tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN November 14, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
elected as the next president of the united states. and the nation elect's republican-controlled u.s. house and senate. followed the tradition of government on c-span. we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand on c-span.org. or listen on our free c-span radio app. >> homeland security second jay johnson, state and local government officials, and private industry representatives will be talking about the conditions of u.s. infrastructure and the need for its upkeep and modernization. president-elect trump has said he wants to make infrastructure spending a top priority in his administration. secretary johnson should be arriving shortly. live coverage here on c-span.
>> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. afternoon. sorry to break up the conversation. my name's josh eastright i'm the head of bloomberg government. on behalf of my colleagues from across bloomberg, whether it be bloomberg news, bloomberg intelligence, or us here at bloomberg government, i'd like to welcome you to the kickoff of bloomberg next, which is a week of briefings, conversations, and
events we'll be hosting, talking a lot about foot ture of work and technology, innovation, law, and government. and what -- we couldn't pick a better time to talk about any of those topics give the fact that we have a new administration and new congress coming to town in just a matter of weeks. those of you who don't know us, bloomberg government is all about providing washington professionals with the tools and information that they need to be successful in their work. and with infrastructure expected to be one of the very first things the new administration, new congress take a look at, we couldn't pick a better topic to kick off the bloomberg next series. and once the new administration and congress come to town, we at bloomberg government will be tracking all of it whether it is the bills moving through congress, the rules moving through the agencies, the lobbying dollars, or the contracts moving through all the different agencies. so for today we've got a really exciting lineup of panelists. panels and speakers.
i do want to say a word of thanks to all of our speakers and moderators and panelists of for taking time out to join us today. i'd also like to take a moment to acknowledge our partner in today's events, building america's future, in particular my friend and neighbor on this floor, marshall hale, building america's future and marsha have been great partners to us as well as -- she's right there behind me. they have been great partners. [applause] josh: as well as sitting about five feet from where i sit. i get to see a lot of her. with that i do want to introduce our first session today. it's my real pleasure to welcome to bloomberg and bloomberg government the secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson. he will be having a conversation with my colleague from bloomberg news,. obviously with infrastructure being such a big topic, the security of infrastructure is something that we have to be thinking about. i can't think of anybody better
to have that conversation and kick today's event off than the secretary. mr. secretary, it's all yours. welcome. [applause] secretary johnson: good afternoon. >> thank you, secretary, for joining us today. we're very excited to have you here at bloomberg. i wanted to start off first with a question and then we'll open it up to audience as well to make this interactive. i wanted to ask in the run-up to last week's election there was a lot of concerns around cybersecurity. i know d.h.s. was in touch with a lot of states and had been offering cybersystems. what you saw to that day, any intrusions, report you can give us after so much concerns leading up to that
time? secretary johnson: sure. t me begin by addressing the elephant in the room. being nonresponsive to your question at least initially. the elephant in the room being the transition that we're in. i have been through -- this is my third transition i have been through. i have been part of the outgoing team in 2000. part of the incoming team in 2008, and now part of the outgoing team again in 2016. i can state with high confidence this will be my last transition. i very much believe in the citizen-public servant model. i look forward to returning to public life in 67 days. and there are two things that i would like to point out. one, any time there's a transition there's lots of uncertainty, anxiety, questions about the direction the new
administration will take the government. will they take the government to the extreme left or the extreme right? or rye -- try to steer a middle course. who will lead? who will be part of the transition? who will be in the cabinet? all the speculation. there are two thoughts. one, our government is and has been -- this has been true since the day the constitution was issued, our government is a system of checks and balances. we're not a monarchy. we're not even a parliamentary form of government where the prime minister is part of the legislative branch. we have three co-equal branches of government that serve as a check on one another. so that when a new administration comes in, if they have an agenda to take policy to an extreme left or extreme
right, there are other institutions of government that serve as a check on going too fast, too far in any one direction. so that the new administration within the executive branch must inevitably operate within certain parameters. it's called compromise. checks and balances. that's number one. number two, it's important to remember that something in of the f probably 90% day-to-day work of government proceeds unaffected by who the president is and who the administration is. the day-to-day work of government goes on. at the gs-13 level, the s.e.s. level, even certainly within our military community, our men and member -- women protecting our ports, the united states coast
guard, our men and women deployed overseas in uniform. our people in homeland security, the 226,000 people in homeland security. only a fraction of 1% of the department of homeland security are political appointees. the rest of government goes on day-to-day. ow, one of the things that i hope and expect will be accepted as pretty much doctrine by the next administration, whoever forms this next administration, will be the importance of infrastructure, infrastructure investment and infrastructure security. we have heard a lot from the president-elect about investments in infrastructure, which is a good thing. but the security of infrastructure, the security of critical infrastructure is something that i hope and expect will be accepted as gospel, as accept doctrine in the new
administration and the interrelatedness between it between infrastructure protection and cybersecurity. because there is an increasing interrelatedness between physical infrastructure and cyberspace, cybersecurity. it's critical that the two be seen hand in glove. to get to your question, election infrastructure. in the run-up to the election beginning in august i made a very public and private appeal local of state and election systems to seek our help when it comes to cybersecurity. not because we had some very real concerns about the cybersecurity around the election infrastructure, because very little of it actually exists on the internet, but because we wanted to make sure
that all of these systems -- there are some 9,000 jurisdictions across the country -- that are involved in our national elections were thinking about this and were doing the basic things they should do to protect themselves. we had outreach from something like 48 states, which i was very pleased about. and we had something like 36 or 38 states ask for and accept our cybersecurity assistance in the run-up to november 8. we identified some vulnerabilities that i would characterize as not significant, not earth shattering, and in connection with the election we did not see anything that i would characterize as significant. there were minor incidents here and there of the type that you would normally expect, but
nothing significant. as everyone here knows, i believe, in the run-up to the lection, we did declassify and very explicitly accuse the russian government on october 7 of meddling in our political process, essentially. the director of national intelligence and i made that public statement on friday, october 7. and we attributed to the russian government certain hacking that was going on, but we drew a distinction then between what we could say with confidence about the hacking of various political figures and political institutions versus the election infrastructure itself. and we expressed then and continue to express a great deal of confidence around the
election infrastructure, but we encourage states to always do what they can to protect their own cyberspace. nafeesa: do you think we'll see a bones there the administration to russia by january or before january? secretary johnson: i couldn't say. nafeesa: i wanted to get to transition and you beat me to t to wrap up on election infrastructure. you have spoken, i heard you, over the years speak about perhaps making it part of critical infrastructure election systems. i wanted to see where that discussion is. what congress -- how that would happen. secretary johnson: i said last summer that we would not designate or determine that the election's infrastructure was part of critical infrastructure without a close collaboration with the state officials that
run the process. i said that in august and that continues to be my view. we put it aside for the election because we wanted to, without the distraction of the issue of whether or not they should be considered critical infrastructure. we wanted to encourage states to come forward and seek our assistance, and they did. and it's something that i will continue to discuss with secretaries of state out there and will reach a -- an assessment at some point, but not without close consultation with them. nafeesa: getting back to the transition. i would love to hear from you more what your role is, what the process is like, what you'll be passing on to your success soar. what's currently going on right now. secretary johnson: at some point
a transition team will show up at the department of homeland security and they'll be very interested in what we do, what our missions are, where we're, what are the existing problems and so forth. pretty much like i did eight years ago when i showed up at the door of the pentagon as part of the department of defense ncoming transition team. it took an interesting turn when the secretary of defense was announced was going to stay, so we were like what are we doing? we did have a role to make assessments on policy direction. at some point the transition team will show up and they'll meet with various of our component yent leaders. i will sit down with the transition team. i'm quite sure. -- quite sure to debrief them on everything that i see, recommendations going forward. who are are -- here are the
things i think they need to focus on. and i know our leadership team will do the same thing. i it's safe to say that -- have given this considerable thought, what i say to an incoming transition team is irrespective of who won the election. it's going to be pretty much the same. here's what i think we have achieved and here's what you need to focus on. work's still in progress. and i'm proud of the fact that we have done a lot in the last three years to improve basically how the department, as a department, does business. we have done a lot for management reform through my unity of effort initiative, to improve our acquisition process, budget making process, a joint requirements council for acquisition.
