we think we can do as a department is to help remote best practices -- promote best practices, to help issue model legislation, or at least put model legislation out there that states could at least take up, and to try to help create an atmosphere through which public/private partnerships gain greater acceptance at the delivery level. secondly, we have a lot of permitting work we do with the department with interagency partners. one thing we have learned is when you talk about the cost of a project, oftentimes there is a lot of permitting costs associated with it, and there is

a reason we have some of the regulatory requirements we have. we think you can get faster results without doing an injustice to those equities, and that means having all of the agencies sitting at the table at the same time, looking at a permit, making their comments. the tappan zee bridge project in new york is an example of this, as it had four or five years of permitting that would not have happened under the regular course of things. we were able to get that permitted in 18 months and that is an example of something we would like to replicate. that is giving the private sector confidence that the public sector can actually deliver. third, one of the roles i am hopeful the department can play a better facilitation role is helping the private sector and the public sector find each other. there are a lot of projects

looking for resources. a lot of private-sector sponsors would like to think about a partnership that might not have the tools to figure that out. we want to help them, while we are also helping to figure out where the deal flow might come from. this is big because in a time of scarce resources, if we could convert even 5% or 10% of the transportation work and to private/public partnerships, that is 5% or 10% that we do not have to find someplace else, and friendly, if the deal works for everybody, all the better, so i think this is a space where there is a lot of opportunity. mr. slade: we know you are supportive of that technique and we have for it with the department of transportation to develop this model guide for highway 3p's, and i know you

know because i just reminded you in the other room. [laughter] mr. slade: what we are finding working with transportation projects throughout the states is there is an increasing use or federal support that comes in the form of credit assistance, you know as opposed to grant-funding in the past. two there have beentwo -- there have been two programs in particular that we see a lot of, private activity bonds, a form of tax-exempt financing. does the grow america act increase the caps, encourage further use? the you see that sort of trend? secretary foxx: absolutely making big expansions in both programs and the idea is to create more facility so that we can get more projects going. again, though, i want to say one

other caveat to migrate believes that public/private partnerships are going to be the wave of the future, which is to say they have to be undergirded with a public-sector commitment to transportation. in other words, if you do not get a long-term highway bill and you just rely on the public/private partnerships, the problem will be the private sector will not undertake the risk to plan those projects. so there still needs to be an underpinning of a public-sector commitment to the long-term for it all to work. mr. slade: right. well, i guess i should warn you all that in about several minutes i will start turning it to the floor for questions, but i do have one more question. i have to admit, i watched your recent interview with eric schmidt, and there was one

question i thought that was hilarious. shifting gears to our rail system a little bit, why is it that it takes only three hours to get from paris to marseille and that is 536 miles and the boston to d.c. express takes seven hours for just 437 miles? i think i got the numbers right. [laughter] secretary foxx: well, this is a vision that the president and i both share, which is that weekends read up these times. you know look, when the rail system -- that we can speed up these times. you know, look, when the rail system was created, at some point people decided to put both of those things on the same grade, so in some cases speeds will be limited -- limited

because you do not want to have rail traffic going at such a high speed at greater that is intersecting with vehicular traffic. having said that, the cost of getting there is going to be significant but again, as you point out, the rest of the world has figured out that there are ways to get there. i think the the future for high-speed rail in the u.s. is actually pretty bright, but it is going to take some funds some commitment, a lot of time. but we will get there. we always do. mr. slade: at this point in the program, i would like to turn it out to the audience. i would remind you that when you ask a question, please stand and give your name and affiliation. this lady right here.

nancy: thank you. i am with the navy postgraduate school. i was lucky enough to work with the acting secretary of transportation as well as the acting deputy secretary of defense and secretary of the navy --he was a really smart guy. secretary foxx: yeah. nancy: he told all of us about the importance of minutes. we became so committed to the issue. i sit here listening, why don't we understand that? i'm here -- i am into story-telling. first of all, i did not know about this document. nobody has time to read 300 pages, so the question is what are the essential messages that you want all of us to understand? you ought to think about writing stories for children, middle school kids. it -- if the middle school kids can understand, the rest of the population can, and you need to get mike get your stories onto

pbs. again, that is short, but you have to figure out how to tell these in a short time, and is your information department working on that? secretary foxx: actually, it is a great question and we are working on that. here is the thing about transportation that is hard. if i give you a statistic -- i am going to make one up -- the average commute times -- i am totally making this up, so do not quote me on this -- the average commute time has gone up 20% in the u.s. over 10 years. that means something on one level, but it means nothing on another level. a lot of our story-telling, has to be told that a very localized level. it has to be almost micro-targeted, in a sense. this road, in your neighborhood, that the state has been talking about for 10 years, has not

gotten done because the money does not exist. if the money where their, you could get the road done. you would have 15 minutes save then your commute, or whatever. i think one of the challenges we have is that the country is so vast, and there are so many different ways which transportation impacts people, that we have to figure out a way to talk about this that reaches people where they are, but i think there is a way to do that. our team is working on it, and i appreciate the point. thank you. mr. slade: in fact, there is a 10-page, shorter version of this that a person like me was able to access and read quickly. nancy: where do we find them? secretary foxx: on our website. d.o.t..gov. nancy: what do i call it? secretary foxx: ma'am, if you go

