one of the consequences, i'm glad ted brought this out his paper, this concept of overdose. we hear at all the time. someone dies of a drug overdose. in virtually every case it's never a drug overdose. that's what they say. the real cause is the corrupted drug, the polluted drug that is a direct result of the illegality because the drug lord, the drug gang they couldn't care less if someone dies. they certainly don't have to worry about a lawsuit as they would in an unhampered market economy are pharmaceutical companies are careful. they put the seals on the casually well and are careful because they no the one death will cause a massive large -- massive loss of market share bankruptcy,share bankruptcy, and the lawsuits

which is one of the tragic consequences. attics okay. okay. drug addiction is a tragedy. but it is a bigger tragedy when they die because of the drug war itself. finally i should wrapi should wrap this up by saying that is futile is this drug warriors as destructive as it is that is not the real reason why we should call for the end to this war. i mean,, we see the futility going to put him back in jail make sure he is incarcerated for the rest of his life without parole like they did the silk road guy. you know, for what? what is the.? they put him back in jail or they don't. nothing is going to change any more than it has over the last four years. but the real reason that we want to end this war on drugs is not just the futility of it but because of the concept of human

freedom. ted mentioned russia and iran. conservative examples of the war on drugs. let's look at the leftist examples like cuba and north korea and china and vietnam all of which have drug laws and the drug war because the drug war is inherent to a tyrannical, totalitarian authoritarian regime. it is only in free societies are people always recognized that people have a right as a concept of human freedom itself to ingest whatever they want to ingest no matter how destructive, no matter how dangerous harmful. if there was ever any reason why we should end this futile war on drugs it's because we, thewe, the american people, stand for freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, jacob, eric.

i'm going to exercise my authority tyrannical authority as moderator because you talk about futility. one of the cases are described is the three neck round banda. the futility of trying to ban to make illegal things that are kind of transparently innocuous, legal and then the process, the market being what it is for the process of getting around those restrictions. and this is a.command i we will admit this is a topic i had not studied much. i was struck by the ease with which the manufacturers of these chemicals substances can evade restrictions by making very minor changes to the

chemical composition to get around the law but then as we have talked about they may inadvertently introduce new harms to users who thought they were getting one thing and get something else. can you talk a little bit more about that concert? we will we have seen is really quite tortured legal reasoning to describe, we aredescribe, we're going to make illegal substances like this and others like them sort of thing. laws that are that vaguely worded. it carries a host of threats to liberty. >> first of all, i would like to thank eric and jacob for excellent comments on the paper and presentation. what chris has pointed out is an inherent dilemma that prohibitionists face. they can either have laws that are very specific but when your dealing with

synthetic drugs a very small change in chemical composition and suddenly create a substance that is no longer covered by law. and i believe the "washington post" article pointed out that currently they're are about 350 varieties of synthetic drugs and counting. this constantly changes. if you have specific bands this is like playing whack a mole. you been one substance and then get its 1st cousin or 2nd cousin. that is perfectly legal and prosecutors have to go after that and legislators have to go after that. the alternative is to enact very broad bands but as we have seen with other laws that are vague and overly broad that can lead to

massive abuses of authority. and people who may have perfectly legitimate businesses suddenly find themselves under scrutiny, under prosecution. and at times not even being clear on what law they violated. so that is an option that i think is inherently destructive to a free society. this is, again, an inevitable problem that prohibitionists confront particularly withconfront, particularly with synthetic drugs that all you need is an enterprising chemist to change the composition of the substance little and a specific bands simply doesn't work. so they're is an irresistible pressure to come up with broader and broader ever more vague bands despite the destructive effects of that has on the rule of law.

>> you want to add to that? >> i do. you put your finger on this. in -- at the committee level as we were trying to figure out what to do with the call to take this action, there's a great concern about due process providing real notice to the public of what is permitted and was prohibited. and we are witnesses spoke about this particular problem that in the research trying to find new compounds for medical purposes or otherwise you are going to look at existing drugs because that is your starting. we already no these drugs are effective in the particular psychiatric way. if tweaking it produces something that is useful.

there was this concern. we put in language about being intended for human consumption. those who are doing this kind of experimentation for research purposes they are not covered by the prohibition. the danger that people face now the congress is going to say this human consumption thing as too much of a barrier, too much of a barrier. let's take that out because they are shipping this stuff and we can't prove they intended it for human consumption. twenty-four insulated. you endyou end up with the prohibition that is squishy. the chemical that may produce these kind of affects. you have a professor at a college a professor at a college and suddenly runs

afoul because this is too close to a prohibited drug. the danger in this current kind of political climate will i think, present a real problem if this log is further watered down. >> very good. we dogood. we do have time for questions. a few notes. wait for the microphone for the benefit of those watching online and identify yourself and your affiliation. the jeopardy rule applies here which means please fraser question in the form of a question. with thatwith that in the back on the wall right they're. >> i guess you would call me a prohibitionist. my name is paul a gordon. i have a website called drug

abuse prevention. >> speak up. >> my name is probably gordon. i have a website called gordon drug abuse prevention .com. >> okay. >> i also had a nonprofit organization in california and berkeley which was called the committee for psychedelic drug information we tried to do everything we could to dissuade individuals not to use marijuana and other psychedelic drugs. what you have overlooked all of you is the fact that if you clarify -- so-called purify the substances you still have a psychoactive substance which is addictive which can be addictive. longitudinal studies in last

year have shown that one in six youngsters, young people become addicted. one in ten adults become addicted to marijuana and what you are overlooking is in order to ascertain the harmfulness of the substance pharmaceutical substance you have to go to the active principle, the thc. no amount of thc could -- should be used by someone who is driving. you should not drive under the influence of marijuana. >> the question is if you purify the substances and get around the problem of them being contaminated you still have the issue of addiction for use. okay. >> exactly. that is part of the question

have you read the medical research? do you no that there people who contribute to the medical research have not read the medical research. and they cherry pick those things. but the major.-- two points -- >> please, ma'am, this is going on.on. we have a question on the table. let the panelist respond. >> one scientific fact. do you no they're was research in the 60s which showed that thc in normal human subjects can cause idiosyncratic psychosomatic effects. >> did you no? two questions.questions. did you know. >> first of all, i am always wary about the argument that some people can become addicted therefore we have

to outlaw. you can do that with a lot of substances. you can do it with all forms of behavior. a certain percentage of people become addicted to gambling so we have to outlaw all games of chance. some people become addicted to high-fat foods, therefore we ought to outlaw all high-fat foods. obviously some people become addicted to alcohol. that's why we have alcoholics. therefore we have the right to outlaw alcoholic beverages. that is not a sufficient reason, particularly in a free society. some people are going to be susceptible to poor decisions, poor behavior compulsive behavior but that is aa price that we all have to pay to live in a free society unless we want

some benevolent guardians of public morality to dictate everything that we do command that is a price i don't think any of us want to pay. >> when i here someone talk about the risks of addiction or the risks of psychiatric consequences i think about the fact -- i think of the jingle of dunkin' donuts. america runs on duncan. america runs on risk. our entire economic enterprises based on risk. we look at people who want to be athletes and admire the risk. people try to climb the matterhorn fail. risk is built into the dna of america. the risk of addiction, the risk of these effects is real but small command it's

a risk that people should be educated about. folks who want to stop this never ever acknowledge the benefit of the use of these drugs. these drugs are beneficial. the evidence is the tens of millions of people who want to use them because they are addictive but because the effect of these drugs are pleasurable inspiring transcendent. these are real effects and people want to use them and that is why they we will continue to. >> you want to add? >> a couple of interesting points. got her activity enterprising people of the dangers of drugs, i think that is something to be applauded. there are -- sorry. there are drugs that are dangerous.