we raised morale this year, which was a big, big project of mine across this 22 component department. it wasn't easy. we had the largest increase in levels of morale of any cabinet department our size this year. and so i feel as though we'll be leaving the department as a department better than we found it. we do have challenges that remain. i will point those out to the team and to my eventually -- eventual successor, and it's important that we do this in a transparent, collegial way for the men and women in my department that we serve and support. and for the american public that we serve. so i have told my people that they should be transparent. they should be collegial. and work in an orderly transition. that's very much the direction the president wants us to go over the next 67 days. nafeesa: and --
secretary johnson: if coy add one more point. you asked what's your advice for a transition team. one of my models for management significant no decision without consulting all the relevant players across all the components of d.h.s. don't make decisions in a vacuum. ensure that you have all points of view. and that you encourage people to express those points of view to you. that's how healthy government policymaking and decisionmaking should occur. so i hope that the next administration, the next secretary of homeland security encourages a collaborative, open environment in which they are included and to which you make decisions. nafeesa: are there any concerns in terms of the transition as you are passing the baton working with say a team where
the next administration coming had many ampaign that differences and criticisms of prom? how will you be able to smooth that out? secretary johnson: i take the long view as a student of history about these things. there was a lot of criticism by the incumbent of his predecessor. and there was criticism by his predecessor of his predecessor. and if you observed president obama the and the first lady with president bush 43 and mrs. bush at the dedication of the african-american museum in september, they -- you could see the warmth between them. though eight years ago the rhetoric was pretty sharp. and so i tend to take the long view on these things. and believe that ultimately -- i
tend to see the best in everybody. and ultimately those of us who come to washington to serve do so because we're interested in the best interest of the country . i believe that it's important that the next administration rely upon advice from those across the spectrum of ideology and make the best, healthiest decisions for the country, for homeland security, for the public. by and large that's how government works day-to-day. nafeesa: since we're talking about critical infrastructure, i'm wondering what are some of the threats, things you think the next administration should focus on that maybe you didn't get to or that you would like to continue to see them make as a priority? secretary johnson: well, first from -- i'm you
going to read to you a summary from our national terrorism advisory system bulletin that we're going to issue tomorrow. yes, i'm making news. making news. we went to a new system in december where we now issue in addition to alerts, we issue bulletins which have a six-month expiration to them. the current one expires tomorrow. so we're issuing a new one tomorrow. which is largely -- says largely the same as the previous one. this is something that the next administration will have to focus on. since the last bulletin issued in june, 2016, don't take a picture of me with my glasses on, basic assessment of the global threat environment has not changed.
we remain concerned about home-grown violent extremists who could strike the homeland with little or no notice. events since the last bulletin reinforce this. accordingly, increased public vigilance and awareness continue to be of utmost importance. this was, for example, a critical component of the swift response to the september terrorist attacks -- september terrorist acts in new york city and new jersey. referring to the events of september 17 to 19. the other point i'd make in response to your question is, what i alluded to earlier, i think it's critical that we more closely align the cybersecurity mission with the protection of critical infrastructure mission because the two themselves have to come -- have become more closely aligned.
that's why we're seeking from congress the authority to reorganize nppd. nafeesa: which is? secretary johnson: the national protection programs direct rat. -- directorate. it's cumbersome to say t we want to change that into a leaner, meaner cyberand infrastructure protection agency. we need an agency of our government responsible for cybersecurity and for critical infrastructure. infrastructure protection. we have been asking congress to give us the authority to reorganize nppd into the cyberand infrastructure protection agency with those two missions closely aligned hand in glove. nafeesa: i think we can now start opening the floor up to questions. please keep your questions as questions and brief. if you can say your name and identify which organization you're with, we'll have some mikes floating around. tart here.
>> good afternoon, mr. secretary. thank you for being here. i'm peter with pizer associates in washington. i'm interested building on the critical infrastructure comment you made, the congress and others seem more interested in having the department focusing on urban transport networks and amtrak and potential targets like that. i'm wondering what you think the appropriate role for d.h.s. and the rest of the federal establishment is in cooperating with state and local government on protecting, particularly urban transport networks? secretary johnson: as a general matter, in the current global threat environment, i think we need to work more closely -- we at the federal level need to work more closely with state and local governments, state and local law enforcement through
our grand making programs such as -- i have another thing here in my pocket. such as this one, security starts here. connect, plan, train, and report. this is something that assistant secretary has been a big promoter of. homeland security starts with hometown security. in the current environment we say that we have to be vigilant when it comes to public events and public places. that is not meant to refer exclusively to just urban areas, urban transit centers, but we're in an environment where you have to be concerned about new york city, major metropolitan areas,
l.a., chicago, but also places like orlando, chattanooga, garland city, texas. and that makes for a more complicated homeland security environment. hometown security environment. in that environment i have been a big proponent of active are r training exercises grants. as hing as many communities . can and that we not focus on one type of infrastructure to the exclusion of others. that we not focus on this particular transit location to the exclusion of others. it we often want and need -- we often want and need focus of our efforts, in this environment we have to be concerned -- we have to encourage medium size police
forces as well as the large ones o focus on this, to focus on multijurisdictional, multidiscipline responses and training, and what the private sector -- with the private sector as well. because of the nature of the current threat we have to work and we have been working, i think, more closely with private security experts, private security forces, sharing information with private security, private infrastructure protection, but not to the exclusion of any one community or any one segment of nfrastructure. >> secretary johnson, i'm a reporter with congressional quarterly. i wanted to ask you, during the course of this administration, 2.5 million undocumented immigrants have been deported. as the transition team comes in,
what would your advice be about how much that effort needed to it deport as many people over a period of one year, what would it take? more people? more money? what would your advice be? nafeesa: to add to that that president trump said he would immediately deport three million people. secretary johnson: when we talk about -- first of all when we talk about a deportation force, we actually already have a deportation force, called e.r.o., enforcement and removal operations part of i.c.e. when we talk about deporting the criminals, that's actually our current policy. our current priorities are public safety and border security. apprehending those who are convicted criminals and those -- removing those who are apprehended at the border for
purposes of border security. we have focused increasingly so on public safety and border security since the priorities i issued in november, 2014. -- i have said to our enforcement and removal work force, focus more on the criminals. focus more on threats to public safety. they have actually responded. so we have seen fewer deportations, but a higher percentage of those removed from the interior are convicted criminals. and that's good for public safety. because i have asked our removal force to focus more on threats to public safety and function more like a law enforcement force, we're also changing their pay scale so it aligns more closely with the law enforcement pay scale. and that's something that i hope the next administration will continue to move in the direction toward. but in general we are focused on
threats to public safety, and the numbers and statistics reflect that. you now, -- now, when you say -- when we say we're going to deport three million people, think about that. that's the equivalent of the population of the city of chicago. hat's a lot of people. anything you do of a magnitude, you have to get funding from congress. you have to get congress to go along. but right now we're focused on threats to public safety. and we have been for the last two years. more specifically. nafeesa: i think we have -- secretary johnson: sorry? >> i was wondering if the scaling up of the operation to be able to do what you have done over a six-year period in just one year would that have -- secretary johnson: we're currently budgeted to if he cuss
on threats to public safety. and that's where i believe the focus needs to continue for the safety of the american people. nafeesa: time nor one quick question. if there is anyone else. of the rian.org, part resiliency to come back with something is redundancy. how much effort do you take looking at places where the single point failure and we need a little redundancy so we can come back, whether natural disaster or terrorist incident takes place? secretary johnson: assessing, minimizing single points of failure is basic, whether you are talking about cybersecurity, protection of critical infrastructure, aviation .ecurity, rail safety any kind of technology.
minimizing single points of failure, creating redundancy is pretty basic. homeland essment of security, i use that in the broad sense, i want to know there are redundancies built efficient, useful redundancies, built into any system that we have. our reassured that in election infrastructure, i would ask questions, suppose this fails, what do you got to back that up, there are redundiancies -- there were redundiancies built into election night reporting, for example. if your email systems fails, you pick up the telephone. if the email and telephone fails, then you can write it on a piece of paper and send it in the nearest uber.
