>> in about 15 minutes on c-span we'll take you live to a discussion on the protests in iran and what they might mean for the future of that country and the region. coming up at 12:30 eastern from the washington institute for near east policy. we'll have it live once it gets underway. until then, some of this morning's "washington journal." host: and with the and corporation, principal researcher for the corporation and with a study that takes a look at infrastructure spending that just came out. not everything is broken. the future of u.s. transportation and water infrastructure, funding and finance.

good morning. gord: guest: good morning. host: what are you saying everything is not broken twh comes to infrastructure spending? guest: we're certainly not saying there aren't problems, there are large problems but to say everything is not broken, we're trying to make point the importance of setting priorities and to make sure we're not just going into full blown crisis mode, spending money on whatever happens to come along but instead getting congress and the administration to focus on what's needed most. host: with that in mind, how does the government approach typical infrastructure spending then? guest: it happens in different ways and i think one of the important elements of any debate that's going to emerge the next several months is getting into the particulars of how the government functions in different areas of infrastructure. the states as we were just listening about have the primary responsibility for the transportation program, the

money comes from -- substantial fund of money come from the federal government. from water utilities and local governments again are making the primary decisions. but the federal government does make some choices about providing tax breaks for municipal bonds. it provides low interest loans for state and local governments to do various projects, and it funds such agencies as the u.s. army corps of engineers, do water projects, the bureau of reclamation as well as the department of transportation and other agencies. host: when you hear other -- we started this segment today starting -- talk to the american society of civil engineers and they put out report card, d's and c's and you say even though there are concerns, there could be a better way the government analyzes how it uses money, particularly for our infrastructure?

guest: absolutely. and i think the american society of civil engineers has done a great public service in bringing this issue to light. t that is not enough to then drive the policy discussion that we think needs to happen and for the particular case of transportation funding, there has been no change in the federal gas tax that funds the federal share of highway spend ing since 1993. that represents a real political impasse that's going to need to be addressed. host: our expert will be here to ask questions to. -8001 and s, 202-748 you can tweet your comments at

c-spanwj. let's specifically look at roads. how could the federal government do a better job analyzing what projects the fund and the most efficient use of that money? also for republicans 2-748-8000 and independents, 202-748-8002. and you look at roads and it's an opportunity for transportation and the federal government has taken a leadership role and doesn't mean it's the primary funder but it can play a leadership and intellectual role, if you will, in really encouraging a transformation and could be one area the federal government focuses on. our highway system was built -- the beginning of it was in the 1950's. the idea was to connect the nation. we needed a national network.

we still need that. this network is aging. there's much that still could be done in the buildout, particularly the urban areas where congestion is greatest, but we have this chance now to really do it right in terms of the way we're going to fix and modernize the whole system. host: i think some people would say the highways are always being built. does the federal government account the lifespan of a project it funds? guest: the federal government in the case of transportation is passing that money through to the states and the original arrangement with the states and the highway act in 1956 was 90% federal funding for the capital spending, 10% by the states and the states are responsible largely for the operation and maintenance. the federal government doesn't put much into that. so the federal government,

though, does have an opportunity to place some conditions on the way states spend the money and can certainly, more importantly, provide some incentive for moving into the next generation. host: we heard our last guest talk about the federal government when it offers money it largely gives it to the states, some oversight involved. is more oversight needed when federal money is granted? guest: i'm not advocating for more oversight but certainly more priorities setting when it comes to the federal spending. and i'm speaking specifically not about the projects that are largely within an individual state supporter but i'm thinking more about the regional, national scale projects that really would have an impact on economic growth. that's where the federal government should really be stepping up and making some judgments about where the investments should go. host: for instance?

guest: most countries view their urban transit systems of natural aspect, that would be getting our subway systems in major cities in good operating order is something that's going to benefit the country as a whole. bottlenecks major around port up and down the east coast, around the long beach area in california. there are many opportunities where national benefits could be achieved through a focus on a regional scale projects that really go beyond the capacities of individual states. there's no reason for the federal government to be micromanaging state priorities. st: 202-748-8001 for 202-748-8002 for independents and