and one of the beast i have the marijuana legalization movement is the argument is made that marijuana is not harmful. i find that problematic because my position is that sort of implies if it is horrible it should be illegal. why argument in terms of freedom is look i'm assuming that drugs are absolutely the worst thing in the world for me that's my business. is no business of the state. if i want to sit in my home and ingest heroine or cocaine or lsd on math that's my business. that's what being a free person is all about. she makes a valid.about driving on public roads or externalities of the drug. children, children's rights, all the different categories i say if you legalize drugs

get rid of the unsavory suppliers which would go out of business immediately you're much better off having a supply and distribution of drugs the pharmaceuticals pharmacies were much more responsible when it comes to selling to children and minors than the unsavory elements we have to day. in terms of freedom legalize it but keep people like her to apprise people what a horrible thing it is to become a drug addict. >> right here. >> retired detective with law enforcement against prohibition. on the relative harm of synthetic drugs despite vicious rumors i never went past marijuana. i have no clue what cocaine does. i went to a briefing in the congress three years ago

congressman pitt had a dog and pony show with the va and brought in an eer got -- ner dark and said gave us a couple pick cases and they acted badly, they did things the harmful what reminded me as a police officer a guy jumps out of the car at 40 miles an hour. he's drunk. question is relatively so people can understand, how relatively dangers his bath salt or meg in comparison to whiskey, alcohol, or some other drug that we all pretty much of a common experience with? >> i would say this. these are among the more dangerous substances. in part and when you talk about this before because you never quite certain what all is in it which creates its own set of problems.

the effects seem to be somewhat unpredictable. but it is good to always keep this in perspective. we have heard the stories before with regard to other substances. remember all the stories about crack cocaine 25 or 30 years ago. the penalties that were enacted ten times as severe as for powdered cocaine. the hundred. as though there was that kind of real difference in the effect. going back further, more the lsd scare in the 1960s. this was going to absolutely destroy american society. if you want to go back farther come back to late 1930s and reefer madness. obviously marijuana was a drug it was going to completely destroy western civilization.

we have to keep the stories in mind. there's that sense of déjà vu. i would not say with regard to some of the synthetic drugs. they appear to be more dangerous and volatile than most of the natural psychoactive drugs. it is good to monitor. education definitely encourage people to stay away from these. but that oughtbut that ought to be part of a larger package to create a legal drug structure and one that eliminates prohibition so that there are safe,safe, legal alternatives for people who want to use psychoactive substances. and we can continue this crusade of trying to prevent drug use. i am one of these people who

, if we have tried a policy for four decades or more in the policy is failed the ought to try something else not just continue applying that same model to knew substances. that's just me. >> in talking about alcohol and alcohol prohibition bootleg alcohol was adulterated with methyl alcohol and other compounds. drinkers were blinded and people were paralyzed. it was a term called jake greg which is a kind of paralysis in which people were probably injured. and that, of course, we know, we know, is a function of prohibition, not the legal control. are these drugs harmful? the evidences of people who present themselves to the

police and so on yes, these seem to be quite harmful. they are harmful as a consequence of the market distortions the law enforcement create for the drugs that people want to get and that there was -- the article in the new york times magazine last sunday people saying i didn't want to use these drugs but they were easier to get being represented as legal. and until drugs that people want to use that can be produced safely better warnings we will see this kind of tragedy happen again and again and again. >> right down here in the front. >> good afternoon. former libertarian candidate i've tried to read your book it reads like the worst horror story ever.

i watched the movie down the street. how much does all this scare -- the scare tactics in the war on drugs just benefit the gun industry all of the military-industrial complex because everyone has to have a gun. the police have to have more guns and regulars have to have more guns. they all try to outpace each other. >> a good question. i think that is a subset. it probably does create incentives to have greater and greater armaments but i think you have a drug war industry that has a vested interest in creating as many horror stories as humanly possible. and it is often difficult to tell whether those were putting out the stories are

simply doing this to further there own career and institutional interest of whether they believe they are propaganda. and i think there's probably a bit of both. but what you are talking about a multi, multibillion dollar a year industry that has locked up with current drug policy at the local, state, and national level and they are not going to go quietly into that good night of legalization. they are going to use every tactic imaginable to try to preserve the prohibition system and scare stories certainly so that agenda. they are tremendously effective. i think the bias case with regard to cocaine use in the mid- 1980s was one factor that really stop the momentum toward a harm

reduction strategy if not decriminalization if not for legalization. reverse that. the whole might case changed and it has been a good many years to switch that back to a more rational discussion. i do not think the drug war industry likes to have a discussion about having synthetic drugs within the legal framework. they want the prohibition model applied. this is a job enhancement process at aa minimum. there going to keep pushing stories whatever humanly possible. >> chris this morning is actually a warning in the

national commission on marijuana anddrug abuse and 73, the shafer commission observed this is a danger that the current approach was bringing about. i think part of what we're missing jacob described penitentiaries is the biggest business in america. obviously making a rhetorical., but the alley is it is infinitesimal and are 14 trillion -- probably bigger than that now. the.that i want to make is that the collateral consequences of our drug enforcement policies undermine the entire economy jacob did not fully talk about the impact of the tens of millions of people have drug convictions which means their employment prospects are reduced. for an economy that depends on consumption it means those folks are out of the economy.

tens of millions of people are out of the economy. you don't -- your not able to get a job with a paycheck so you don't get a car loan so you don't get a car made in detroit. the war on drugs kicks off in the 1970s and american car sales start going down relatively. thinkthink of any particular part of the economy in which you are invested. if you simply have a pension plan 4 o 1 k all of your assets and american industries are less valuable because those industries are selling less than they could otherwise so if we did not have no one drugs cutting the economic power of the american public day after day. the message needs to be

your membership is being hurt by drug prohibition. you have an obligation to speak on behalf of the american economy to.out that this is hurting the bottom line every american investor other than the private prison industry this little -- the gun industry the small piece of supply. tiny when you think about the implications for the rest of us. >> you have been patient. >> independent drug policy researcher. i lived in central america and mexico. i am just curious, for all the panelists, what do you believe are the realistic policy objectives for the us government and perhaps other latin american governments that are thinking about drug policy reform. countries and russia and china completely separate or distinct. quite honestly i think coming at it from the

complete either prohibitionist drug war regime which is really something of the past if you talk to most current up-to-date drug policy folks they realize the drug war is over. at the same time you talk about the unfettered access to all kinds of drugs. you get all that out. >> unfettered access i don't believe. >> regulated drugs to me ultimately is unfettered access. the reason i say that just one example and proposing something else. there are in between policies. i don't look at it as a foster economy. there are places like portugal that have the decriminalization of all drugs. it's a little messy because you can't import drugs and you can sell them but the

people are not penalized for consuming drugs. the reason why cannot you guys put it out about four or five years ago, the conclusion was it trusts the policy concern of the government which was how addiction. the last.i will make even as early as 20th century they're was no prohibition but we were beginning to prohibit legal drugs at times. pharmacies themselves and doctors were not all necessarily prescribing drugs the way they should be today when we invented a more easy, accessible way to use morphine through prescription opiates you have pharmaceutical

companies marketing those drugs quite strongly to doctors and hospitals. anyone who goes into hospital today what's the 1st thing they ask you. i'm not saying that bad, but it has contributed to an increase in opiate addiction which is led to an increase in heroin addiction and the heroin problem has been the result of your cheaper heroin that actually gives a type of side effect. >> do you discern a question that? >> the problem that you have put your finger on what is best prescribing doctors and the excesses of the pharmaceutical marketing enterprise in many cases is correct. the fact that we have

prohibition means those folks who have become medically addicted that is stigmatized. they do not have access to the drugs. suddenly thesuddenly the prescription gets cut off and they turned the heroin because it's cheaper his days off to sickness. my sense is that you need better regulation of physicians, change the culture of prescribing. wwor

>> >> to say i am addicted i have to find another scam. all of this closeout of a prohibition approach. this is wrong and immoral a and it is not. it is not immoral to be addictive addition never be a crime to be an addict.