but there are numerous redundiancies built into things like election night reporting and numerous other things, that's the best establishment. nafeesa: where might we see you after january 20? secretary johnson: you know, i'm not -- i can't say publicly, but i will say that i look forward being a private citizen again. and anonymous private citizen. i'll share one personal anecdote. one of the people i greatly admire in public service was cyrus vance. secretary of state. he was a new york lawyer. i'm a new york lawyer, fundamentally. and one day i was riding the subway and for those of you who are rail safety specialists here, i love trains. i love the rails. i have ridden, i was just saying to somebody, i have ridden every
single new york city subway line except the franklin avenue shuttle. one day i was riding the subway in new york and in the last car and i looked over and hunched over a newspaper in a beaten up trench coat all by himself, nobody noticing him, was cyrus vance, former secretary of state. i want to be cyrus vance in 67 days. nafeesa: i would like to thank you for your service, jiang thank you for joining us today. my colleague, marshall hale, president of the building america's future will come up next or four next panel. please join me in thanking secretary johnson today. [applause]
this time as we're getting ready to make lots of decisions we hope on this subject. i'm marshall hale of building america's future. and we're so happy to co-sponsor this with bloomberg government. they have been a great partner for us on many events. we hope to do that. i'm going to ask a few questions and then i'd really like for the audience to get into this. if you'll start thinking about what you might want to ask our panel of great people who know a lot about this subject. we'llcome to you in a little while. viously -- we'll come to you in a little while. obviously this comes in the context of the rather earth shaking election we had last week. both candidates talked about improving infrastructure. and the president-elect since having been elected has also talked about it. i think our challenge is to find the way to go forward and to
find common ground. it's one of the subjects i think can provide some common ground, and i think we on the stage will do our best to try to help that. and hopefully come up with some great ideas today. i think what we need to do is figure out what our priorities are. what role technology will play. and where we're going to find the money to do it. we'd like to discuss some of that today. n a side note governor rendell had to cancel this morning because he lost his voice almost completely. i think that's symbolic of something but i'm not quite sure what. but trust me, he will be out there. once his voice comes back he will continue to be very vocal on this subject because it's something he cared about ever since he was mayor of philadelphia oh so many years ago. we will have him back for
another program at some point. ith that i'd like to start first introduce our panel. first of all we have mayor mitt core net from oklahoma city, republican mayor of oklahoma city. but he's also the president of the u.s. conference of mayors. an organization near and dear to my heart. mayor muriel bowser of the district of columbia, most of us are your constituents or almost your constituents. and so we're very excited about hearing what you have to say today. damon silver, who is director of at theof special counsel afl-ci. and ed mortgagey mer at the u.s. chamber of commerce. you can see we have a very good bipartisan split here today. and we would really like to have a real conversation. this is -- this is, we hope,
going to be a big issue. let me-mayor cornet, let me go to you first. as president of the u.s. conference of mayors, can you talk to us about what the conference priorities and what meyers priorities are going forward? what do you need, what do you care most about? what's worked? mayor cornet: our infrastructure needs are broad. it's not only our nation's highways but the streets that our citizens drive on every day. it is the matter infrastructure that they rely on, it is the bridges that have some level of ignature significant rebear. -- repair. let me give you an anecdote or two that might help you understand the story and problem that's out there. we have a large interstate that goes right through the heart of oklahoma city. we have three, actually. but the one i'm going to refer to is interstate 40, goes from california to north carolina nfpblgt as it goes through
oklahoma city, it was designed as an elevated highway for 4 1/2 miles. it was a bridge as it went through the downtown portion of our city. 1970's traffic increase, 1980 traffic increases, along about 1990 the department of transportation realizes that was a design flaw, needs to be brought to grade. so they tried to figure out what to do about this situation of a major artery with a bridge that is not as stable as it needed to be. so they come up with the idea of relocating the interstate highway just a few blocks to the south and then replacing that corridor where interstate 40 had been with an at-grade boulevard. so the city gains a street out of it. in 1998 i was a city hall television reporter covering the city council meeting as the council determined the route for the new interstate 40 alignment. well, fast forward in 2012 i cut
the ribbon for that 4 1/2-mile stretch that had finally been relocated some 14 years later. and that at-grade boulevard is under construction now and unless i run for a fifth term, someone else will cut the ribbon for that. one other issue on the funding side, in 2007 we want to our citizens to pass a bond issue, which is in oklahoma how we pay for road reconstruction and improvements and build police station and other civic needs. we estimated to the voters that by 2014 we would be holding a new bond issue, so this was expected to be seven years in length. soon after that our state legislature passed a law that artificially suppressed the increase of property prices, housing, taxation values. and the long story short is, we're going to be holding that bond issue election next summer, three years after it was
originally scheduled. so that is a quan at this final three years of deferred maintenance in one city that has been allowed to exist. and our streets are suffering from t our citizens are upset about it. and they don't really understand, they expect someone else to take care of these projects. going forward mayors are looking for a federal government who will invest in r&d. we have got to have technological improvements. we have to get more for less. occasionally we get more on some advancement, but usually it's more for more. the cost never seems to go down. we have to find public-private partnerships that makes sense for all involved, and we have to make sure that the tax exempt status stays in place in our municipal bonds. you cannot say you're for infrastructure as a politician but you want to remove that tax exempt status from local governments who rely on it to inch out every dollar we can to ut projects to work.
marcia: mayor bowser, as many of us are your constituents, can you talk to us what are the priorities of the district when it comes to infrastructure, what you think your greatest gains and challenges are, and what impact this new administration may have on the city? mayor bowser: sure. i think for us it's really simple. our most important infrastructure initiative, project, funding priority is metro. for our region, for the district, for washington, d.c., we're about 670,000 people, we're going to grow to 100,000 people in the very near future. our region with d.c., maryland, and virginia, we're four million. one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the contry. and we have a metro system that needs a lot of tender loving care. and it needs serious thought
about how we change its future from a safety, reliability, and a funding source. the federal government has a unique opportunity to be a partner in that change for metro. we carry, the metro system carry the federal work force from the suburbs in maryland and virginia and all over washington, d.c., to jobs all across this region. and so i think we have an opportunity to work with a new administration and a new congress on the federal government really being involved in paying its fair share of how we make the nation, really when you're washington, d.c., i haven't talked about the millions of people that come to the nation's capital from around the country and around the world, and making sure we have a world class metro system. it has to be, i think, a common ground that we can find with a new administration. marcia: that's so important.