to "beyond traffic," on our website, there is the long version and the short version. mr. slade: this gentleman. charlie: i am concerned about cyber hacking and its impact on our infrastructure, and i guess my question is -- how -- well, in the premises, virtually every corporation has been hacked, apparently. a lot of times we do not even know. how vulnerable is our american infrastructure to cyber-hacking and what are we doing about it? secretary foxx: it is a great question, and it is an area that we are spending an awful lot of time on. if i were looking at circles the smallest one being data systems within u.s. dot which extend from everything from faa

doing flight management all day long, to other parts of all work. we are certainly not -- of our work. we are certainly not perfect. we certainly have had some high-profile vulnerabilities exposed to us recently, we always want to make sure we stay ahead of who is trying to get into our systems. that is an effort that will continue. longer term, as we become more technologically connected -- you know, you talk about connected vehicles -- we are having conversations about vehicles that talk to the infrastructure. nextjen, which takes the aviation system off of world war ii radar onto a gps system -- just about every mode of transportation is going to become more automated in some way. and, as we do that, we have to be triply focused on making sure there are protections built in

there to prevent the type of hacking that you are talking about. now, i would say, as we are working to build through next jen, a lot of that work is ongoing and is in the process of working that out. we will have to work with the industry. we have encouraged the auto industry, for instance, to form an alliance that allows them to share information on cyber security issues with our support because it will take that kind of partnership with an issue -- within industry to help us get there, but we are working on that issue all the time. mr. slade: this woman right there. reeva: hi. i am from georgetown university. where are we now with the north american transportation system? when nafta was passed, it also had a lot of policy cooperation,

and regulatory cooperation, and the area of transport was one of the -- you know, intermodal transport was one of the things that was supposed to give the north american region competitiveness in terms of global trade and industry, so i am just curious, where we are with that now, and with the pending transatlantic trade agreement? i'm sure the europeans have a lot of things they want to have in place in terms of compatibility, port systems, surface transport, and aviation. so, anyway, that is just what i wanted to ask. secretary foxx: you are right. there is an awful lot of opportunity in north america for cooperation. i want to talk about two areas where we are working with mexico, for instance, and then to talk more generally about how we are looking at our own national freight plan in the

context of the continent, not just the u.s.. 's one of nafta's requirement -- one of nafta's requirements was that we created cross-border trucking program with the country of mexico, and just this year, after many fits and starts, we have moved forward with creating that program and that work is ongoing to stand it up. that essentially means that mexican -- mexican trucking companies will be at able to go from mexico to a point in the u.s. bringing or taking goods from one point to the other. that is a big development, by the way, because that has been a long, standing issue. the other issue is that we are working with mexico to develop an aviation agreement that opens up more access for both mexican

carriers, as well as u.s. carriers, and we are very, very encouraged by the work that has been done on that. so, i agree, there are plenty of opportunities. as we have begun looking at our own national freight plan -- i talked about it earlier -- one of the things that we have discovered is that we cannot look at u.s. borders. we have to look at canada, mexico. we have to think about how these different connections intersect. if we build a road, it is supposed to go and mexico, but their main road is coming up through someplace else, maybe that will not be the best way to do it. we have to have some level of international discussion about how that freight plan comes together, so that is a big take-home for us l we are

painted -- and we are certainly paying attention to it. mr. slade: this gentleman right here. allen: mr. secretary, you mentioned high-speed rail. i frequently take the bus when i go to new york. it is not much slower than amtrak, and the us sell a is expensive, not comfortable, and not very fast. japan has had high-speed rail since the 1960's. are we ever going to get there? [laughter] secretary foxx: well, look, our administration has taken some pretty forward-looking -- forward-leaning stepson high-speed rail. we have not always been patted on the back for it, but the efforts to get high-speed rail connections in california -- for all of the dustup that that created, that project broke ground in daniel -- in january

of this year. we are now starting to see states like texas, and, of all states florida, now coming with proposals to do it through public/private partnerships. so, we are trying to work with those project sponsors as well. in other words, i think the future of high-speed rail in the u.s., for the foreseeable future, is going to be connecting city pairs. i do not think you will see a wholesale system built out in one false whoop, but i think you will start to see city pairs connected and in some time you will see more of the country connected by high-speed rail. i really bullish on that, and i think it is going to happen. by the way our bill does actually put passenger rail into the trust fund. one of the challenges we have

had in the u.s. is passenger rail has not had a dedicated revenue stream and it is not been able to predict year to year what the funding would be, and we created a trust in for a single system that would have rail, transit, and highways in it. mr. slade: this gentleman in front. david: thank you. david short, with fedex. your comment a moment ago prompted me to offer a shout out, a congratulations on the mexico aviation agreement and the work of your team. i know brandon is with us. susan did an amazing job of the mexicans should be trusting her -- charging her income taxed because she spent so much time in mexico. and brian, the president of the team. the question is about next gem. fedex flies to about 300 airports in the notice states alone, not to mention global

reach. with our on-time guarantee, if we do not deliver pupils passages on time, we do not get paid. operating on time is critical. could i ask, mr. secretary, on the reason it has been so difficult to implement nextgen and your thoughts on the progress of implementing that? secretary foxx: so, nextgen has been the horizon, looking back depending on who you talk to, it has been 20 years. it is a difficult thing to talk -- think about -- how you piece together our airspace on a gps-based system. in this administration, i would say we have made more progress in the last few years getting nextgen advanced than we probably have made in so many