>> first of all no one i fate has never argued that legalization is say panacea to work beautifully but prohibition to identify the various problems associated with the views to show how those problems are made better through prohibition. but because it is is almost never talked about with that international environment we have is each stage is an attitude. it is a key development one

of the things that is most important it blew up the prohibitionist myth that you will see soaring crime rates associate -- associate with decriminalize system. the trend is in either direction. the stranglehold of the prohibitionist on international policy and other countries that may have thought for many years the u.s.-led policy was your interests -- idiocy but you don't tell that to the world's superpower.

now governments are willing to deviate. where there is legalized commerce. and to see where that goes i am a strong believer in the yogi berra observation it ain't over until it's over but i see favorable trends i will not pop the champagne to assume it is legal at the time until we see better results. [laughter] >> it appears throughout

human history human beings have been abusing substances to cope with daily life as a stimulant or to relax them and that continues throughout history. therefore do you think the supply of drugs is only catering or providing humans now with something they have been deciphering for centuries that is inherent to human nature? >> that is an excellent question. it would seem that way given the long long history that comes across different cultures in and so on and. i think there is a percentage of the population that feels that it needs that kind of artificial boost. i have never entirely

understood that, but it is enough of a phenomenon it is clear you cannot pass laws against that. that is the one bus and that is indisputable at this point. if you try to prevent it as much as possible but you have a significant percentage of the population that will continue to use those substances regardless of the lot. that will not teacher them from doing what they want to do. good or bad they will do it. >> i think that is a deep and profound question in the context of american society because we obviously live in a very controlled society. every kid is forced into a

public school system leases by the state living there 12 years with the message drugs are bad but yet over four years the problem has only gotten bigger. why is that? i think drug addiction is rigid and family but societal implications wise there were alcoholism in the soviet union? there may be a correlation the more controlled the of more despair there is. the less economic activity the dynamism that comes originally free market society is absent the plight of the american people is significantly worse than those of cuba or north korea because of the words they're not hopelessly enslave them those who falsely believe they are free. eidenshink when you combine

that controls society that this is freedom it may be a cause of why there is so much drug abuse in american society. >> ica dissertation of. [laughter] >> i am very interested. [laughter] so could you quickly go through the brief history of that regulation and where it is now if you give more details of the 430 variations of the synthetic

drugs and then the government tried to address it? >> 1987 congress was developing the anti-drug abuse act of 1988 including amendments to the act of 1986. to state that this particular piece of equipment was a major part of the problem with the production of methamphetamine to propose that it be banned so by an act of congress other feature of the anti-drug abuse act of 1988 this was enacted and remains part of the controlled substances act. >> if they change it we will get rich because we will start to buy it spread there

are a couple of examples. >> most of the laws were passed before 2012 they were specific chemical substances. but what lawmakers are finding is the ink was barely dry and did enterprising chemist in shanghai or wherever it would change the composition of one molecule and suddenly the law did not apply to that substance anymore. so since 2011 that the national and state level there have been very broad bans attempting to enroll lot entire families of substances to trying to deal with the problem in that

fashion. anything that resembles the whole lot drug would be considered in that same category and is outlawed. as an engineer to deal with one problem but it also creates another inherently you have laws that our vague and overly broad. i am not sure that is the pattern we want to encourage in this country because we see abuses in other areas with such laws and we have to be cognizant of that. >> also the prosecution were summer was convicted not convicted but charged with violating the sale of the substance at the time she was selling it was not illegal it was made illegal after she was charged. >> that was in texas the woman was charged with

marketing the illicit substance and the charge was filed three months before the texas legislature had outlawed that substance. >> i want to comment on prohibitions that our specific because the designer drug enforcement act of 1986 is essentially was very broad it says the analogs should be treated like a schedule one substance that me is a substance the chemical structure of which is similar to the controlled substance and has a stimulant.

for air in effect that is similar. that is pretty broad and 1986. sold the approaches with a broad lot to be enacted and that is still on the books. >> but state laws have distinctions. >> one last question. >> they give for your presentation. so talk about prohibition with the black market to and how much people had to pay that would be helpful and

second it's not really a probable cause a under the law if law-enforcement abuses the power in of the authority to reduce the opportunity. so how much loss economically for the people who suffer estimate cost of the prohibitionists strategy more generally. >> an excellent question and. something appointed out and i guarantee ed gentlemen sitting in the oval office if he had run afoul of the laws. barack obamacare admitted he used illegal drugs but he was lucky and it did not get

caught. how many others are their careers blighted because of that? the cost of that is measured in the hundreds of dollars per year this is a massive effect on our society. something we will see more common if they become more popular because of questionable judgment. we have to make a distinction of activity is under good for you or

activities that result in questionable judgment and crime and we tend to blur that distinction with detriment. >> 84 attending today. please join us in the conference center. >> on the next "washington journal" a look at v.a. issues with ryan gallucci. also, helena berger talks about the impact of the americans with disabilities act on its 25th anniversary. the jason mars act talks about some of the issues facing the

u.s. and cuba. will take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. live every day at 7:00 a.m. et on c-span. on "newsmakers," kentucky congressman harold rogers is our guest. he talks about the appropriations process in congress and the potential for a continuing resolution or omnibus spending bill. watch the interview today on c-span. today will also see the senate gavel in at 2:00 p.m. eastern to consider funding for highway and mass transit objects. current funding is set to expire at the end of the month. for more on that deadline we spoke with the reporter. >> with current highway funding

set to run out at the end of the month, the senate has voted to formerly begin debate on its sixth year highway bill. manu raju, you write that as things got started ted cruz came to the floor and accused mitch mcconnell of telling flat-out lie. guest: it was quite a remarkable moment. rarely do you see a senator calling out another senator in such stark terms accusing them of lying, within their own party and accusing a party leader -- that does not happen in a chamber like the senate. it is usually a collegiate place. you're not supposed address senators directly. but mitch mcconnell assured him and other republicans that the xm bank -- that mcconnell did

not cut a deal to allow the xm bank to move forward as part of the negotiations over separate trade legislation in may. mcconnell said he only promised they could offer this as an amendment, but as we saw on friday, mcconnell took the procedural steps to bring the xm bank measures directly to the floor. cruz said this was completely backtracking from what mcconnell said, calling it a lie and saying -- repeatedly using the l word. cruz believes this is an issue that plays well for him and his presidential campaign. cruz is running his campaign as

the guy battling his party's leadership. >> what was mitch mcconnell's reaction to the lie accusation? >> it was a big smile, actually. my colleagues saw him in the hallway shortly thereafter and asked him to comment and he smiled and walked away. we try to reach out to his office but his aides did not want to comment on the record. clearly they are trying to avoid the controversy. they believe if they engage with him it will elevate him in a way that he wants so their strategy is just a not pay attention and ignore the controversy. >> let's talk about the sunday session, coming back for a rare sunday session and these two amendments, one you did not mention but also an amendment that would appeal the affordable care act.