metro when i first moved here was just such a spectacular way to get around town. and we just need to really bring that back. mayor bowser: i didn't talk to you specifically all the things that we in particular in washington, d.c., are focused on. frequently when people come to our city they comment on how well things are going, how many cranes they see in the air, how we're accommodating a thousand people a month that are moving here. and we have been very focused on making sure that we're economically conservative in many ways, and that is why our economy is really booming in washington. and i link that to two critical investments. making sure we're investing in our schools to transform them, making sure we're investing in our neighborhoods so we have great libraries and parks and that they are safer. and that is -- that continues to be our focus. but if i see a threat along the
horizon for the robustness of our economy, it is that our infrastructure can keep up with our growth. we're ready. the signal i will tell the new president and the new congress is our chief financial officer just completed an analysis of our infrastructure needs. so we know what we need for maintenance. we know what we need in new building. we know what we need the federal government to do. we know what we're going to be able to do with public-private partnerships. and so for the right deal -- know people are looking for big league deals. we'll be ready to have those conversations in the district. marcia: great. and that's a point that i think is so important to make that as a country we probably need a 10-year plan. we need a vision of exactly what the mayor just talked about, which is what do we need across the country, not just in transportation, but what we need
in water and energy grid and technology and whatever -- we stop to think about it. if we allowed the mayors of this country to come up with a list regionally of what could happen, we might be able to then start to envision what it is and how we would get there. but on that point, let me turn to the chamber and the a.f.l., which as many of you may know, they are prominent members of an organization that we have all started which -- what am of us started which is called infrastructure week, but it's a coalition of the chamber and the a.f.l. and building america's future and manufacturers and asce and the value of water and several other organizations. it's really important, we don't agree on everything, but we agree that we need to improve our infrastructure. so the chamber and the a.f.l. have been a very important part of this. and if you could just talk for a
second about what the priorities for the chamber are and what do you think we need to do? >> great opportunity to be here and bloomberg always seems to time these things right. great time. i want to wheeled back a little bit, even though we're separate parts of the stages, anyone who has seen our boosts together, knows this is a long time commitment of the business community working with organized labor. we start add coalition called meshes for transportation mobility back in 2000. and i think all the panelists here, many of you in this audience, all over the country, this has been 15 years of effort to get to the point where we had two presidential candidates talking about the importance of infrastructure. it just didn't come out of the woodwork. we're just not here because somebody wanted it and talking about t this has been a sustained campaign for several years. we have once in a generational opportunity to take advantage of that. and so just to throw that out there, this isn't new. we're very excited about this
opportunity. and with president-elect trump to kind of take some ideas that they have thrown out in the campaign, we have heard $1 trillion infrastructure deal. and try to make that into a reality. we cannot let this opportunity go to waste. and so we're partnering with a variety of folks to try to educate, make them know, and just lay out a couple of the priorities the chamber has when we're talking about, because everyone asks the question, what is a big infrastructure bill? what we would like to see in a big infrastructure bill is increased investment and financing options. we know some in the trump campaign before the campaign talked about a lot of private investment. we think that is an important supplement, but we need to raise core investment, particularly for the highway trust fund, to make sure that solvency is met. that is a real one of our big goals. the second goal is to -- we don't need to create a lot of new programs. we're looking at private sector investment, a lot of talk about
infrastructure bank. we already have a program called tifia that's been very effective in the past, we can enhance that. and this administration through the build america bureau has already enhanced the ability tore state and local governments to go to an agency and look at various ways to use private participation for investment. that is another core option. again we need to continue to build upon a lot of people say we have to build up thrust with government, and we believe with the federal government -- if you look at the last two major federal transportation bills, which was map-21 and the fast act, we started with about 110 programs in surface transportation that were federal mandates, we have cut that down to 12. that passed last december. i think we have seen that the federal government understands we need to provide more flexibility and options for state and local governments and provide a tool kit of options for governments to look at and say what is the best tool kit of
options to fund the projects in our community? so to provide that option and that choice. we have once in a lifetime opportunity to do t we're very excited. what we heard from president-elect trump he wants to make this one of his big issues and we'll work closely with them and many of you in this room to try to take the goal and make it substantive. we don't want a repeat of what happened in 2009 which at the time a lot of the infrastructure investment which was not nearly the amount needed, but the investments that went went to a lot of short-term projects. they didn't systemically change the transportation system in this contry. we're going to work hard to make sure if we do a infrastructure package next year, it's going to change the system for the better. it's not just going to be a one-time influx of money, but this is a long-term, sustainable investment and asset that's going to serve as the backbone of our economy. marcia: let me ask you to follow up with that. what do you say to people on the
hill -- [inaudible] >> good question. last year they did pass the fast act, only 3 1/2 years late and 30 extensions. i wouldn't argue that's the best thing. that bill increased funding for highways and transit by about 10%. that is only about half of what the american society of civil engineers says we need to invest to actually improvement our -- improve our infrastructure. we're doing band-aid. we're not changing the system. wmata is a great example of system started as a state-of-the-art system but it's not sexy all the time to put money into maintenance. when you don't maintain an asset, and then it deteriorates to such a point the cost is so much exponentially more if you maintain the asset during its lifetime, i know it's a challenge because we have two lawmakers here that made decisions to make investments that may not take place while they are in office that's the type of leadership we need. when dwight eisenhower developed
the interstate highway system, wasn't in office when it was implemented. we need leadership for a long-term plan, maybe it doesn't help you for the next election -- the the right for right thing for the public. marcia: david, talk to us about the goles of the a.f.l. in trying to get something done to take advantage of this opportunity. how do we finance this? how do we fund this? what's the scope of what we need and what you would like to see done? damien: first, i think we really see in this panel an unusual sort of converge ents of opinion. -- convergence of opinion from people on different sides of artisan divides. a lot of what i would want to say here my colleague from the
chamber has already said. but i'll repeat it because that's nature of washington. first, i think we need to understand the scale of the problem. the american society of civil engineers, as has already been said, estimates our infrastructure deficit, our unfunded maintenance is $3.2 trillion. trillion. it's an order of magnitude larger of all the campaign discussions. but it's not the full story. that really is about maintaining that inheritance we got from our parents and grandparents. it's about maintaining the interstate highway system that goes through oklahoma city. it's about maintaining wmata. but technology moves on. if we simply maintain our inheritance, we're not going to be globally competitive. so the real target number for infrastructure in this country is well in excess of $3.2
trillion. the afl-cio, we think $5 trillion is a rough guess. it's important we understand it as pore than just transportation. transportation is absolutely critical, but it's important that we think about our nation's infrastructure challenges, transportation, communications, and energy. as the full range of public goods that are critical to the united states being a competitive place to do business in the 21st crentry. -- century. if that's the scale, how might we -- second thing to understand is timeline. this is not a short-term matter. the assets that we need to construct, whether it's the repair and maintenance of our existing mass transit, interstate highway system, the construction of the power, power transmission lines needed to get energy from places where there's wind, to places where there's demand. whether it's our ports. these are assets that many cases
take a long time to build and it lasts a long time. so we need to think about the financing in that frame. and as has been alluded to by several of the prior speakers, in many respects as a financial problem, this is not very hard. we have in the tax exempt bond market and in the federal government's borrowing capacity, the lowest cost sources of capital in the world. there are 350e78 -- people in this country and around the world who are prepared to lend us the money we need to rebuild these systems as extraordinarily low rates. and we have programs to -- that provide the flexibility to project sponsors and state and local government to get the job done. the idea that somehow there is a financial problem here that's unmanageable isn't correct. and in fact that idea is really dangerous. because it leads to the notion
that we need to construct our financing as though our infrastructure needs were ordinary business needs. so the model that we have heard about that -- model that we need to basically go out and find folks who are willing to invest capital that can be paid -- that are going to demand high rates of return and then be paid for out of user fees, which has been talked about a lot, and was in the -- really is at the center of the paper the trump campaign put out, that idea doesn't work. we can argue about whether you think public assets should be privately held or whether somebody's going to be looting the tresh -- treasury. the fundamental fact is that doesn't work. this is public goods. there is no way to get the user fees out of the interstate highway system to pay for that
financing structure. if we say that financing structure is what we're going to do, what we're really saying is we're going to do nothing. we cannot afford to do nothing. i think you have heard from my friend from the chamber, that in fact we've got the structures we need to work with. the question is will we have the political vision, the leadership to invest the way we need to as a society? now, i'm going to close what i have to say by adding one more thing, we're -- this is really an area where there is enormous potential for healing in our country. there is an enormous potential for healing across the labor business twide, the democratic-republican divide, across many other divides. there is need for infrastructure in rural america. there is need for broadband both in our nation's inner cities and rural communities. there is enormous potential for better -- building better lives here. saddens me toally
say this, i had no idea i would have to say this at this event, we have -- there is a prior question, there is a prior question that has to be answered otherwise you can't leave and have any meaningful conversation. yesterday, and i beg your indulgence for, this i have to say this, yesterday i went to church two miles from my home in suburban maryland at a church where someone had sprayed on the walls of the church trump nation, whites only. . the episcopal bishop of washington asked that our president-elect specifically denounce the people who did that. we can be the have this type of conversation as long as that question remains unanswered.