years combined before. i will not put a number on it. some of the problems nextgen has had has been that the commitments made to fund the effort for nextgen some of it has been that it's just complicated. i mean, i was down in houston where we just -- i think we opened up like 60-plus nextgen capabilities in houston which is huge but when they started to establish -- like it's the equivalent of taking i-495 i-95 and completely restructuring those and having to go through all of the v.i.s. processes, all the public input processes to do that on more

consolidated groups. i mean that's what they're doing with the air space. even when you get sbue the technical features of it, it starts to create a lot of push- pull. and some of that is indemic to any kind of transportation project. so what i can say to you is, is this is an area of focus for me. i know that we will not get nextgen to the point of absolute completion by the time i leave this department. but one of the things that i have made it my mission to do is to make sure that we've got a clear pathway for nextgen before we leave. and that we're making as much progress every day as we possibly can as an administration. and i think -- by the way, we're starting to see the product of it. you know, we have optimized profile decents happening around the country today. you may know what that is. but for those of you who don't this is basically the airplane

idles as it lands. this is a capability that nextgen makes possible. it saves fuel. it makes the airplane quieter and it saves the environment. but these are the type of capabilities that we're now seeing. you know, in memphis where we are able to move the planes closer together because of our work together on that. that also saves fuels an other costs. that's another promise of nextgen. so we're making progress but i won't be when the bell rings and say nextgen's done. but you're going to see nextgen's camebilities all throughout the next couple of years. host: this man right here. >> good evening, tom clark with parson's corporation. made a lot of great points this evening, secretary. two many particular resonate with me, one is the length of the service transportation bill

and the other one is the funding that it just fund. what do you see as the optimal length of the bill, number one. and number two, is there consideration in this bill for a mileage base user fee alternatives to be considered not passed as the source of funding but do some additional study on that and where you stand on that. thank you. secretary foxx: i think we've got to have any minimum of a four or five-year bill. we proposed a four-year bill. we're going to have a new and improved six-year bill. you've got to have multiple years of funding, otherwise you're not going to get the benefit of any single years funding because these projects take a while to move through the system. aside from that, i think that the country -- i think the

problem we have right now actually isn't in washington. that's going to sound a little her rhett cal but i think -- i think that's part of it. but the bigger part of it is that the country is not on fire about this. and you know, one of the things that really instill i think beyond traffic without any input on my part but it helps to make the case even stronger is this is a generational issue. this is a serious generational issue. and we are literally -- you know it's as if i took my kids time-out a restaurant and i -- out to a restaurant and i asked them for them to get what they wanted and i had more food and i had some nice wine and i even had some port after it was all

over. and it's as if i said ok, kids, pay my bill. it's absolutely ridiculous. but anyway back to your point. i think a six-year bill would be great. four-year bill is the minimum. so we're starting to see experimenting with this. oregon has a small pilot that they're undertaking now. we don't want to stand in the way of laboratory democracy taking on those -- those types of studies. they're always helpful for us to understand. but at this point we're really focused on trying to just get a six-year bill that provides the basic level of funding and to try to move forward with something like that. we're not -- we're not getting fancy. >> i'm chris hill from

hamilton. you mentioned the connected vehicle program which is extremely exciting. but you also mentioned the challenges of planning to fix our highways and failing bridges. how then do we find the investment to build out the infrastructure needed for that program either from the state, local agencies or by incentivizing the private sector? second tar secretary foxx: on the connected vehicles? >> yes. secretary foxx: in theory the infrastructure would be paid for the same way. so in theory, if we were talking about for instance, connected vehicle -- invehicle infrastructure connected, it would have paid for using the

dollars. it might be a more tech any logically updated -- tech any logically updated infrastructure. sitting here right now, i couldn't tell you if there's going to be a high price for technological updated infrastructure. it's going to help us settle some of these questions. for instance, you know, i was talking about the airplanes and how closely they can fund together when you're using nextgen technology. the same prinpls when it comes to connected vehicles on the surface system. so you could imagine that our trucks could be moving at greater proximity to each other

using technology partly to connect them. and if that would actually create efficiencies on the system because the distances between cars and trucks wouldn't have to be as great. you know there are some aspects of technology that may up end what i'm saying. but what i -- i think the point that you're making is that the infrastructure itself is going to need to be maintained and invested in. we may get more out of it using more technology. we're still going to need the basic bones of it. yeah. host: pbs news hour. in response to mitt subsidy's comment we did more stories and series on infrastructures than

all the other series combined even though cars moving ever more slowly doesn't fessly make for riveting television. what are you -- i'm just back from six weeks in asia. what is the department contemplating doing tapping into the knowledge of friendly contribution like singapore, south korea which not only seem to know how to build things but come up with pretty creative ways of financing them perhaps more so even than the europeans who rely on a level of taxation that probably the united states would never tolerate no matter what kind of train you got? secretary foxx: it's a good question. it relates to the governs discussion we were having. the government of singapore is the government of north carolina or the government of virginia or some other state. a lot of our surface system is state based. and because of that unlike some

of our foreign countries competitors or friends, we don't have one-stop shopping when it comes to these three things. we actually have 52 different systems around the country when you count the territories that really function more or less independently of each other. so the innovations that you're talking about right now, the default is for those innovations to happen at the state level. the question we're trying to address as an agency is can we play a role in helping to facilitate and encourage those kinds of innovations to happen at the federal level given the history we have with state driven circle transportation system. i think we're going to get