how did those get mixed up with the highway bill? >> the beauty of the senate. obama care repeal very clearly was an effort by o'connell knowing he would get caught by the right for allowing the xm banks to move forward to give himself some political cover. so, mcconnell said if he will move forward in a procedural motion to move forward in an xm bank the cost of that would be a vote on obama care repeal. we know that it will not surpass 60 boats -- votes. even if it did, the president would veto it. and the republicans don't have a vote to override so it is mostly just a symbolic gesture. and because of that he feels

that his cuts over legislation -- he needed to get the trade bill through and these detractors would not vote unless they had assurances xm banks would move through. now, the highway vehicle is the last thing to move and it was supported by a bipartisan majority in both chambers. he was pressured to allow a vote on that and he is getting whacked by the right and ted cruz. >> you also wrote about a procedural motion offered by ted cruz -- you tweeted about it. if cruz tries to overturn the ruling of chair, it's the same way that read invoked nuclear option. but cruz won't have the votes. >> it is the curiosity of the senate procedure. cruz offered an amendment related to iran, saying that iran should recognize israel's right to exist.

that has nothing to do with the highway bill. the chair parliamentarian said it was not germane and the chair who oversees the senate floor upheld the ruling of the parliamentarian. any senator and seek to overturn the ruling of the parliamentarian, to succeed you need a simple majority. typically senators avoid doing that at all costs. if you try to overrule every ruling of the chair it would be actual chaos. there needs to be some order. it is rarely done. last congress, senator majority leader harry reid at the time did that when throwing into question the filibuster and wanted to change the filibuster rules on presidential nominees. that was referred to as the nuclear option. at that time he had enough democratic votes to push that through and the filibuster was gutted. in this case, cruz will not have

the vote. i'm short republican leaders will vote against them especially after his strong statements today. democrats will vote with him and as a result cruz's votes fail but he will announce it as an effort by the republican leadership to stifle his voice. >> the house has passed a temporary extension to highway funding. where does this end up? >> that is a great question because the house and the senate republican leadership are on complete opposite ends and they have much different strategies. right now the house republicans are saying they will not take up the bill. mcconnell may push it through but the house is saying that it will not pick it up. the expectation is that there will probably the some kind of short-term extension and perhaps the house and senate can negotiate the conference

agreement when they come back after the office reset, but it doesn't look like any resolution in the long-term highway built will get resolved before the august recess. >> he is the senior political reporter for politico. he is on twitter and you can read his writings on politico.com. thank you for joining us. >> we will hear more about highway funding in just a moment from transportation secretary anthony foxx. he was the speaker at a recent breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor. then i republican event with governor john kasich. then later come up sylvia burwell discusses state health care issues at the annual summer meeting. transportation secretary anthony foxx said friday that his agency has opened an investigation into

alleged price gouging by airlines in the aftermath of the philadelphia train crash. he made the announcement to reporters during a christian science monitor breakfast in washington. he also said congressional funding for mass transit projects. this is 50 minutes. >> transportation secretary anthony foxx. his last visit with our group was one year ago. our guest earned his bachelor's degree at davidson college where he was the first african-american student body president. after law school he spent a month in new orleans playing trumpet then he worked at a law form -- law firm and served with

the u.s. department of justice. he returned to charlotte to work in a law firm there. in 2005 and he was reelected in 20 -- 2007. he was elected the city's mayor in 2009, the youngest person to hold that job and was confirmed as a 17th transportation secretary in june 2013. so much for biography. p. so much for biography now on to the ever-popular process portion of our program. as always, we're on the record here. i've been told our guest may commit news this morning and so you're listening to the following ground rules -- your listening to the following ground rules is important. as is always the case at these gatherings -- it just chokes me up. excuse me. [laughter] just an emotional moment. let's try again. i've been told our guest may commit news this morning, and so the following ground rules are important. as is always the case at these

gatherings please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. the embargo comes off at 10:00 this morning. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge, our photographer is here, and we will e-mail several pictures to all the reporters here before the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know if you'd like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one and all in the time we have available. we're going to start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments, then we'll move to questions from around the table. with that, mr. secretary, thanks again for doing this. the floor is yours. >> thank you dave, and thank all of you for being here this morning. i've been in government for a while, i've spoken at a lot of chicken dinners and breakfasts, so please feel free to go ahead and eat. you're not going to be offending

me at all. the first bit of business i want to take care of this morning has to do with an investigation that the department is opening on the allegations of price gouging following the tragic accident of amtrak train 188 in the philadelphia area. we have sent letters to four airlines -- delta american, southwest and jetblue -- to begin the process of uncovering whether, in fact, the airlines drove up prices in direct response to this incident and created a challenge for

consumers who were trying to move in that area at that particular time. so this is the opening of investigation. that doesn't mean that we have closed an investigation but we are beginning the work today. so there's also other news in transportation obviously. i've spent a good bit of my time as secretary traveling the country and going to more than a hundred communities in 42 states by this time really urging the country to not only avoid highway shutdowns, but to raise our ambitions for transportation investment and what we need in the 21st century. there's obviously been a flurry of activity on the senate this week on this and i'll just say at the outset that the encouraging thing is that we have folks on both sides of the

aisle who i think are earnestly trying to do what they feel they can do. we are still in the process of drilling into this 1,000-page legislation. it continues to change, and we expect that perhaps there will be some changes introduced today as a result of input that folks have received. so i don't have any hard and fast position on this bill at this time because it's still very fluid, but i do want to point out a couple of things. first of all as the agency that is responsible for transportation safety, that is of utmost concern to us. and as introduced last tuesday there were portions of the bill that we found to be highly

objectionable. i understand that there's been work to try to soften some of those provisions and we'll just have to see what the senate comes up with. but that's an area where our department is fiercely committed to raising the standards for the american people, not lowering them. and so with that, i'm just going to stop and maybe have some opportunity for back and forth. >> i'm going to do one or two and then we're going to go to joan lowy from the ap to start and mark janson from "usa today," michael lindenberger from "dallas morning news" heather, lisa from the l.a. times, jeff from bloomberg brian from gannette and -- [inaudible] from tax notes. let me do one in the air and one on the ground. let me ask you about gun-firing drones.

can you tell us what the department and the fda have learned about the homemade drone that fired a handgun four times while being operated in connecticut park and are those the kinds of things that will be covered in the standards the drone standards that you're going to try to have in september, and will you meet the september target? >> first of all, this is a matter that's still under review so i don't have anything to report out to you about that investigation. more broadly we recognize that the safe integration of these what the faa calls unmanned aircraft has to be done, and it has to be done as quickly as possible. our small uas rule resulted in more than 3,000 comments we've received. we're sifting through them and trying to push that rule out as quickly as possible. but i also think there's some

consumer side issues here over the availability of drones and the use of drones, and we are scouring our authorities to see what, if anything, we can do as an agency on this question, and we'll have more to say about that as, in the future weeks and months. >> are you hoping to meet the september target date for the regs sir, or where does that stand? >> well, i think, hopefully we will meet that deadline or come real close to it in terms of getting the rule over to omb and, hopefully, soon thereafter having the rule out there as final. >> here's the last one from me, and then we'll go to my colleagues. a lot of talk this week about car hacking as a result of wired magazine's report on it, the entertainment systems in jeep cherokees and other chrysler products where you can get control of steering, brakes and

transmission. wanted to know your view of the proposed legislation by senators markey and blumenthal and also where, what the department is doing on that subject. of hacking. >> look, this is a place where the government and the private sector have to be working very closely together. and we have urged the auto industry to develop a round table of sorts to focus in on issues like cybersecurity when it comes to these technologies. a lot of the technologies are proprietary in some respect but they're common issues that the industry has to deal with, and we have found in other industries that these types of collaborations are useful. and we've offered to extend the resources of our department to help that work. so we, we feel like this is an area where the government and the private industry are going to have to step up in a big way. but we can't do it by ourselves.