>> ok. and we are obviously very empathetic to that and totally understand that, and this country needs to come together and it seems to me that working on issue where we can find common ground is probably the best and the first place we should go. marcia: perhaps a little cooperation across the board may be helpful. let me, before we go to questions, let me ask you. i agree the process and some of the money is out there but how do we get there? does anybody -- ed, do you tax ve that some type of reform is going to happen? is repatriation a way to try to jump-start the issue? ed: it could be one way. i think it's very unclear about what's the actual, the way
we're going here. i think there's a lot of ideas that have been thrown out from the trump transition team. tax reform is obviously something that mr. trump's talked about. in the house paul ryan has talked about. the challenge with that is that a lot of people are for tax reform until you talk about the particulars of tax reform. it kind of gets more challenging. the other challenge from an infrastructure standpoint on tax reform is repatriation, there's about 14 different ways to repatriate. we don't see that as a long-term sustainable funding source. most are one-time influctions of money and we don't think that's what we need right now. we need a long-term sustained funding solution so that mayors, that governors know what they're going to get from their federal partner for a good period of time so then they can make tough decisions locally so they can make the proper investments in their infrastructure.
we don't just need a couple hundred million dollars and say go at it and best of luck. we need to make a plan that says we're making a major investment and asset that is kind of the backbone of the economy and any kind of economic recovery plan has to include a major investment infrastructure. -- in infrastructure. the marsha: for either of the two -- mashia: for either of the two mayors. over $200 billion in state and local research da passed so if you tell a -- referendum passed so if you tell a city or county what it is they want to build, over 70% of them passed almost every election. your thoughts on that? is that the wave of the future? do we have to keep doing that or is the federal partner -- >> sure. i am heartened to see that since in this region we need, like most major systems like ours, the metro system has, is a dedicated funding source.
people are willing to make investments in public transportation to make their lives easier. mayor bowser: and that's what we saw around the country. we're a little different in that our system is supported by three jurisdictions and so we need to come up with a regional way to make that investment. i don't -- i don't have to tell you, it's already been said that the deferred maintenance, the maintenance we have forgone on the system is going to cost us many times more than it would have if we had that dedicated funding source for the 40 years of metro's history. so i think that's heartening. but also people are smart, right? they seem the gridlock our streets, especially in metropolitan areas where people are flocking to cities. they know that if we are to maintain our growth that we have to take advantage of our entire system. so that's public transportation.
that's biking and that's bridges. i like to use an example that is just emblematic of what the federal government has failed to do. we have a bridge that crosses between the district of columbia and virginia. it belongs to the federal government. and all of us have been fighting over who's going to fix the bridge. it belongs to the national park service and the national park service has, you know, evidently a lot of bridges across the country that are in similar disrepair. so the leadership -- i couldn't agree with my friend from the chamber more that a lot of these questions are about leadership. and we just had this -- i had this discussion just recently with my chief financial officer. i want to ask my colleagues in maryland and virginia, the voters in the district, they're going to have to ask their voters to do something that none of us may be around for. none of us. when the real bill comes dufort metro, it's going to be five,
six years from now but it is coming due. and what are we going to do to say right now even though i may or may not be here, i may have to ask the tough question to get additional revenue to fix it, but all of us have to say -- this is what i'm saying. i want to be the mayor that works with these governors to fix it, not the next one, these governors to fix it once and for all. and i think that all the members of the congress, this is what it comes down to when we're talking about our bridge that connects washington, d.c. and the commonwealth of virginia that no -- we don't have two senators, as you know, to go make this argument for us. i'm just saying. [laughter] so i talk to their senators and they have to talk to their governor. but everybody across the country is kind of, you know, scrapping for that same -- that same bridge reconstruction. and so we do really need a plan. if i can do it for my
infrastructure in the district, certainly we can expect that of our federal agencies to say, these are the priorities that have to get done, but starving the national park service is not the way to get there. i like to add app additional thing to what we heard in addition to transportation and communication and energy. i would like us to think of affordable housing as a critical part of our infrastructure as well, because as affordable housing crumbles in cities, they just change the character of our cities. the federal government has being a partner, less so recently, and i expect moving forward will be even less involved in housing, but for the affordable housing that has been supported by the feds, we like to approach a way to keep it affordable. >> you mentioned the voters' willingness to pass taxes to
pay for infrastructure, generally that's true if it's not an increase in taxes. if it's an increase it's much, much tougher. there's a couple other evolutions that affect the built-in environment. one is health. we are realizing that the built environment affects health than we previously realized. in oklahoma city we redesigned all of our downtown streets. now we're redesigning it around people to be more pedestrian-friendly, to be more bike-friendly. mayor cornet: we have rebuilt our downtown grid. we are about to break ground on a streetcar system. we paid cash. there was no debt created. all of our citizens are willing to invest in things. if you want to increase their taxes you have to have a pretty compelling argument and it's going to be much, much tougher and if you have a funded opponent, you're probably just wasting your time. >> well, two things. one is i tried to expand the list of infrastructure
categories and i did it an inadequate job. the labor movement has been funding affordable housing for a long time through the alf c.i.a. housing investment trust. damon: it's all in partnership in one form or another with the federal government. mayor bowser's point about this is spot on. in addition, talking about parks, the park service, recreational facilities are part of our public goods portfolio. they have a lot to do with health, as our colleague from oklahoma city said. and i think educational institutions are also part of this landscape. the financing challenge really is -- there's a couple of ricky things here. right now there's been a big push by a small group of companies that would like to use this -- use the
infrastructure challenge as a way to get a huge tax break for heir off-shore operations. there are ways that will be fair to the companies that create jobs in america. pay the full -- will pay the full tax rate. there are ways of working things out, but we have to be very careful. there's one thing this election was a clear mandate for was for public policy that did not incentivize the movement of u.s. jobs off-shore. and there's ideas out there in the name of financing infrastructure are actually going to weaken the united states and subsidize offshoring. that strikes me as something nobody voted for. the challenge here is to -- for political leadership to support financing vehicles, both at the state and local level but also
at the federal level where there's more flexibility than there is at the state and local level. that can genuinely fund long-term infrastructure investment at the scale we need. and in terms of the coming couple of years, this is a critical opportunity for real political leadership, and we will pay a terrible price if instead we push this further and further down the road. marcia: we are literally out of time but i am not going to pay attention to that. who has a question or two? ight here. >> hi. my name is ben with metro lab network. i am struck after this election by politically the urban-rural divide in terms of candidates that different folks are supporting the and i think we now have a situation where both the executive and legislative branch and congress has been elected by overwhelmingly rural
and postindustrial voters. i also look at the republican platform that looks to zero out transit and talks about how urbanization is sort of social engineering and so i'm just curious to hear from the mayors, both democrat and republican, how do you think about sort of the future of urbanization in light of the new administration? mayor cornett: not too many people live in rural washington, d.c. but -- [laughter] the rural-urban divide is real. it's been well chronicled and it plays out in our state ow islatures you kn frequently. whether you're talking water or roads or streets, i think it's universal. so there's reasons to be for against things but i don't think the urban-rural divide will play out in infrastructure. i should probably add, the
advent of the autonomous vehicle is probably going to do more with change in the built environment than anything we've encountered in our lifetime. that will affect rural and urban development. >> so one of the opportunities that -- maryia: can you identify who you're with? >> i'm stephanie. one of the things with this infrastructure build is to reimagine local empowerment in that state government -- we understand that president-elect trump is not necessarily looking at the fed to maybe be the leader on some of these, that there may be opportunity for state, local tubtse. there are 36 governors who will be up in 2018, and so as mayor bowser was talking about, the relationships that are required and damon talks about the
opportunity that's created and that's just thinking about common ground. how do we really have a conversation around the regional investments that can happen that really support kind of the small towns that are around the bedroom communities around some of the larger cities, aging cities, and what s the own vation in the shared -- innovation in the shared communities that we could do more? hanks. > -- damon: one of the things your question raises is the role of state and local government in planning the built environment and then essentially helping to shape national policy that then supports local and regional plans. this is something that we in the labor movement are very
strongly believe is necessary. and is a way of, again, trying to sort of bridge some divide that seems very particularly deep in washington and maybe less deep in -- i don't mean the washington that mayor bowser is -- federal washington. and more reflect the ways in which our people kind of live together and come together in the areas we live in. i would justle suggest -- just suggest in addition to that, we really have to think as we're doing this the impact of infrastructure investment on our communities, that we have a lot of people in this country that have been left out of economic growth in the last 30 years in a lot of different ways. people in our ier cities, people in our -- inner cities, people in our deindustrialized parts of the country.