there. it had a lot of hair on it. it had a lot of -- a lot of dollars associated with it, a lot of challenges associated with it. but it's an example of the kind of financial creativity that needed to get big scale projects done. there's actually the gateway project that the rail tunnels that lead between new jersey and new york. you know this is an area that i'm concerned about because those tunnels as they sit there have a shelf life and it's not all that long. it may take some ingenuity to figure out a way to get those tunnels paid for and design them differently. i think the reason we can't tap into that today is because we have 52 different systems and what we're trying to do is create a clearinghouse for best practices to help us get to the

answers faster and hopefully to the innovations faster. host: we have a firm, fast rule of ending on time. and i've just been given the-five minute warning. so we can have a couple more questions. let's go to this gentleman way in the back. >> mr. secretary i'm bob perry. i want to thank you for your remarks on beyond traffic. also we're looking forward to your trip to africa in a few months. a question that has to do between rail and energy and thanks to fracturing we have production in area where is we didn't have pipelines and the rail system is moving it from the dakotas to the east coast markets. that's a win. to say that the accidents that have occurred along the rail system are a problem. they were designed to move coal and grain and now we're dealing with another problem. how do you see the solution on consensus of new safety

standards? >> well, it's a big deal. one of the events in my job at d.o.t. up in canada and it was a horrible day not only for our canadian friends but really for all of us. and from that point forward i had been focused like a laser on trying to help our country get into a better safety posture when it comes to the movement of crude by rail to the point that we've taken 24 short term measures that were thought about as bridges to a long term answer which is ultimately a rule on this. let me just say this just to cut to the chase. you have to have a comprehensive approach to this issue. you know, there's a lot in the news about tank cars and tank

car standards but obviously the tank car is a mitigation device. it is not a device that's designed to prevent an accident. it simply is a device that contains an accident for some period of time. we have to have a prevention strategy. we have to have a mitigation strategy. we have to have an emergency response strategy. and one of the things we've really pushed on this department is to have a comprehensive approach that takes into account all of those areas. and i would say that i think that there's a building consensus both outside of government, within government that a comprehensive approach is the right way to go. so we're still working through what i hope in the later stages of role-making but i certainly have to respect that process but know this is an area of great focus for me. host: we have time for one more

question unfortunately. the question at the front table. >> i want to add briefly to the question of cyber security. there's a very complex mixed ownership in this country depending on the mode. the president's executive orders signed last month brought forward the idea of stronger information sharing and advisory organizations isao's and i wonder what the department might be able to do to build a sharing organization amongst all the various modes of transportation for which their responsibility because i do think the responsibility is crying out for better information sharing, thread information sharing and information sharing about best practices and best results? thank you. secretary foxx: thank you. we are very open to trying to play a stronger role in trying to, you know, assist these

conversations across the different modes of transportation. i would say that just the first thing we've got to do in each of these modes is get the modes , you know, within the modes having the discussion because there will be things you need to -- automobiles or to rail cars or to aviation that distinct. but to your point i think there are cross-cutting issues too. you know, our department intends to play an active role on the role cutting part of the conversation as well. host: mr. secretary, i would like to thank you for a very interesting and informative session. [applause] secretary foxx: thank you so much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> following a string of security lapses at the white house joseph clancy testifies before a house appropriations subcommittee. you can see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. later sally jewel will discussion her department's energy priorities. that's at 1:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span 3. >> this weekend the c-span

city's tour has partnered with media come to learn about the history and literalry life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad. this was an y rod clad that was built here in georgia. those oval shapes are the gun ports of the jackson. and the jackson is armed with six brook rifles. this particular rifle is one of the thousands still specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the cell naval works in southern alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only 4-iron clads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell

the story of this particular iron clad and to show people that there are more than two iron clads. there were many. >> watch from columbus on c-span and on c-span 3. >> next, a look at workers' rights and safety issues with labor secretary tom perez. he spoke friday at a con assumer federation of america conference. his remarks are 45 minutes. host: morning. i am barbara wilson. i'm director for the federation of america. and it is my privilege and

personal pleasure to introduce our next keynote speaker secretary of labor thomas perez. a recent profile of secretary perez written upon his return from the negotiations in the west coast doc worker strike called him a star in the president's second term cabinet and a hero among the liberal left. as a card carrying member of the liberal left, i can personally attest to the accuracy of this assessment. secretary perez has spent virtually his entire career in public service in one capacity or another including his 2009 as a member of the obama administration. but he's only been in his current position for a little less than two years. but he's already had an enormous impact not least the issue that i hold dear and near to my heart which is strengthen protection for retirement savers. the fact that we stand here

today with a real fighting chance to make this long embattled effort a reality is due in no small part to his leadership. from day one secretary perez took on this cause and made it his own. and in doing so he showed the same ability to reach out to opponents, listen to all sides and by bringing together -- people together in a respectful and reasoned conversation, maybe not turn an opponent into instant supporters, not a miracle worker -- close, but at least dial down the volume of opposition so this process that is the potential to move forward. there's no doubt that he brings that same passion and intelligence and deep personal commitment to the broader cause of building an economy that works for everyone. as acme president lee sanders

said he's the real deal. so please join me in welcome k secretary tom perez. [applause] secretary perez: morning. audience: morning. secretary perez: i have a feeling -- first of all, barb thank you for your kind introduction. and barb's the real deal. and she has been a stall wark in so many areas include the retirements base. and i want to thank you because success in building an america that works for everyone is a joint venture. you have to have folks in government like our president who get it and have those values and then you have to have folks outside of government like all of you who get it and share our values. and that is how you devine success. and then you've got to have people working at a state and a local level who get it and

share our values and you've got to have a cereal activist -- searle activists who are doing the same. i've worked as a county official in montgomery county, maryland. it's seven or eight stops on the metro red line. i've had the privilege working at the state level as the state labor secretary in maryland and now i have this job which is another way of saying the labor secretary has trouble holding a job. but we can have a conversation about that. and i say all of this because i have a profound appreciation for the role of everyone. if we're going to build communities that work for everybody we need to have those searle activists at a local level. one of the proudest things for me when i was in local government is we enhanced and created an office of consumer protection in montgomery county. we enhanced our human rights services so we can build protection first our county

residents. we had the nation's first living wage law and things of that nature. because i'm a firm believer of what i call redundancy in law enforcement. we need federal laws and local laws because laws are only as good of the political will of those who enforce them. at any given time that will may not necessarily be there at certain government levels and so that redundancy in my mind is a good thing. and the constant is all of you. and that's why when barb invited me i was excited to be here because i want to start by saying thank you. you fight many uphill battles. the deck is -- you know, the odds are often long. the days are hard, the setbacks feel like many but you know what, a week ago last weekend, i was in selma commemorating

the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday. and if there's anything i learned from going there it's that, you know, the people who gave their lives in selma, many whose names you know, many whose names we don't, they were extraordinary people. and they were actually -- you know, we have extraordinary people like john lewis who caused what he called good trouble. and then we had people whose names like amelia boigtant you may not have heard of her but she was the woman in a wheelchair next to the president last weekend. and so many others who are martyrs in that movement. and what that movement was about was ordinary people doing extraordinary things. ordinary people who had a bold vision of an inclusive america that worked for everybody, an america in which we feel the

full team. everybody is treated with dignity. everybody has an opportunity to punch their ticket to the middle-class. discrimination is a thing of the past. and so i was inspired last weekend to continue to make sure that we put in place that vision of america and what that vision was about, you know, is a movement and then extraordinary individuals. and every issue i work on you need that combination of the movement and extraordinary individuals. and -- and that's no different for any issue that i've been involved in. and you are part of that movement. for consumer rights. because you know what, i look at the pillars vital families and vital communities and the little lars are, you know, education security, health care security employment security, housing security, physical security, retirement security.

and that's been really the north star for this president. how do we build an america that works for everyone? how do we solidify those pillars of security? you know last year, the incarceration rate and the crime rate went down in the same year for the first time in 40 years because this president took a smart on-crime approach. you look at health care security. our rate -- our own insurance rates have dropped at their greatest levels in 40 years as a result of the affordable care act. and you know i got this thing in my office -- it's an album cover of ronald reagan in the 1960's saying medicare will lead to socialized medicine. actually if you listen to the album -- because i got a little curious an i listened to the album said medicare will lead to socialism in america. he was wrong. medicare led to retirement

security in america for millions and has become a staple of who we are. and the a.c.a. is in the process of doing that same thing thanks to folks in this room. you look at education security. you know, education is the great equalizer. my favorite senator when i was in college was a guy i never met. he was a guy named claiborne pell because without claiborne pell i couldn't have gotten through college. we don't need everybody to have a four-year degree because there are plenty of comrades to the middle-class but under the president we're solidifying that pillar of self- sufficiency. 60 consecutive months of job growth to the tune of 12 million jobs. you look at the depths of the recession, thrrm seven job seekers for every job opening. now there's 1.8 to 1.7. so the odds are better.

businesses are bullish. outsources is yesterday's word. that jeep plant in ohio that mitt romney said was going to china -- well, i've been to toledo. guess what, he was partially right. the problem they were making in that jeep plant was going overseas but they've added over 1,000 jobs because that's what's happening as we see this manufacturing resurgence in america. you know, you look at the housing issue and we see foreclosures are down significantly. you see what the president did recently for f.h.a. lenders, to help them be able to get access to the american dream. you look at the work we're doing to make sure and rich cord ray and the come assumer financial protection bureau making sure that consumers have a meaningful voice because you know what, the whole consumer

space and the mortgage space is a fantastic example of the world of false choices. when we had the wild, wild west of 2005 and 2006 in the absence of regulation there's this united nations that, you know, you either have a sound business climate for lenders or people go in the tank because regulation, you can't have common sense regulation. having settled the two largest fair lending cases in this nation's system, i had a conversation with a very high-ranking executive who said, you know what, in the depth of the wild, wild west in the mid 2000, i was losing my best people to country wide. country wide was the industry bottom feeder. they had no rules. you could go there for two years and retire basically because you made that much money, preying on people. and so they didn't want to do that because they had ethics. and you know what, and there

was nobody mining the shop in the bush administration. it was the wild, wild west. and as a result so many people through the corrosive power of fine print and fast talk had the american dream translated in the american nightmare because they said, i've got to -- you have to sign on the dotted line. sign these 58 forms. and little did they know that they were signing a fast track to foreclosure. and so we must always reject false choices. when we have common sense rules in place, that doesn't simply help consumers, that helps responsible lenders. and we must always remember that. we live in a world of false choices. we think about policing and i spent a lot of time in that space. and there's this tendency to say we either have safe communities or respect for the constitution. that's a false choice.