>> in the meantime, for the typical driver how concerned should they be about hacking? >> um, you know, this is, you know it's an issue. i think, you know, as we look forward into the future of transportation, we'll also see each more of a -- even more of a push towards technology with connected vehicles and driverless cars and things like that. and so the time to get on this is right now, and as i say we will push as hard as we can within government but as industry develops this technology there's going to be no substitute for public/private collaboration to insure that the security of our vehicles is airtight. >> joan lowy from from the ap. >> yes. actually i have two questions so i hope you'll help me. >> okay. >> one was i was hoping you could elaborate a little more on

the price-gouging investigation that you've opened. you said, i'm sorry, how many -- >> there are four airlines. >> what is your evidence of this? is this just the northeast corridor between washington and boston? and then the second part was the highway bill question. >> okay. >> and i know you're still drilling down on that bill but republicans have made a lot of tweaks to it in the senate, and i'm wondering if you actually got a bill like this, do you think it's something -- how would you feel about it? do you think that it's an advancement, a step forward or not? >> okay. on the investigation um, it's still very early. we just launched it today. but there are four airlines that we're looking at. i've identified them already. those airlines have allegedly raised fees beyond what you would ordinarily expect in the

northeast corridor at a time when the amtrak line was shut down. and our investigation our inquiry is focused on getting to the bottom of whether there were unfair practices involved in setting prices at that time. >> on the -- >> on the highway side, um, i think it's fair to say that as introduced on tuesday a very mixed bag. again, i want to give credit to folks on both sides who have been trying to figure this out. this is not easy. if it were easy, we wouldn't have had 33 short-term measures in the last seven or eight years or be a decade since we've had the last six-year transportation bill.

but, you know, i think some of the glaring problems with it had to do with the safety provisions, and i know they're working to try to accommodate some of the concerns there and we'll just have to see how far they're able to get on that. i do think the this country is hungry for e -- for robust transportation, and the problems of congestion that have gotten worse over the last several years, the potholes in the road, the bridges that need to be repaired, you know, i could go on and on about the problems. and i think one of the questions is does this bill help us solve those problems in a substantial way. and we will continue reviewing as the senate continues the very fluid work they're doing on this legislation, and once they have settled down, i think you'll find us settling down into a

position on it. >> mark janson from "usa today". >> thanks for coming, sir. >> sure. >> i guess i'll ask one more on the investigation, can you say anything about what clues what hints about the airlines' actions raised the suspicions to start the investigation? do you monitor prices? what sparked the investigation? >> well, there's, there were a flurry of concerns raised in the wake of the accident in philadelphia. we've been asked to consider an investigation by senator murphy from connecticut, and we're doing our due diligence through this investigation to determine whether, in fact, there were unfair practices involved. >> and on another airline question how soon might we see

scheduled flights to cuba? [laughter] >> that's actually -- we play a role in that, but that also involves the state department and commerce department. you're aware that secretary kerry is planning to visit cuba in august and my guess is that as we continue moving forward, you'll see those flights resuming at some point in the very near future but i don't have a date to give you today. >> we're going to go to michael lippeddenberger from the "dallas morning news". >> good morning a quick follow up on the investigation and then a question about rail. on the investigation, i mean, it strikes me it's probably legal if they just rose their prices -- raised their prices in response to a sudden demand. but is what you're concerned about them colluding to do that in an illegal way? and is it your investigation or the doj? do they get involved here? >> so the department of justice

focuses on criminal inquiries and what we're doing as -- bears no relationship to what the department of justice is doing. we are looking at this from a consumer standpoint, and yes in fact, there is natural shift there are natural shifts in pricing depending on what demand is. the question really is was this, was this beyond the pale? and we will find that out in the course of this investigation. >> we're going to go next to heather from politico. where are you? there, down at the end of the table. >> i had a follow up on -- >> okay, i'm sorry. sorry. >> texas your predecessor and folks from the rail administration came to talk about the excitement over high-speed rail early in the obama administration. texas at that time had an opinion that there was no role for government and so it didn't get any of that big money out of

stimulus. and six seven years later it's moving forward with the private sector rail. >> yes. >> billions of dollars. and most of the places where the federal government has, had initially supported high-speed rail have either rejected the money or come into some slowdowns, etc. i'm just wondering how big of a priority is that still for the obama administration? is there any regret in the way they handled it going forward? was it just the wrong time? i'm just trying to get a sense of where you see the nation's high-speed rail. >> you pick any big project that has been done in this country and there was opposition to it at the beginning. i don't care what you're talking about, the new york subway system, the the brooklyn bridge, you name any big -- the golden gate bridge -- you name any big project that's happened in this country, there have been choruses against those projects initially. and i don't think high-speed

rail is different in that respect. but we are seeing high-speed rail gaining traction in this country. the california project broke ground in january. even florida the state that rejected the high-speed rail money back in the recovery act days, is working on a high-speed rail project connecting orlando and miami. and the work that's being done in texas to do high speed between houston and dallas, i mean, you know how it's done is less important than that it's dope. and i think you're seeing -- that it's done. and i think you're seeing folks realizing that the president was right, that we these to connect our major city fares in this country, give people a different choice to get from a to b and you're starting to see it happen. >> heather? >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> hi. >> has the administration been counseling senators over the last week to vote against this

mcconnell-boxer plan, and what happens when we -- if we get to december 18th and there's no tax reform deal to bail out the trust fund? >> um, the short answer to your first question is no. we're not in a position to be either for or against the whole bill. there's certainly portions of it that we find very troubling and we've been communicating those concerns. but because the bill is in such a fluid state, there hasn't been a settling down of a position because it continues to be a moving target. your second question? >> what happens if we get to december 18th and there's no tax overhaul to bail out the trust fund? >> well, this is the perpetual question we've been asking ourselves for the last 33 extensions. and at some point the music does have to stop and we need to get

on with building the country. you know, i think the good news here is that you're seeing people struggling in earnest with how to get there. i just hope that we don't keep perpetuating the problems of, you know, looking more or just at what we think we can do and not looking squarely at what the country needs us to do. because those can be two different things. >> rich -- [inaudible] from reuters. >> sure. >> it's the end of the month dead hugh on the highway bill, does the department do any recalculation of revenues on the chance that you could actually go a bit longer if congress fails to send the president a bill? and are there any steps contingency steps the department's taking in case that

doesn't happen? >> well, look if -- so when we think about the impact of the highway, cliff, you know, it's not a small impact. you have internal to d.o.t. probably 4,000 of our employees that would be furloughed. they range from folks on the federal highway administration who do permitting work to nhtsa to federal motor carriers. those are primarily the agencies that would be impacted. external to d.o.t. we sent out letters to all the states and the territories explaining what we would do in terms of cash management in the event that we started to go below the prudent be balance which is $4 billion in the highway account.