the question of whether or not infrastructure investment will reach them. if not they can't participate in the global economy. and it's not going to happen by accident. it is -- this is deeply and profoundly related how we work force policy relates to infrastructure. what kinds of jobs are we going to create and who will they be available to and who will be trained? from the labor movement's perspective, and this is critical, again, to building common ground, from the labor movement's perspective, it's absolutely essential that our infrastructure agenda have the labor protections and the provisions for training and for inclusiveness that will result in all the goods things i just mentioned happening. it will not happen by accident, and if there's a belief that somehow public goods will respond, that somehow we will create public goods in the same way that we create software or chewing gum, what will happen
is not that somehow -- what will happen is we won't create public goods. we just won't, and we've been doing that, that not creating public goods, for 30 years and t's not a tenable thing to do. ed: from the business perspective, i have the privilege of traveling to a lot of state and local chambers. if you go there transportation is the top three. when businesses come to them and talk about locating their business in their community, they want to know there's viable transportation options. they want a tool kit of options. it's not just highways. it's not just transit. it's a variety of options available. so when we talk about this divide, i think there's a lot of places around the country -- and if you get these ballot initiatives. there was a union involved. this is businesses. for communities to succeed, they need to have transportation as one of their core tenements. we need an effort. we heard the president-elect
say he wants to rebuild the inner cities. a lot of his support is in rural areas. this is a place where we can bring everyone together and bring tool kits and options to have the ability to succeed that didn't have those tools a few years ago. maryia: ok. unfortunately we are -- marcia: ok. unfortunately we are like 10 minutes over. you can see there are a lot of questions about this and we would be happy to do something like this again. i didn't even get to my favorite subject of high-speed rail. [laughter] so we hope that you'll give us your feedback. we hope that we can do this again, and i would like you to help me thank our panel for being here today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
all right, everyone. my name is rob barnett, i'm with bloomberg intelligence. we will continue on with our discussion here this afternoon. so let me quickly introduce the panel here. we've got jason miller from the white house here joining us. we have lonnie ingram from verizon. we've got aubrey lane from the virginia secretary of transportation, and mike johnson from parsons infrastructure. with this panel i think we have a good opportunity to have discussion amongst the public and private sector about infrastructure investment here in the united states. we had a big election here in the u.s. last week and one of the consensus ideas that you're hearing discussed is interest in doing something on infrastructure across both sides of the aisle. so i think the great place to start, and we kind of heard this idea about rural-urban divide in the last panel, but
what is the role of government in infrastructure spending as you see it? what is the role of the federal government and how does it trickle down to the states and local level? kick off the 30,000-foot idea. >> ok. so i just want to build on to start a couple of things that the previous panel mentioned which i think step well to set the context this question about the role of the federal government. everybody agrees we have a big funding problem. no matter which way you cut it, investment in infrastructure has been far below what it needs. somebody mentioned this in the previous pam but i want to emphasize this point. our current funding levels, if we maintain them, are locking in the deterioration in our infrastructure system. so just to maintain, much less get where we need, to be the kind of competitive economy we need, we need significant increases in investment. jason: now, in addition to just
maintaining our systems, there's a whole set of new challenges that we are confronting. one, the demographic reality of a growing population and growing economy with constrained amount of space. so that means higher freight costs. that means congestion for people getting to and from work or where they need to go to school or what they want to do that day, that creates real strain on the system. today our estimate there is over $150 billion lost in economic value every year just from congestion alone. that's a huge number. it's not we're underinvesting, we're creating costs today. the second thing is how are we going to bring new technologies into these systems across the board whether the transportation, energy, water, communications, there are a whole set of new technologies that creates new opportunities and challenges? i spent a whole lot on this
year on connected vehicles that will transform how we think about surface transportation systems and that's a fundamental question that we need to tackle. it's not just about pumping more money. it's how are we going to use that money effectively? and the third is addressing the needs from a changing climate. our transportation sector is an enormous consumer of energy and enormous emitter of carbon emissions. it's not just changing vehicle technologies to fuel economy standards. there's a natural interaction between the choices that people and businesses are able to make and our ability to drive down emissions over time. you have to be able to give people more choices than just getting into a vehicle that burns oil. if we're going to confront some of these long-term challenges. so a long-term plan needs to both address the challenges we've been facing and these new challenges that will increase over time. so in terms of the role for the federal government, i'll leave some additional ones -- i'll just put two out there.
one, the federal government needs to maintain a key role in providing funding for a set of public infrastructure. primarily in surface transportation, but i think it is fair for us to evaluate particularly as we looked at some of the challenges of our water infrastructure, what should be the right role for the federal government in providing funding? the federal share of infrastructure has been declining. the federal investment in infrastructure of the share of g.d.p. is almost an historic low. that's something we need to address and need to increase. the second is in setting standards. the federal government plays a key role in setting standards, whether it be for new technologies or how federal funding is used. in the space of automate and connected vehicles, for example, if we had every state setting its own policies for how automated vehicles worked, and you couldn't cross a border which in this region would be a
particularly complex challenge. you couldn't cross the border with the new technology you have in your car. so that's a place the federal government plays a key role in establishing the standards by which we operate our infrastructure system. let me pause there. rob: lonnie, as an employee in the private sector, i mean, what are you looking to the federal government for? lonnie: you know, i think the whole idea around infrastructure is something that not only crosses lines between parties but it also crosses lines between the federal government, the state government and the local governments all the way down to the citizens. the level of partnership that has to happen for this to work really needs to be seamless all cross all of these areas. i do believe the role of the mayors is i creditably important around smart communities and because really it happens at the city level. but the ability to have
regulations, as mentioned, starting at the state level to the federal level is incredibly important. really one of the other main areas is providing instentsentives and some of those initial pushes to incentivize and encourage cities and communities to just into this. look at what the u.s. d.o.t. had done with the challenge they had put out. although columbus is the winner and we are going to do some amazing things out of that particular city, all of the other cities that participated in this learned a tremendous amount, not only about what was available to them but also the tremendous amount of support that is coming from the public and the private sector to make those activities happen. so i think doing more of those types of initiatives is incredibly important for the federal government. and the last thing i'd like to be able to say, not only does it cross the lines between these various broken silos but also within the city.
there's a lot of silos that happen and technologies can't be done within those silos. silos such as the trpt department may not have a working relationship with the health care department or the energy department. we can't afford to have duplicate infrastructure across all of these various groups to just have solutions that don't talk with one another. if we truly are going to do something around, say, autonomous vehicles, for example, it will require partnerships what's happening on the light poles to what's happening in the automobiles to what's happening with policies around how this is going to be governed. so there's a tremendous amount of syngergies that need to occur across departments in order to be able to afford these solutions and also making sure they are working together for the common goals. rob: aubrey, maybe it will be great to hear, what are you looking for from the federal government and these silos that
lonnie mentioned. aubrey: and the secretary of transportation, 60,000 miles of roads, we have sea ports, aviation, so obviously something we think about daily. what i tend to hear is the same rhetoric. we all know we don't have enough money. we all know that federal government has to be a key player. but also i think it's the responsibility of the states and those that use prove rtation dollars to they have been doing it responsiblely. we have done it in virginia a couple different swace. number one, smart scales, new prioritization process. well, we actually rank all the transportation projects across the commonwealth based on six factors, congestion, mitigation, economic development, environmental, safety, land use, the economic development and from that we
get a relative understanding of what our needs are. let me tell you also what we get. we understand what we're leaving on the table. so it's a form of measurement. it's not how much money you get. it's how many projects you're delivering. my background is in business. i don't know anything produces anything until you complete a project. you wouldn't complete half a hotel so why would you allocate money for half a road? that's one of the things we've done is these projects are allocated through construction fiscally constrained and we also have a list of all the projects we're not doing. so when we talk about what we're leaving on the table, it's not an esoteric cokferings. i can talk to our state and federal legislators and say here's what we're not funding and here's what we're missing out. the other important piece is public-private partnerships. virginia has been a leader. quite frankly we did things pretty well. some things we could do better.