202-748-8000 for democrats. and we talk about partnerships putting up $200 billion and asking for another $800 billion. how has that model worked in states and other areas of the country? guest: we're still waiting for details on exactly what the administration model would be so i hesitate to make any strong judgments on exactly what they're doing. there is precedence for the federal government sharing, putting out -- initiating programs where there's cost sharing between states or with the states and local governments, and you know that's certainly an opportunity there. ut host: as far as when it comes to oversight we heard our

previous guest talk about whether one desire of this administration to change funding but also to change the length of oversight or at least reduce the amount of time. on its face, does that cause you concern or is there a case be made that could work guest: the whole idea of pinning project delays on regulation or regulatory oversight is somewhat misplaced. there are often reasons why large projects are controversial, there are multiple interests in play. also, the underlying regulations go to the clean water act, clean air act, and pieces of legislation with blood public support that have been in place since the 1970's. but whenever we're talking about procedures and oversight, we need to kind of keep the discussion somewhat separate from the underlying intent of what the regulations are and

the actual way some of these regulations are implemented and there's no doubt in my mind the federal government could be much more efficient in the way it applies it to oversight when there are multiple agencies involved and would make the whole process much more streamlined in that sense without circumventing public comment, without circumventing the law and standards. host: the previous guest talked about the same thing as far as consolidating the various agencies. how many agencies usually get involved in a typical infrastructure project? guest: it can be as many as four or five or six federal agencies. for example, years ago there fay big issue about the delta in california and the

endangered species act was in play and brought in the fish and wildlife service, the army corps of engineer had responsibilities for water management in the san francisco bay that brought in the u.s. army corps of engineers and bureau of reclamation had water supply responsibilities and brought in the bureau of reclamation and the environmental protection agency was concerned about salinity standards and the e.p.a. was involved. and that was just at the federal level. there were state agencies as well. so it can get for large-scale ojects, these can be complicated administrative procedural projects and challenges. host: can that consolidation be done in keeping levels of safety and those things you have to consider as well? guest: it certainly can be done and we have examples of where it can be done well. again, with strong federal leadership about what the intent is to make sure that laws are being honored, that

the public is being heard. this is doable. it's not impossible. but there needs to be a consensus and an undergo of what that should look like going in and not making it up as we go along. host: here's the report, not everything is broken, the future of u.s. transportation and water infrastructure funding and other topics in there if you want to find it on the website, you can go to the rand website and find it there, our guest from the rand corporation, our first call comes from katherine from ohio. you're on. go ahead. caller: and my question is this, i live in cincinnati, west of cincinnati. we do not have a adequate bus system. we have no subway and no trains. before i would allow one cent of my taxes to give a better train or subway or bus to somebody else, i want that

here. we have trains on the west coast and on the east coast. we have zero in cincinnati. nd you can't give me a legitimate reason my taxes should support a better train from boston to washington, d.c. i do not and will not fund theirs. want it for me and all of us millions of taxpayers in the midwest who get nothing, and we're always told wait in line, we've waited long enough. we have a road system -- i've been living on the road that i'm on for over 35 years and it's never been resurfaced. before i would give anybody anything, i want some of the tax dollars spent on me as a ohioan. host: thank you so much. guest: i appreciate that

question and i think you raise several points. one, certainly the allocation of highway dollars through the federal highway program is apportioned to all states. and that was a formula that was set by congress to take into account population and takes into account land area. so the highway program and then the way those fund are spent are really up to the states, not the federal government within the boundaries of your state. the rail system and the question about rail and the federal role is one that i think is ripe for public discussion and i think you raise a totally legitimate point about whether taxpayers all across the country should be supporting individual projects or projects that benefit one region over

another. this is also this question of regional equity should be squarely on the table in a discussion about whether about r the u.s. wants a world-class rail system. that is the question and the next question is how to deliver on that anyway that is fair and equitable across the country. host: when it comes to gas taxes and the formula, you say if the state generates more tax, do they get more federal funding back for infrastructure? guest: not necessarily. your last guest probably knows a lot more about that topic that i large, there is not a one to one correspondence between what a state puts into the gas tax and what it is getting out. host: ruth is in georgia, independent line. i think that all of

america should pay for infrastructure, not just gas. that is not right. everybody benefits from it. guest: this is an interesting question. the federal gas tax was put in place as something of a surrogate for a toll or user fee. it was decided that was going to be the fairest way. >> all of this available on c-span.org, washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern every day. we now go to the washington ali -- washington institute for near east policy. story we would be focusing on would be the story, the story of protests, the mystic unrest -- domestic unrest