and, essentially we would apportion to those states programmings of the -- percentages of the remaining revenue until we ran out of it. on top of that, let's just be frank: statements have already been adjusting their ambitions to the federal environment, and we have six states that have reduced projects, $2 billion worth of projects already and probably more states that we don't, we don't know about. so all this basically comes down to jobs, it comes down to the fact that our country's infrastructure comets -- continues to deteriorate. and not only for me and our president, but for future people who sit in the chair that i sit in and that he sits in, i'm very concerned that folks in these positions in the future are going to be managing a declining

system. and that's not in the interest of the american people. so that's a little bit of what the impact would be. >> and any recalculation of the -- [inaudible] >> you know, the last report i saw basically stuck to the set time frame which is that we will we will fall below the prudent balance sometime in the early part of august if they don't find a way to move forward. and, again, that will be a bad day for many states and many communities across the country. >> lisa from the l.a. times. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> yep. >> again on the investigation that you're announcing this morning -- >> yeah. >> realizing these things take time, do you have any sense of the timeline and how involved it's going to be, and then a question on the bill. >> we've submitted information

requests from each of the four airlines that i mentioned and -- >> [inaudible] >> we sent it, i think letter went out yesterday. today. it's going out today. and, you know we expect within a reasonable time that we'll get that information back and we'll go where the information takes us. but we expect the information to be sent back to us promptly, and hope any we can close this out as quickly as possible, but i don't have a timeline. >> and just a follow up on that. can you say what you're asking them for? >> i can get you a copy of the letters. >> and you say how optimistic or pessimistic you are that there will be anything either than simply a stopgap measure to keep the highway fund going past july 31st? and also, frankly, to the end of the year do you have any real optimism that there would be

anything other than just another stopgap measure at the end of december? >> i think the, i think the american people are going to increasingly demand that congress solve this problem and really solve it, not paper over it. and that's because i've just been to so many places around the country where the traffic problems are getting worse, the conditions on the road are getting worse, and people are just seeing no way out. and increasingly people are starting to draw the line or follow the bred crumbs back to washington -- bread crumbs back to washington. and we just can't keep doing it. so i'm optimistic because i see people on both sides continuing to work at this, and they're working at it earnestly.

that's not to say that what's being discussed in the senate doesn't have problems, because it does. but we'll just have to, you know, keep watching it and keep sharing our concerns on a member-by-member basis and hopefully, the end result either now or at the end of the year will be something good. >> jeff -- [inaudible] from bloomberg. >> yeah. yeah. >> so in in all of your talks throughout the country you made clear in your tenure that, you know fixing this long-term highway funding problem has been one of your top priorities. >> uh-huh. >> if the senate recedes on its plan, it will have a six-year bill with three years of funding. this will pretty much take this issue beyond the obama administration. >> uh-huh. >> so i'm just interested in your thoughts on that and whether there are some real

priorities that you hope to address that you will have the opportunity to do so? >> yeah. well look, again, it's hard to know whether we're in the second inning or the eighth inning. but, you know, i'll sleep peacefully at night knowing that i've done the very best job i can do of pointing the country in the direction we need to go. and i think the president has said repeatedly that it's time for the country to move forward, it's time to get rid of the stopgaps and begin focusing on the long term and the growth that we need as a country. but under our constitutional system, congress has to take this up and do something about it and, you know, as i say before, the fact that they're wrestling in nest with this --

earnest with this issue at all is a very different place than where we were two months ago or ten months before that or, you know, you follow the, you follow the logic. so i think as long as people are wrestling with this, there's a chance it could work out well for the american people, and that's just what we have to believe. >> [inaudible] from gannette. >> mr. secretary one of the parts of the bill, the senate bill that's under discussion is the percentage of the trust fund money that goes to mass transit. >> uh-huh. >> and there was a proposal in the initial bill to reduce the percentage. how important is it to maintain it, and what would the implications be for mass transit if it is reduced? >> let me answer this way um, you know, we did this survey of the nation's transportation system beyond traffic a few months ago. we put the draft out, and one of the startling things about

beyond traffic is it points out that we're going to grow by 70 million people. so we're going to have population increases, but not just population increases more concentration around metro areas. so pick los angeles, for instance. can you build more highways in los angeles? no. you might be able to expand the lanes in some places but that's not going to get you to nirvana east. and so -- either. and so the need for transit is actually increasing in the country. our grow america act had a 70 plus percent increase for transit recognizing the need for it as country continues to grow. so no i definitely don't think the percentage ought to be going down. if anything, it should be going up. but, you know, i know that there are folks in the senate who are

very concerned about this and are pushing to at least keep it level. >> let me tell you where we are time wise we're about 28 minutes to go. we're going to go next to -- [inaudible] from tax notes then david shepardson from the detroit news john mackinnon from the journal, stephanie from bna, and we're going to end with bernie becker from the hill. cat, you're up. >> so you mentioned that the highway bill is a moving target, but are there any provisions or amendments that the white house would want to include in the current senate bill to get this forward? [laughter] >> well, i think ex-im bank, for sure. that's something that the white house is very interested in. on the transportation front there are a number of safety measures that we're still concerned about, and, you know for instance, if we recall a car because of some defect that could endanger someone who's

using the car and you go to a used car lot to buy a car even if it's been subject to recall right now, you could buy that car, and it wouldn't have to be fixed. and we think that's a loophole that needs to be closed. there are also pieces of legislation we wish the senate would consider like giving it hazard authority. we were criticized last year for having too cozy a relationship with industry, but the reality is that when a recall occurs, if the company that has been recalled disagrees with our assessment, our recourse is to go to court and spend years trying to litigate that issue while dangerous stuff is on the streets. the alternative is to develop some kind of settlement with the

automaker or the oem and, you know, usually we've been able to get favorable results that way. but if congress wants us to have more teeth, give us the tools so that we can fight those battles directly. and, you know, these are the kinds of things that we've proposed previously, and it'd be nice for those issues to be addressed through this legislation. >> dave shepardson. >> [inaudible] deal breaker -- [inaudible] housing authority or -- >> i'm pointing out that we have serious concerns about the safety provisions in the bill. and it's not just the ones i brought up. and, you know, i think we're just waiting to see where they land as this goes through a very fluid process over the next several days. so i'm not prepared to say that it is or it isn't a deal breaker or that portions of it are or

are not deal breakers. i think right now we're just trying to see where the senate lands and to try as best we can to play a constructive role in helping congress get to yes on something that's vitally important to the american public. >> about the hacking earlier are you satisfied that fiat chrysler has not recalled the vehicles and is just offering this software patch? >> i am going to decline to comment for now on a specific automaker, but there's probably something coming on that. >> and also fiat chrysler, how close are you to a consent order, a deal to resolve this public hearing on the 20-odd recalls that nhtsa's been working on? >> i would urge you to just dui us some i'm -- give us some time. we're working very hard to get these issues closed out but i don't have any news for you this morning. >> john mackinnon in the journal, back in the cheap seats. >> hey. >> could you please explain exactly how your authority works

in the area of price gouging? in other words, what is the what's the remedy that you have and do you go to court do you impose a fine? how much money could we be talking about? what happens? >> yeah. let me -- look, our authorities areu!t( foundq in 49usc41712, and it provides that we may investigate and decide whether an air carrier has been or is engaged in an unfair and/or deceptive trade practice in air transportation. and we also have the authority to prohibit such conduct. now, the extent to which we have the ability to levy fine is or issue -- fines or issue remedies, i would actually need to have our counsel's office maybe reach back out to you and give you further clarification

on exactly the breadth of our authorities. but if we find that it's happening, we can stop it for sure, and i'll get you more information on what other remedies may be available. >> susan -- [inaudible] >> can i have a follow up? >> john i'll come back to you i just want to let susan tell people what's coming. >> there's a letter -- [inaudible] >> go back to john. >> you're investigating whether this practice is continuing? in other words, it could be going on right now? >> in theory perhaps, but i think primarily we're looking at the period of time following the accident in philadelphia and what happened immediately thereafter.

>> but beyond what it is they're finding or looking for that's a whole different d., and i'd have to -- department, and i'd have to defer to my colleague, loretta lynch, on that.

there's a reasonable chance that the stars could align for some variation of the business tax reform proposal we put in our bill that we've supported the house provision to this point. the jury's out on the current bill and so we're still waiting on the senate to settle down on a final proposal, and we're evaluating the ideas that were put forward on tuesday but we're also concerned about some of the policy provisions in the bill as it was proposed on tuesday. i know the senate is working to try to clean some of that up, and until we see a final version of it, it's going to be hard for us to articulate a solid position on it. >> stephanie beasley from bloomberg bna. >> i just have one question.

i know the white house endorsed the five month extension that passed out of the house. it has not done so yet for the senate bill, and i'm curious, do you think the administration's more likely to support an extension if it leads to a long-term bill that's fully funded through tax overhaul or whatever other means, over the senate bill -- >> sort of a variation on the same question. you know, look, there's a lot going on right now including the fact that we as an administration are opposed to continuing sequestration and that's a big philosophical fight that could emerge over the next several weeks. and every time there is some effort to use a source that

could help on that issue use for some other purpose, including transportation, it creates a bit of a challenge because ultimately, there's a lot of government that needs to open back up and get going again. so there's just a lot that's in the chamber right now and what i would say is that we're looking carefully at the senate proposal. we're taking the proposal seriously as we said we would for months. we've been saying, congress, just tell us what you want to try to do, and we'll try to play a constructive role. so i'm not here to shoot it down whole, you know whole hog as we say in north carolina. i'm here to say that we have some problems. i understand they're trying to work through some of them, and we'll see where they land on the senate bill. but we have supported the house package because the house package is purposeful to the

extent that it's trying to get us to a place where we can get a longer-term bill done using a revenue source that doesn't put us in a compromising position on these other issues. >> bernie becker from "the hill," down at the other end. >> i'm going to ask another variation of that question. >> okay, great. [laughter] >> so, essentially, are you saying that the senate package would be there now, and it would be there at the end of the year -- >> no. >> -- and that the time would be right for tax reform to pay for this would be this fall? in a sense, that's saying you prefer the house -- [inaudible] >> what i'm saying is that the proposal we put forward two years ago and a revised version this year contains pro-growth business tax reform, and we still think that is the best way to solve the problem for transportation over six years. the political reality as we've learned from folks at least on

the house side and perhaps even on the senate is that at best the ripe window for that tax reform discussion is probably the end of the year. so that is, in fact why the white house has supported the five month extension to this point. what the senate is now doing is putting forth an idea to try to address the transportation issue now. and, again this bill is a thousand pages. it was dropped on tuesday. they are furiously working to address concerns that members of the senate have raised about it, and we don't have a final version of that to review right now. so i can't tell you right now that we're going to support or not support it. what i can tell you is that we're taking it seriously and we're trying to do what we said

we'd do which is to consider proposals that came out of congress. >> [inaudible] fair to say that you would accept the senate proposal, maybe there's a chance you would accept the senate proposal but it doesn't sound there's a way you would prefer the senate proposal to the house proposal. >> i think we would -- we're just going to have to see. i just don't think i have a way of answering the question that you're asking with absolute precision. what we want is to see the transportation system in this country be as strong as possible, and, you know, the policy that's contained in this bill is just as important as the length and the amount of growth in it, and we just have to look at the combination of those things once they've settled down and figure out whether we can live with it or not. >> before we let people do a second round, i want to see whether there's anybody who hasn't had one that wants one. if not we'll go to a second

round. michael lindenberger from dallas. >> thanks again. back to this investigation obviously, senator murphy asked you to look into it. >> uh-huh. >> what else led you to send these letters? did you look at the pricing? were there other pieces of evidence why these four airlines they're the only ones that fly there or did you see something in their prices that made them stand out? >> well, we've -- >> a question about laser attacks on planes. as you know, there were five planes targeted in new york earlier this week, and it seems that efforts to actually nab the people who are doing this kind of stuff aren't very successful. have i -- is that a misapprehension on my part, or is that a problem that you

really don't have a way to solve at the moment, the laser problem? >> well, this was -- earlier in a previous question you asked, i mentioned we need to look at the consumer side of some of this and what i mean by that is if somebody is purchasing a product that could be dangerous, you know, like a drone that can go, you know, 2500 feet in the air right now we don't have a great mechanism to backtrack and find out who the owner is. and we probably need one. in fact i'll take probably out of it. we need one. but finding out who has the authorities to do something like that is just the work that we're undertaking now. so -- and i'd say the same thing about these lasers, you know?

we're in an era where there are a lot of advantages to technology and a lot of great things that can happen as a result of having these unmanned aircraft in the air space. but it's got to be done safely. and we're going to look at every single thing we can do to make sure that our enforcement mechanisms have teeth to them. but part of that is being able to follow the bread crumbs back to who's using it. >> anybody who hasn't had one? otherwise we may make a record decision here and let you out early. >> my goodness. >> that would be clean living on your part. oh, no see -- [laughter] there we go. >> ap. joan. >> mr. secretary, one of those provisions, those safety provisions in the transportation bill is a doubling of the

maximum fine you could do against an automaker who is egregiously recalled to 70 million, but there's a caveat that you have to do a rulemaking first outlining exactly what the factors are that go into these fines. i know you asked for 300 million, some democrats think there should be no cap at all. what do you think of this 70 million? >> on the amount, um, it's not what we wanted, clearly. there's a little austin powers element to it. [laughter] and, but it's better than the status quo. and we'll just, again have to see where the senate lands on it. i continue to urge them towards the number we put in our bill. but we'll see. >> ellen ferguson, who hasn't

had one, from cq. >> i'm the transportation reporter, i'm just filling in. [laughter] you've worked very hard not to take decision either between the house or senate approach or to talk about some of the evolving pieces in the senate bill. i'm guessing i'm going to take another stab at a question somebody asked before. is there anything that the senate could put in that bill that would make it unacceptable to administration? >> well, we have previously expressed support for the house measure, so i want to make that clear. >> so is that a model that's -- [inaudible] >> it's a five month extension. and the only, you know, i think the carrot that made that acceptable to us was because we were advised that there was more time needed to try to get the longer term measure done. on the senate package, you know,

i think there are a host of issues. i mean, the pay-fors themselves are bitter pills for some stakeholders including many in the labor community, for instance and others. and, you know, that's under review. that's something that we're trying to look at. the policy provisions and safety provisions are other parts of the bill that again, it's not just us, it's also members of the senate that are raising concerns about these things. be and i know they're actively negotiating out. but we just haven't seen the results of that negotiation yet. so it's impossible for me to say where we would actually come out on this bill. but, you know again, we're trying to take it seriously, and we're trying to nudge things in a direction, a constructive direction. but we'll have to just see. >> [inaudible] >> short follow-up question.

you mentioned austin powers a little while ago in response to another question. on the house bill where they're saying we'll do five months and then we'll have this grand solution given how congress functions and particularly some of ups and downs that the house has gone through wouldn't that be a bit like if you bet on that bill and that approach, like going to the casinos? because you have no idea, i mean the odds of the house being able to come together on something and then to sell it to the senate are very high. >> well, you know. >> [inaudible] that response. >> yeah, i'm trying to figure out how to do that. [laughter] the guy the guy who's really holding cards on the house side -- i'm trying to work with your analogy -- is paul ryan.

and he's made some very strong public statements that are supportive of the type of pay-for that we've been proposing all along. and one has to assume that he's got the backing of his leadership and of other members of the house. and, you know, if you're sizing this issue up or really any issue, the house is where, you know, you're going to have a tougher time on any generic issue in the house than the senate. so the feeling is if we can get the house positioned to move, we can really get something done. now, that doesn't mean that the effort that's underway now couldn't happen in some way and that's why we're taking that seriously. but until, until it settles down into something that we feel hike

is congealed -- like is congealed, we're going to continue watching and go from there. >> last question bart. >> i think i can get a crisp answer. >> all right. >> do you have anything new to announce on either the gulf carrier inquiry the norwegian inquiry or consumer rule iii's advance? >> no. >> thanks for doing this, mr. secretary. >> thank you, appreciate it. >> nice to see you again. >> absolutely. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> with current funding set to

expire at the end of the month the senate gavels in today to meet about authorizing trade programs for the next six years. votes on amendments scheduled for 3:00 et. one is on a measure to repeal the health care law. another two authorize the import--- export-import bank. you can watch it live on c-span2. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings and news conferences. every morning "washington journal" is life with elected officials, policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook or twitter. brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

>> one day after announcing his campaign, he traveled to new hampshire where he held a town hall meeting. they spoke about energy policy and investment in defense, among other topics. this is an hour. >> ok. mr. kasich: doug was the speaker of the house, but you know who the real speaker of the house is stella. i had ruth and stella meet me outside and guy was standing next to them. i did not have time for doug. they are great people. i can tell you a lot of stories. let me get right to it. i'm thrilled to be traveling with john.

we get in the car -- we talk about every policy and world affairs -- it is so much fun. he is so smart. he is smarter than i am. how about one more round of applause? so i don't think that you have heard this before, speaker. ruth, i will think you have heard this either. i grew up in a little town outside of pittsburgh called the key's rocks -- mckee's rocks. my mother lived with us and she spoke broken and limited english. my mother -- she was very opinionated. not like me. i am shy and she was opinionated. a terrific woman. she was not educated, because that is not what they did.

it is one thing i think about from time to time, a what my mother could have been. there were not any republicans in that town -- they were all democrats. but they were reagan democrats. god-fearing, common sense. they are the ones who did all the work. they worked in the steel mills. there was one guy who lived on our street that more a white shirt. i never saw a white shirt, it was all blue-collar. i left that town after high school and i went to ohio state. a small school in the midwest. i was there for about one month i got very concerned about some things. i decided that i needed to have a meeting with the president of the university. my uncle said, you start at the top. i kept calling and they would not let me in.

i went in to see the president of the university and he was a very impressive guy. tall with a baritone voice and a beautiful office. beautiful rugs desk, furniture. he says to me, what is on your mind? i tell him. i say, i have been here at ohio state for 30 days and i am undecided as to what i want to be but when i look at your office and assistant -- maybe this is the job for me. what exactly do you do? he told me about his fundraising. that is what presidents do. academics. he said tomorrow i will fly to washington and have a meeting with president nixon. i said, there are a number of things i would like to talk with him about, could i go with you? he said, no. i said, if i go back to my dorm room and write a letter, would you give it to the president? the man had never seen me before

and said, i guess i could do that. i went back to my dorm room and i sketched out a letter to the president. i signed it, sincerely john kasich. if you would like to discuss this, let me know. i will come see you. a couple weeks later, i went to my mailbox and there is a letter from the white house. pretty cool. i open it up and i call home. my mother answers the phone. i said mom, the president of united states would like to have a meeting with me in the oval office. my mother is shouting, honey pick up the phone, there is something wrong with johnny. true story. [laughter] so, i go home. this meeting will be in december. they get me a ticket. they drive me to the airport.

get out of the car and my mother winds the window down and says when you get out there they will not let you win but don't worry about it. i get on the plane and i flew down and go through the gate. i am sitting right outside the oval office on this little city -- settee. the guy says you will get five minutes alone with the president of united states. what you think? you think that is pretty good? i'm thinking i have a new jacket, a new shirt, a new tie -- i didn't come here for five lousy minutes. [laughter] they open up the door and there is the oval office. mr. president, this is john kasich. i walk in and we shake hands. they take a few pictures and i spend 20 minutes alone with the president of the united states as an 18-year-old first-quarter

freshman. the bad news is, i spent 18 years in congress and if you add up all the time i spent in the oval office, i peraaked out at the end -- age of 18. [laughter] it has been the story of my life. i am grateful to the lord that i have had opportunities and blessings. as i said yesterday, i am a florida man -- flawed man. iran for the state senate in a tough -- i ran for the state senate in a tough year. i relied on ladies such as this and this. no ax to grind. the weekend before the election they said i was a nice young man but i would get slaughtered. i ended up winning the election.

i went to the state senate and i learned how to work for the other party. i was a republican and the house was democrat. i know it is more important to pursue policy than politics. i was 26 and i spent four years. on election night my mother and father were there and they said, johnny, what are you doing now? iran for congress four years later and i ran with reagan. i met reagan in 1976. i was a very big reagan i. -- guy. i knew reagan and worked directly with him at that convention. how could you not be inspired by ronald reagan? i know them not as ronald reagan from the history books because i had a chance to be with him. i ran with the reagan agenda. lower taxes -- no one wanted to appear with him because the economy was

terrible. i got to spend more time with him. i was the only republican that year to defeat an incumbent democrat in america. i go to washington. first six years i served on the defense committee. my first foray, i was one of the people who found the hammers and the screwdrivers that cost tens of thousands of dollars. do you are member that thing? -- do you remember that thing? i took these hammers and screwdrivers a retiring colonel gave me. my chairman was a guy who had his leg blown off in world war ii. he was a great man and a great democrat. i go down there and i said, i have this stuff. a wrench and hammer and screwdriver. he looks at it and then says, your mama don't have anyone like you at home, does she?

this was a whole different change. we reformed that process. improved it. many more miles to go now, so i was on defense for 18 years. it was incredible because i served with some of the greatest minds. i actually got to sit across the table from barry goldwater. from john tower. these were like, wow. incredible people. i learned a lot in his 18 years. six years in got on the budget committee and i wrote my first budget in 1989. there was a k-6 budget -- kasich budget, a bush budget, and devoted my budget was 435 no and six yes. so i went back, my stock was depressed because they wrote this budget with m