we transformed that p-3 process. it's not a default procurement. private dollars don't take the place of public. they enhance them. that's why i say there's two p's in public-private partnerships. we just did a major project in this area, interstate 66. governor mccullough just announced first time we had a completely competitive process. in fact, we competed against ourselves. we said this is where we're negotiating from. set those terms. so now not only are we not putting up state subsidy, we're getting $500 million at closing for that project that now we can use to enhance other projects in the region. so i certainly agree the federal partners have to be there. they got to be a key component of our infrastructure. in fact, i believe infrastructure is the core component of government, whether it's state or federal. but it's also incumbent that we tell the taxpayers we're using it wisely and we can make a
realistic case of what we're leaving on the table and i think that's going to be the missing piece of this along with technology because technology can drive costs down. but let me point out that technology should be within the confines of what the policies are. technology's not just for technology sake. we can talk about autonomous vehicles and they're coming. in fact, i will be at uber tomorrow. a very big part of where we're headed. drones. but they need to fit within the policies you're trying to deliver, not just putting technology to say you did it. and that will be the key and i think technology will help drive where we're going as if you have the right policy setting. i know we'll get more -- into more detail later. that's an overview of how we attack this problem. rob: thank you, aubrey. mike, with the idea of technology in mind, what's the potential for government to drive innovation in this infrastructure bill that seems to be potentially looming out
there and, again, still love to hear from you on just anything you're looking for from the government, at least at the federal level. mike: so in my view as an investor and design builder, i want the federal government to set that bar high. we have to develop projects that move the needle. if we go back and look in time, whether it's the stimulus act or others, you and i had a quick discussion, there wasn't enough already on the shelves to get things built. you have to have projects. if we look across the river here to woodrow wilson, that wasn't a formal design bill or a public-private partnership. the two states and district led to the development of the national harbor. a $1.5 billion in. $3 billion in development. so we have to look for projects is one plus one equals three. that's what we're looking for. the role of the federal government in addition to setting that bar high and making this a priority -- because it is a priority for
our country. if you look at our bridges or if you look at our transit systems, many of them are older than our population. our bridges are past baby boomers. i know bridges that are 70 years old, 80 years old. transit systems approaching 100 years old. there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of work to put people back in. there has to be the president-elect and our current administration have both supported this. i think it's now time to come together and drive this. it can be driven from the top and it can be driven from the bottom as well. rob: so with that in mind, i mean, i think everybody has mentioned autonomous vehicles. there are techno optimists that talk about them coming rapidly. what are the main problems that either the federal government or local government have to solve to really facilitate some of these innovations like autonomous vehicles? we'll start with you, lonnie. lonnie: i think we need to look
at infrastructure as a whole. this is not a problem that can be solved by just going to one particular company. this is going to take an ecosystem of different types of technologies, different type of players, both public and private, to be able to make this happen. and a good example of that, we were talking about it earlier, let's just say the power of driving the lighting solutions and autonomous vehicles at the same time. wherever there are automobiles, generally speaking, you got streetlights that are going along the exact same manner. can we at one time build infrastructure into that particular light pole that not only saves energy but also provide solutions between traffic flows and traffic management that will allow the autonomous vehicle to take place in a more efficient manner? this is the only way that we can actually truly afford these solutions as well as being able to leverage the infrastructure in a way we're not creating massive redisruption every time
we have to go back in for a different solution. so that's one of the things i think are really important. the other thing i want to tag on -- first, i totally agree with you saying go bold. raise the standards high and push the rest of the players in this area to kind of shoot for the moon. i think that we're ready for that as an industry. there has been a lot of conversation. there's been a lot of work that's been going on. a lot of solutions that developed. in order tore us to really do something in, say, the autonomous vehicle and others in smart communities, we need to do it at scale. if we don't do it at scale, we won't get the cinergy levels we need to make it -- sin ergey levels that we need that will impact all communities, not just one particular neighborhood. those are initial thoughts on that. rob: jason, maybe share some thoughts on where president obama's administration's at on
kind of autonomous vehicles. is that something that needs a lot of funding or is it something that needs standards? jason: this summer the administration released our federal automated policy. automated vehicle policy. the president wrote an op-ed sharing his views in the "pittsburgh post gazette" when we rolled it out. i think, first, one of the interesting things is if you take the body that has regulatory authority over vehicles, nhtsa,. the one thing they talk about is 35,198. that's the number of americans that died due to vehicle accidents in 2015. 35,000 people. that's enormous and something that, you know, when we think about automated vehicles we think it's going to be awesome i can sit in the car and do whatever i need to do and not worry about getting from point a to point b. but the prospect of saving tens of thousands of lives he have
year has huge implications. huge implications and that is first and foremost in the regulators' mind. this is technology that has the ability to dramatically change the trajectory on safety, safety on the road. but when you ask people, do you feel safe in these vehicles? there's a lot of people that are skeptical. so part of the role of the federal government in outlining policy guidance and potentially regulations is establishing a path by which you can deploy these vehicles in a way that is safe and the public feels confident in it. you need both things. what we rolled out this summer required automakers to submit or not require but sought voluntary letters from automakers laying out ways in which across 15 different dimensions they were testing and managing the safety of
automated vehicle systems before they're on the road. that's a really key thing. the second is making sure there is coherent skibtsy between what the federal government's doing and what -- skintsy between what the federal government is doing and what states are doing. that's absolutely key. you need strong partnership there and everybody to understand who's in charge of what so that you have consistency so this can get rolled out. the third thing here is there's going to be a lot of learning that happens. there's going to be a lot of learning and a lot of data that's captured. if that's done in a hundred different ways with a hundred different teams of people, we are losing a huge opportunity. it needs to be done in a way where there's strong sharing of data, strong sharing of learning so that in these early stages when we are testing and learning it can then be deployed in scale. you can't move to scale right away. you need to test and learn. and the federal government can
play a key role in enabling and supporting that testing and lrning but it has to be done with states, with communities and with the private sector if it's going to work well. rob: aubrey, this is a great point for you to jump in. we have been talking about the divide between someone maybe living in the shan bowe dougha valley and someone from here. -- shenandoah valley and someone from here. aubrey: back to the funding and there are consequences for having limited resources. not all of them are bad because necessity is the mother of invention. i'm quite sure because of the states' resources that the technology will be in the car. certainly in the roads make a lot of sense but it's initially going to have to be in the car as we mental these in. one of the things we did an awful lot of hot lanes is because of technology in the road but also we have to figure out how to use our current roads more efficiently. in other words, how do we get
more through put, not more necessarily more vehicles. autonomous vehicles can work very well into that, particularly if you're trying to introduce them in a rural area versus into an urban area where there may be more acceptance of them in that regard. from our perspective, i'm quite sure that when they're actually out there, things are going to be different than we contemplate them today. so that's why we've set up tests around the commonwealth where we do have autonomous vehicles that merge in, how they coordinate, not only vehicle-to-vehicle, but some of the smart things in the roads. and it is get back to jex because 50% of the driving public are scared to death. they don't want them because they don't think they're safe. so that's what we're trying to do is use real-world applications to test -- at our test site in virginia tech we have a roadway where we put them on and the whole bit is to see how we best merge those in. i think it's going to be quicker in the urban areas.