we can do both. and we have done both. it takes time and it takes persistence. and that brings me to the pillar that i want to spend the most time on the pillar of self-sufficiency and that is retirement. because you know, i spend so many time and this president has built so much time building the middle-class, making sure that people can punch their ticket to the middle-class. by the way no escalators, there are no free rides. there are ladders of opportunity for people willing to work hard. and there are jobs out there. the report that we released there are 5 million jobs. 500,000 which are in i.t. which pays 50% more than the average private sector jobs. there's a lot of good jobs out there. and as we move forward as a nation i want people -- and

the president wants people to have good jobs, that pay a decent wage. we want to have aggressive enforcement of our wages in our law. we want to have safe workplaces so you have a right to know that you're going to come safe and sound at night whether it's from a coal mine or a police department, whether it's from any business that you work at. those are pillars of middle-class security. and when you reach the end of your work life, all that hard-earned money, we want to make sure that you have a good retirement. and you know what times have changed, you know? we're not in the leave it to beaver world anymore. ward and june were together -- you know ward worked 40 years at the office. ward had a divine benefit plan and, you know, at the end o that career, ward got a watch

a handshake and you know what ward and june didn't have to think about, you know, how am i going to invest my retirement because it was a divine benefit plan. you multiply 40 years to the formula and it may be 1.5, maybe 2.0 and you got your retirement. well "leave it to beaver" has been replaced by "modern family" in the place of divine contribution plan where people reached the end of a working career and now they have to make decisions on how to invest their money. and i have said many times i'm the youngest of five. i'm a lawyer. all four of my siblings are doctors. i promise i would never be a plaintiff's personal injury lawyer. and i have kept that promise. i mean no disrespect to all my friends who are plaintiffs'

lawyers. they do an important job. but i did make that promise to my family. and so i've tried to do something noble and i'll let you all decide whether that's the case. but, you know, three of the most important kinds of decisions people make are medical, legal and financial. and so, you know, for lawyers and doctors, the rules are pretty clear. you know you have to look out for your patients. you have to look out for your client, you know? if i got dying nosed with cancer -- diagnosed with cancer, i don't wanted her telling me well, this is a suitable treelt for you tom. suitability, yes. i want you to tell me what's the maximum way that i can live. and that's what they do. if i got arrested for something, you know, and i'm trying to figure out what my best defense is, i don't want my lawyer to tell me, well, that's suitable. you can do that.

well why do we allow this in the financial space? well the answer actually is there are many, many folks who hold themselves up to that highest standard of protecting and looking out for your client's interest. we have a financial planner who is a certified financial planner. and he looks out for us. so for instance, you know, i was in the federal government from 1989 to 2001 and then i left federal service and came back a few years later and we hired him in the early 2000 and one of his first pieces of advice is keep your money in a savings plan because it's a pretty good plan. now, that didn't get him in money, but he was certainly looking out for our best interest when he said that. and so what we've been doing in the consumer space here in the retirement space is we've got to figure out what's in the

best interest of the client. and you know one of the people that i've met in the course of this journey on this issue, and i think this is one of the most important -- if not the most important thing that we can do in the next two years to help consumers in the retirement space is this rule that we are working on because you know what, you know, i meet people like jack boeingle, you know i think he's been in the business -- i know he's been in the business longer than i've been on the planet because i think he said 64 years he's been in the business. he looks very well by the way. man. i want his water. and you know, he said something that really kind of simply summarized this whole enterprise which is, you know what, i learned in this business of financial advice that when you put your customers first, that's good for your customers and it's good for business. it's really that simple.

and that's what he has done. that's what our advisor has done. he's a certified financial planner. and you know what, that's what so many people do. i think it's important in having this discussion not to paint with an undully broad brush and never to be unfair to the scores of people who are in this space who do fantastic work. i applaud those efforts. and during the course of our outreach and i'm a firm believer that when you are doing a rule the most important thing you need to do is to construct the broadest table possible because if you are not a good listener, you're not a good regulator. and that's what we have done over the course of my 18 months on the job. we deliberately slowed this process down because we knew how important it was. we knew the value of listening. and we knew we needed to engage a broader stakeholder. we knew we had to talk to the

f.c.c. and we've done that with great regularity. and i have great respect for mary jo white and her team and the dedicated career officials at the f.c.c. who have been very helpful. and rich cordray and his team that have been very helpful. and industry stake holders with whom we've met with regularity because they've been very helpful in enable ling us to understand the business model and how you thread the nedle. i think it is a false choice to suggest that the only way to continue the business of providing financial service advice to folks is the status quo. i categorically reject that. you know, i have heard from some, i don't understand the problem you're seeking to solve. and with all due respect, i don't -- i can't believe that you don't understand the problem that we're seeking to

resolve. i really don't. and i don't mean that disrespectfully. and fortunately, i have heard that less and less in recent months. i heard that at the outset. and i hear that less and less. and that is the good news. and so what are we trying to do with our proposed rule? we're trying to solve the problems that have afflicted so many people. you know, i think about the tofele family in maryland. they saved $650,000 throughout their career. they had that nest egg. they did everything right. and they tried to figure out, you know, how to save it, how to invest it because we're the new paradigm. they go to their local bank. and they get put into a variable annuity very complex instrument. the fees were something like

$26,000 a year. my wife and i, we just bought a car and we paid $21,000 for it. and i'm thinking to myself -- they're buying a new car every year. a nicer car than we have. by the way it's a ford. they could have gotten a car for $5,000 cheaper. they could have had that. you know that is a lot of money. and you know, when i reflect on this i think about some of the concerns that have been raised. well, what about the small investor? you know to me the small investors are the people who are in the greatest need of getting advice that's in their best interest because they don't have margin for error. and so when i hear that argument, i am -- i -- i -- i agree with the notion that small investors deserve advice an we need to have more advice

for small investors but we need to get advice that's in their best interest. you know, folks who are wealthy who get conflicted advice, well that's unfortunate and we'd like to prevent that. but you know what, the consequences for this are less catastrophic than that family that saved $50,000 and is trying to figure out how to spend it. and by the way that small investor who has $50,000 or $100,000, the vast majority need an index fund or something really simple. and that's why business models have already emerged that can help them. and we want to make sure that we provide education because i think education is power. i think and educated consumer is indeed the best customer. and what we're going to do in this rule is clarify the line between education and advice

because that's important. and we heard from the industry, you know, you can't ban commission. that would put us -- that would unduly upset our business model. and we will not be banning commissions in the proposed rule. and now they did that in the u.k. -- i'll note something that's very interesting. and i went to the u.k. because i told you you build a big table. you listen to folks and you learn from them. i traveled over there because i wanted to learn with my own eyes and ears about the u.k. experience. and what's really interesting is what has happened in the aftermath of their role which is very different from what we will be proposing, but what has happened is it has spawned innovation. and there are a lot of web-based products providing advice to folks, many of whom are people who don't have that million dollar next egg but have a next egg that is far

smaller. and so you know they're pretty smart people over there. they had a new regulatory environment and they've been figuring it out. and innovation has emerged. i think folks around here are pretty smart too we're no less smart than the brits and i think we can figure it out too. and so you know -- you know, the miracle of compound interest is a wonderful miracle. however, the flip side of that which is not a wonderful miracle is, you know, the tragedy of compound fees and costs can linger like a chronic illness for a retiree. and when you're talking about $26,000 a year for this family, do the math and do the comparison between that and an index fund or some other instrument that was pretty simple. i think we can do this.

i think this is one of the most remarkably important things that we can undertake in the remaining 650 days. i've got 650 days until the weekend and that's what i'm going to be working on, things that make sure that we sustain the pillar of the middle-class and make sure that all the things that we have worked on to help people to say -- many people lost so much of their savings in the great recession. they're getting it back now. and this is one of the most important things we can do to help them. and i know one thing, we can't help them without a movement because it brings me back to selma. anything that's important around here, you know, you need a posse to get it done. and i have been so heartened by the folks in industry who have stepped up and said, you know what, we can do this.

and it's right for our customers and it's right for our business model. you know i was in duke law school recently speaking about, you know what i call the stakeholder model of how we build a virtuous cycle in america. i can take care of my shareholder. i can't take care of my worker or customer. that is wrong. i see businesses everywhere who understand that the high road is the smart road including people in this space who understand you can take care of your shareholders. you can take care of your workers and you can take care of your customers and create that virtual cycle. so that's what we're going to do with this rule. but i know there are some who still want the status quo and we look forward to those conversations. we have done remarkable amounts of outreach to date and then when the rule comes out we're

going to begin another formal process of comment. and i look forward to that comment. and i look forward to continuing to have a big table with inclusive participation because that's how you provide and that's how you produce the best possible rule. but i need your help. because i need ordinary people to do extraordinary things. and this is -- this is a rule that is at the heart of protecting consumers, making sure that retirement with dignity can be achieved. and doing so why recognizing that you know what, folks who are in this space can make a very decent return and make a very decent living. i am all for that. i think we can have both. i think we can don't the stakeholder model that i've discussed and we can put it

here. so we've got a lot of work to do. we've done a lot of work. and i hope that when you go back to your communities you will talk to your stakeholders and among other things ask them have you ever looked and asked the question of your financial planner like, you know what standard does she or here adhere to? this is the first cousin of what i saw in the mortgage space. you know, folks did not know they were victims because they went to someone they thought they trusted. and it turned out that trust may have been misplaced. and so i need your help in raising consciousness because we don't know what we don't know. and i saw this in the mortgage space. we had to go out there and say, hey, show me your mortgage instrument and we talked to people and then we'd say, did you know in eight months your interest rate is going to go up 4%.

and you know what, hell no. you know, that's what we've got to do. there's a lot of consciousness raising that needs to go on. there's a lot of education that needs to go on. and you all are in the front lines and the reason that i was excited to be here is that i know we can get this done. i know this is good for america. i know this is good fire fighter the financial services industry as well. we can thread this needle. we will thread this needle. the president himself have talked about this because he understands that at the heart this rule is about middle-class economics, retirement security is a pillar of middle-class economics. so i want to thank you for listening. but much more importantly i want to thank you all for being searle activists in your communities across the country for giving voice to the issues, for empowering communities that

feel vulnerable and disempowered and for being those heroic figures who are thinking boldly about an america that works for everyone, an american america in which shares prosperity. and shareed prosperity is an article of faith. and so thank you so much. [applause] host: so secretary perez said he would be willing to stay for a couple of questions. so just one or two. we have microphones here. so -- [indiscernible] secretary perez: thank you for hosting us. when we rolled it out. host: of course despite this ground breaking law that's supposed to protect workers the

unpleasant rates of people with disabilities have remained flat for the 25 years. i was wondering what your department is doing to encourage people and also because older workers have disabilities as part of their discrimination problem. so would you please discuss that? secretary perez: sure. the unemployment rate with people with disibblets is something like 19% but more importantly the labor force participation rate of people with disabilities is in the low 20's if my memory serves me. we're doing a lot of work at the department of labor. i think the unfinished -- the major piece of unfinished business is employment. and we -- one of the things that we did and it's actually a good parallel to this discussion that we -- that i was just talking about the conflict of interest rule is a rule we put in place under

section 503 of the rehab act which is a rule designed to insure that employers are taking best efforts to hire people with disabilities. we put this in place about a year and a half ago. when we first proposed it, there was an outcry from some in the employer community who said this is impossible to do. we were asked questions like do i have to hire a blind person to drive the truck? and i'm not kidding when i say that. we were sued. we won. and the remarkable thing about it is -- this one person who shall remain unnamed who led the assault against us is one of our biggest proponents. he looked at his fortune 500 company. and he said our numbers are lousy. and once all the litigation was

over and focused on implementation, we put him in touch with our biggest allies who are other employers who are doing it. and say it can't be done. you know, all of these issues, you know, if you have the will to do it, you find a way. and regretably, if you look the will to do it, you find the roadblocks. and there were so many employers like walgreens and lowes and others who have made significant commitments to hiring people with disabilities. we're doing our best to lift those up. and with our 503 enforcement we're going to continue with those empts. we're making progress but it just wasn't fast enough. i'm certainly going to be talking a lot about employment because i think that's the biggest piece of last legislation. >> i can do the last three. >> hi, i'm brian satchel.

and applaud your work upon bringing the spotlight into the financial complex in the financial services industry. my question concern what do you about company who is claim presently that they serve the best interest, that they're advisors of white -- conflict of interest. yes, they would never inforce that. are you aware that many of those institutions have those rules that they do not enforce. and what do you think about the idea of sort of second opinions on financial advice because i see many people who think they worked with somebody who they can trust but if they gone and

got that second opinion they'd get very different advice? so as i applaud the fiduciary goal, i'm just not sure that it gets us all the way there. so i welcome your thoughts. secretary perez: we heard from a number of stakeholders who are said that we put our customers first and we will continue to do so. and my response is well, then compliance with this is going to be pretty easy. well, but they've never had a legal obligation enforceable to do so. and so that will be a different paradigm. but yo, i have a lot of conversations with folks and the most productive conversations are often one-on-one who say we can do this. we can figure this out. when you have such a financial subset in the industry who already do it -- i mean what i

hear is we need a level playing field because consumers don't know whether the person they're talking to is under a suitability standard. they all think that they're looking out for their best interest. what they don't know is that some are and some aren't. and that -- i wouldn't want my doctor, you know that i go to today to be looking out in my best interest and my doctor next week to tell me that the treatment is suitable. and so that level playing field issue is a big part of what we're doing. in terms of second opinion, you know, one thing i hope are already in place and i've done a lot of work in the mortgage space in this is having internal control. you know, we do a lot of work to help put in place things like mystery shoppers. that's often a term -- that's often a term of agreements that we reach in the mortgage space and what that simply is you say your not discriminating in the mortgage space.

well, you know, test it. see what's happening. and when you do that you can prevent things that you see emerging from becoming big. and so a big part of this conversation, you know, these two include those sberble controls. hi. >> i'm melissa and i'm very excited to be here, secretary perez and you mentioned the president is behind it. this is going to be a really strong rule. you alluded to the fact, you've seen less pushback from the financial industry but i recently seen saying things that they're offended by the tone that the white house has taken with their memo. so my question is, you know, that memo if i recall correctly said that retirement savers are losing. i believe it was $17 million.

if you stand by the numbers in that report. if you stand by the tone in that report and if we can expect a strong rule in spite of this industry pushback by the well-moneyed interest. >> i have spoken to a number of industry stakeholders who have said this is something we can do. this is something we are doing. i don't think i've said that there's been less pushback by some in the industry. i don't want to give you an impression that, you know, suddenly light bulbs are going off everywhere. i'm not confused by that. i appreciate the person that says i want -- i haven't heard the rule yet. i'm not confused about the road ahead. there are some -- and again i had meetings with folks who said i don't understand the

problem. and so you have to understand that there are some who stated that. and that perhaps the effort to move forward with pushback but again, you know, i'm -- you know, when you have the backs on your side and when you have movements on your side and when you have folks in the industry, this notion that i will go out of business if i have to do this and i'll stop serving people. you know when i was in montgomery county, maryland, we put a place in the rule in the mortgage place. and i heard from the bankers i'm going to stop lending in montgomery county. i'm thinking to myself hm, 10th wealthiest county america. potomac, bethesda and they're not going to be able to get along. i'm not sure i believe that.

and guess what they're still lending in montgomery county. we're still the 10th wealthiest county in america. we were able to thread the needle. i think we can do it right here because i see -- there are so many good players in this . they are smart, they are innovative. >> i am a commissioner at the consumer product safety commission and during the obama administration you were my boss. this is a personal note. i first want to note that there was a great article in the "new york times" a few weeks ago about the differential that you pay when you have an index fund versus a brokerage account. that was a personal point for me because for years i was