quite frankly if you look at the stated objectives of uber or lyft or some of them, it's to get rid of personal car ownership. that's where we're seeing that with smart car and all the things happening here. but it's going to be a difference as we introduce them into the rural areas and i think, again, that goes a lot into how we actually use the technology instead of forcing it on people, let it take itself naturally. i would suggest it will be a different approach in the rural versus the urban. rob: mike, i think it will be great for you to jump in and just what do you see outside the u.s. even? innovation doesn't mean autonomous vehicles. people -- we have elan talking about hyper loop. what -- how are you seeing it sort of global perspective looking at innovation and infrastructure and transportation? mike: sure, if we start in the middle east as a good example. thank you, rob. if you look at those looking to invest, what makes the middle
east an attractive market is their political will. obviously they have money but they have the political will to get projects done. you also see that in southeast asia and you certainly see it in europe. and i think at the hallmark of what's making those projects really progress forward, faster than here, is our ability to share and manage risk. and i think it will start at the backbone of cybersecurity. think how much data your transit agency has, if you take wmata or new jersey transit or v.r.e., think of all the data they have about you and about your credit card information or the fact that you got easy pass. easy pass if i recall is the third largest holder of financial data in the united states. all right. we talk about banks being secure -- and that's where public-private partnerships really come into advent. we know it's working in other parts of the world such as in europe. what are we learning from that part of the world to help us
here? rob: thanks. i want to build off your idea of the speed with which you're seeing maybe other regions, other countries tackle infrastructure spend. what do you think is required of the federal government to sort of have that same type of speed and approach? aubrey, you mentioned it's more than just money. what's the criteria? aubrey: it's political will. i mean, you have to have the political will. we just had a project in the southeast part of virginia that we had funded. transportation project. if you ask the public many times, they have to pay for it, they always say no. they want the infrastructure but they don't want to pay for it. so i think political will is part of it, and i think the federal government could lead the way on that by setting examples of how to use the moneys. i really like the fast lane
grant program. we just received $165 million where we competed for -- against around the country but brought in private money, brought in new technologies in both rail and vehicular traffic on 95 to open up a congested area. so i think when you really get down to it, we can set all the standards, we can set all the other parameters, but if we don't have the political will to provide the funding necessary to do these things, then we're still back to the same look we've been in i think for the last several decades. rob: jason, maybe you have some perspective on the political realities in finding ways to seek funding. what's the easiest lift here? you guys have probably studied it and seen that it's hard to maybe raise the gasoline tax or do anything else that sort of
traditionally provides transportation funding. what are the sources in your mind? jason: sure. when the administration stepped into office, there was an opportunity through the recovery act to get a temporary boost in funding. i think in some places there were a bunch of projects ready to go and in other places they scrambled to find projects but that wasn't a long-term solution. in december of last year, the president signed the fast act. the fast act was a big improvement over where we had been. it was a big improvement because congress was doing these short-term punts which create enormous uncertainty in many parts of the country that don't have the pipeline that aubrey and his team developed. and you need that long-term certainty if you're going to have the entire country evaluating projects from an outcome orientation. in 2012, we laid out an
approach that i think still works which is the combination of business tax reform and using the transition revenues, the one-time transition revenues from moving from our current business tax system to a new business tax system so fund infrastructure in a very large way. that proposal would have created enough increase in investment for five to six years. so five to six years is a meaningful period of time but it's still not the long-term solution that we need. at the beginning of this year, the president laid out a proposal for a fee on oil. that would be one way that you could fund over a long period of time but decades from now, you may need another approach. i think part of the question people need to grabble with, what -- grapple with, what are you trying to resolve? things like underfunding in things like maintenance so we
have structurally deficient bridges around the country and we want to prevent bridge collapse. or are we going to actually provide a long-term solution that allows us to really evaluate the kinds of projects that we need to transition the country's infrastructure systems forward into what we need 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now? there's a lot of other challenges in between, but those are some of the questions that people are going to need to grapple with. i think we need to do both. that's why at the beginning of this year we laid out what we think is a long-term solution that also provides a near-term boost to deliff on the short term. you -- deliver on the short term. but people are going to need to grapple with that. rob: lonnie, real quickly. are you seeing examples of states and municipalities that are sort of giving that equation right -- getting that evasion right, innovating? share some experiences.
lonnie: i can talk about that. to tie into the last k, i think one of the -- last conversation, i think we need to break the fact this just seems like an infrastructure physical object technology play. because by doing that we kind of forget about the human aspect of this. we're talking about people's ability to actually get one place to the other. the security aspects of it. the freedom people can have that may not have the same mobility capabilities as opposed to those that can just jump in a carned drive. in order to do that, -- in a car and drive. in order to do that, it seems we need to move into a four p model. it's public, private and people and that's incredibly important. we need to figure out a way to get the citizen involved in the solution creation, not just feel like we are creating solutions on their behalf and then wondering why they're not actually getting adopted as fast as they should be. people know what their issues
are. they understand very well how solutions should be done within their own community. and somehow we need to figure out how to tap into that as part of this model. so kind of a four p model. p, p, p, p, is a way to go in this area. thinking about different cities that are getting it right and where we're looking at overall solutions, i think washington, d.c., is doing quite a bit in this area when it comes to looking at traffic solutions, etc. boston is doing a tremendous amount. what i love about the way boston is doing it, they're starting from the overall communications. obviously you can't have some of these technologies work if technologies don't talk with one another. they are starting from that base. if you look at what they're driving in solutions such as vision zero, and the amount of data that they're able to get from providing different solutions and integrating them
together in a very safe and secure platform is incredibly powerful. i think that's another really good example of, you know, where we're suing solutions starting to arise. rob: great. thank you. well, time flies. the panel will be around afterwards if you have questions. we were hoping to have a little bit of time, but i know we want to be respectful of the end time here. so please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] and i'm going to turn it over to josh eastright from bloomberg government for quick closing remarks. josh: thank you. thanks to your panel. another great conversation. we had a great series of conversations this morning and some guests that really gave great insight into this. thanks to all our panelists and moderators from this morning. if you enjoyed today, just a reminder, today is the kickoff of a series of events that we're hosting across this week. i'd encourage you to take a look at bloombergnext.com to
see the full schedule for the week and hopefully we'll get a chance to see you at some of them across the week. last but not least, i want to say a big word of thanks at our partners of building america's future and marcia hale. we really enjoyed their partnership today and look for future events with them. thanks for joining us and look forward to seeing you at other events soon. [applause]
>> homeland security secretary jeh johnson spoke earlier during this conference and you can watch his comments and the rest of the forum that you've been watching available on our website later today at c-span.org. and more on transportation as "the hill" reported recently an experienced washington lobbyist is joining president-elect trump's transition team to help oversee transportation and infrastructure policy, according to "the new york times," martin whitmer will lead transportation and transition efforts for the incoming administration, according to the report. he has long had ties to the transportation industry before opening up his lobbying shop, he served as deputy chief of staff for the department of transportation and that was from 2001 to 2005. president obama is leaving this afternoon on what's expected to be his last european trip. he will be departing this afternoon and before he does, he's holding a news conference. c-span2 will cover that live
starting at 3:15 eastern today. we'll also take your phone calls. the president is heading first to greece where he will meet with their prime minister and president. thursday, he returns to germany for the sixth time. he'll talk with chancellor angela merkel and other leaders om france, italy and the new british prime minister theresa may. and he will join the a-pec summit in peru. some 54 new house members are in town today for orientation, getting themselves familiar with capitol hill. here's more on what they will be learning. take their positiot year, joining us to walk us through what happens to these newly minted members of congress is bradford fitch of the congressional management foundation. guest: good morning. host: could you tell us a little bit about your foundation and its role? guest: we are about to enter our 40th year.
we wanted more assistance in the management, the running of these small businesses that is what they are. 435 small businesses. we have added an element of citizen engagement training. now there are thousands of americans that go to our training event that learn how congress works. we help congress try to do a better job of engaging and interacting with citizens. we help citizens do a better job of understanding and interacting with congress. if we do our job right, but are laws are made. host: tell us what goes on for those newly elected numbers of congress. houston do they start training, and what will they learn? they started their training the morning after they got elected. there is really no break after you get elected to the house and senate. we turn on the firehose the morning after. it is a difficult and challenging task to set up a congressional office. i was chief of staff for a
freshman member of the house of representatives if you years ago. i felt like there were all the headaches of starting a small business with all the red tapes of starting a bureaucracy. they have to get staff, offices, and a jerk. it is like running a small business. they have to think it through, and at the same time make policy decisions and come up with different positions that they did not have before. maybe they came from the state legislature and had some positions on local issues, but now they have to have a position and opinions on a iranian nuclear deal climate change, or an infrastructure bill. it presents a policy challenge and an operational challenge. host: from now until they are seated in congress next year, do they come to washington and stay for that education? is it done in several steps? how does that work? guest: congressman do it a
little different. the orientation starts for the new members tomorrow. they will be here on tuesday. they going to meetings with current members of congress. they meet with the institutional staff. they find out everything from what are the operational roles i have to work by, to what are the ethics rules, which are stringent and very transparent that they have to learn. they get a lot of education from mentors. members of congress will turn to other people and their delegation, their party, and they will try to get a little bit of what happened to you experience. that happens for the next couple of weeks while they are in washington. then they will go back home and get sworn in in early january. get their do they office, when do they start hiring staff? give us those details. guest: members of congress don't
officially get the keys to their office until they are officially sworn in, probably january 4 this year. they do not get office space or official tools to do hiring or sign contracts the united states senate provides each senator elect one staff member. the house members don't get any staff. they have to do this from volunteers and campaign staff. host: bradford fitch with the congressional management foundation. what doe let you go, you think is the most important lesson for an incoming member of congress? not, it iseve it or being disciplined in what you want to do. most members of congress really want to change the world. they want to do everything. you really cannot do that. if you want to change the world, you have to run for president. you can maybe do two or three
things as a member of the house of representatives. if you don't have a strategic plan, they will become one of two types of members. if they are in a safe congressional district, they will become ineffective. if they are in an unsafe district, they will become a former member. accomplish a few things, and the voters will usually reward you. ost: the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the xspear -- speaker. the clerk: speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 14, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable chris collins to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy.