that is all the time we have in our first segment. next, we will be joined by the executive director of the american association of state highway and transportation officials to talk about the looming trust fund expiration, and what it could mean for projects around the country. later, we will discuss x-ray cities and enforcement under president obama's executive order with marc rosenblum. we will be right back. >> tonight on "the communicators," fcc commissioner o'reilly on key issues like net neutrality, regulating the internet, and influence on policy making. >> when an item is presented to the commissioner level that document should be available publicly. i think that would provide an opportunity for everyone to come in on exactly what we are thinking and hone in on issues that they see as problematic. right now we have people that raised concerns about our items but often they don't know what is being put forward. they are kind of -- it is problematic for my point of view. i would rather people not spend time on things that do not need attention. >> tonight on "the communicators" on c-span two. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you events that shape public policy. every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists, and your comments. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable providers. host: it is crunch time for the highway trust fund which loses it's funny authorization on friday if congress does not act. but right is with the american association of state highway interpretation officials. what would be the impact of the deadline does hit on friday, as does not take action? guest: it will mean a crisis for local governments. on friday, the authorities for programs provided by the federal government for highways, transit, and highway safety expire, meaning that no new authorization of p projects can take place. at the same time, the highway trust fund will essentially run out of money which means that payments cannot be made on work already done on projects. host: at what point would they start feeling and seeing impacts is that deadline have been? would it be within days or months? guest: probably within months, though i would contend that they are already seeing impacts. many states have already canceled projects due to the uncertainty of the federal program. we have no for longtime that this deadline is coming, yet states did not know what the circumstances would be. that means that some have had no choice but cancel projects. the state of georgia, for example, has canceled $750 million worth of projects already. tennessee, $400 million. louisiana and other states have said, we can't go forward with projects that we do not know we will have dollars for. even now, states are already beginning to cut back and people will see the impacts of that in this construction season. host: for viewers who want to know the impact interstate, but right is a good person to talk to about it. he is the director of the american association of state highway and transportation officials. for folks who are not familiar give us a preview. guest: we provide a variety of technical services to the states, but we also advocate for them here in washington dc. many of the policies under consideration by the congress have a direct effect on the states because they are the primary deliverer of the programs. $41 billion per year to date flows through the federal highway programs. almost all of those dollars are delivered to the states. host: in viewers want to talk about highway trust fund or give us a sense of what the highways or roads are like where you jive, the phone numbers this morning are (202) 748-8000 for democrats,. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002. can you take us through what happened with the highway trust fund over the weekend? where do we stand today and action that congress needs to take this week? guest: there are two very different tracks going on between the house of representatives and the senate. the house, two weeks ago past eight short extension that would carry programs through december 18. at the same time, they provided a billion dollars approximately of additional revenue necessary to make payments to states. their approach is if they have enough time this fall to look at international tax reform, that would give us the means to authorize funds for the next three years. the senate is now in the process of trying to enact, or pass, a multiyear bill this week. it would be a six-year bill however it would only contains three years with the funding. they were only able to find about $49 billion of so-called offsets to pay for the transportation program. they would like to go multiyear now and provide that certainty that people involved in this program need to carry work forward. host: do you have a preference on if the six-year deal moves forward, where the pay comes from? there was talk last week of using some funding from, i believe it was social security for those who have warns out against them? that was then taken off the table. there has has been talk of cells from petroleum. as a matter where it comes from? guest: are much of from the beginning has been long-term and sustainable. frankly, we are beyond that point now. sustainable means user fees. the highway trust fund has been funded by user fees, but that does not look like it is in the cards. politically passing a gas tax increase is not on the table at the moment. given that, we really don't have an opinion. we know this highway spending is important and the economic impacts of not doing what the congress is about to do is significant. we don't really have a position at this point. host: why is a federal gas tax increase not on the table? it has not been increased since 1993. guest: entirely politics, john as far as we are concerned. it makes sense. we think it has shown to have the support of citizens. if you look around the country a number of states have increased their own gas taxes and they have not suffered these sort of political consequences that i think many fear here in washington. in fairness, it is not something that has been supported by republican leadership, nor by the administration or many democrats. while i think there is a basic understanding of this is a system in which the user should pay for the benefits they receive, right now, any tax increase, but especially a middle-class tax increase is seen as politically toxic. host: we are taking your calls and questions. the lines for republicans, democrats, and independence ts. we will start with pauline in ohio. caller: good morning. i want to ask -- i want to ask one question. what is the money going to? what is all the money for streets, our buildings. i get so tired of looking at my street, how broken up it is. the whole country is broken up. where is the money? that is all i want to know. either way, just tell me the truth. guest: much of the money that is provided through the federal programs is directed towards what i would call the higher order system -- the interstate system which everyone in this country is familiar with is one of the primary responsibilities. another large portion is put towards what we call the national highway system, the 160,000 miles or so of roads that predominantly move interstate commerce. they are the roads and streets there are typically four-lane divided roads. they are ones that provide for connectivity across state lines. when you talk with a federal program, you are really talking about those roads that carry high volume. often times they carry commerce, meaning truck traffic. there are federal dollars that flow to other purposes, but when you think about the purpose of a federal program there has to be a national perspective. it is really those higher order roadways. our certainly issues on those higher order roadways. we have structurally deficient bridges and functionally obsolete bridges. there are a lot of needs to be met. when you look at local streets and roads, predominantly those are not once funded through the federal program. host: we are talking up the highway trust fund and the looming deadline on friday to give you a sense of what might happen if that deadline passes. here is a chart from the congressional budget office talking about the cash flow of the highway accounts of the trust fund. you can see the lighter blue line on top is the outlays and the darker blue line are the receipts. these numbers in the 20 billions of dollars on the left side in the red is the highway trust fund is allowed to expire. we're talking with bud wright of the american association of state highway and transportation officials about some of the consequences. we want to hear thoughts. diane is up next in arkansas line for republicans. good morning. caller: i'm so glad this is on this morning. i just got off a two week trip going west from arkansas -- i went through seven states. the roads are horrible. you cannot blame bush for this. it was supposed to be shovel ready when obama came in. then, he laughed one year later that it wasn't. i don't know how the people in oklahoma and new mexico, how they exist. it's big holes. it jolts your car. where has the money gone? you cannot blame bush for this. guest: i would say that's the reason we be the certainty of this federal program. many of the state dot's don't feel they can make commitments to long-term projects the ones that would require dollars over more than one year, because of the uncertainty they face now. the last time at the federal level that we had a multi-year reauthorization was 10 years ago. the states really are forced to look at short-term, relatively routine maintenance products because they cannot be sure what the federal government will be providing as we go forward. if the states would have a blueprint, a roadmap, if you will, of what the next 4-5 years will hold, then you will see them make a dent in the roadway projects that you are talking about. host: the term "shovel ready" reminds the of stimulus dollars. what is the status of stimulus spending when it comes to highways and transportation? what you think the legacy will be in that area? guest: the stimulus program was very successful. one of the misconceptions, with regard to the recovery act is that a huge portion of those dollars went to highway expenditures. they did not. about $47 billion was for transportation. those dollars were used very effectively. they got out the door quickly, they have all been expended they were on projects that made a difference in the states. most importantly, they provided for employment opportunities. not just in building growth and improving roads, but those who were able to get to jobs, the action carry out the business that they carry out on a daily basis. host: was an example of a project that was funded there a viewer might recognize? guest: i can't tell you want to be honest, but it was a lot of what i would call be paving jobs, reconstruction jobs on highways in all of the states. host: massachusetts is up next, and joe. caller: thank you for taking the call. i think people would probably supported if they could be sure that the money would go far. reconstruction of rid bridges. the problem is it is used for other things. people just don't trust that the government will do what it says it will do. if this is for people to use the roads, that is one thing, but it has been used for other things. that is why i do not support it myself. host: it is a very fair comment. i would contend to that the dollars are being used for the purpose they have been authorized. highway and transit spending has had to rely on general fund subsidies for the last five years. host: transfers at the end of the fiscal year? guest: that's right. we have had to subsidize to the tune of $62 billion over the past five years from the general fund of the treasury. that means that highway spending and transit spending is competing with other government priorities. that makes it very difficult and is one of the reasons why we are in the position that we are in now. fighting those additional dollars is no easy task. the dollars made available through this program have to be held accountable. one of the things done in the recent authorization of federal programs was to put in place performance-based expectations. that is to say that we will set targets in areas that were identified and federal law for how we will reduce congestion how we will improve safety, how we will improve pavement performance. those are things that citizens can look at and say, ok, we received text number of dollars, here is what we should expect in return. i think states are ready to stand up and say, if you give us the resources, here are the projects we will deliver and the outcomes you should expect. host: you said the senate is pushing a longer-term deal. the house would be the 34th short-term funding extension. expectations for this week? does the house seem willing to take up a longer-term deal like the senate proposed? guest: procedurally, looks like the senate will have to go till late wednesday or early thursday to pass this multiyear deal, if they are successful. certainly the will be close. given that fact and off the back of the house seems to plan to adjourn on thursday, it seems all certain that there has to be a short-term roots. as i mentioned earlier, the house is already past a short-term extension. there has been some discussion though nothing has been officially ruled out yet that is the senate were to proceed, they also would pass a two-month extension at the same time. that would enable them to take the month of august, and some part of september, and begin to negotiate with the house on what would be a longer-term extension. i think the likely outcome is that we will see a short-term extension, but whether it be the two-month version -- yet to be determined. host: bud wright is with the american association of state highway and transportation officials. we're talking with the roadways and bridges and this country and the trust fund that the federal government has used for that. john is in pennsylvania, line for independents. caller: good morning. first to straighten out that women who traveled across the country -- it was not bush or obama. remember, the republicans made the stimulus percent a tax give back. that ate up hundreds of billions of dollars right there. as far as my comment, i drive for a living. i put on 70,000 miles per year between pennsylvania northern virginia every day. we have to raise the gas tax even though it will cost me a little boy, that's fine. raise every two or three years one penny or two. the roads suck and all of those areas i travel in, and from what she says, it is even worse in the red states because they do not use their tax money for anything. host: what you think about what you think about whether the proposals out there to use a user fee for miles driven? do you think that is possible to happen in this country? caller: it is possible because republicans like to privatize everything and would like to have toll roads on all the interstates if they could. look at virginia, you can go for miles and it will cost you nine dollars on that you extension -- new extension. that is not really fair. put in for everybody because everybody dry spirit don't loaded up on the truck drivers couriers, and people who put in a lot of miles. raise the tax for the whole country a couple of cents every couple of years. it will not kill us and gas mileage has been getting better for years and years. it is a common sense thing. but, because republicans operate from the gospel of no tax increases for anything even though we have more people than we did -- it is just politics. political crop. -- crap. host: do you think raising the gas tax let's table who use electric cars off the hook? caller: pardon me? host: i've asking about people who use electric cars. caller: good question. they are saving lots of money by using the electric car. they can pitch in to. why don't we look out for the greater good by the greatest number and go for that. host: i will let bud wright jump into some of your comments there. guest: a comment on a couple of levels. i will start with the gas tax. one thing that is true in this country is that people tend to overestimate the about they are paying in gasoline taxes. if you take the combined burden of state and federal taxes, the average driver pays less than $250 per year in taxes to support roadway construction. in some cases, transit improvements as well. the federal portion of that is about 100 weigh five dollars per year. we are really talking about just over two dollars per week and contribution to support this $40 billion plus federal aid highway program. if we were to increase the gasoline tax, and i by no means suggesting this is the only way to do this, but it is the approach that has been taken over a long period of time. a $.10 increase, which would be more than enough to cover this deficit that congress is dealing with now, would be less than $75 per year additional burden on the average driver in this country, if you drive a car that gets about 20 miles per gallon and you drive about 12,000 miles per year, which is the average. it is not a huge burden and i think that people who support that would support, especially vacancy the improvements and be sure that those dollars will be used for transportation benefits. as it relates to mileage taxes or mileage user fees, as they are being called, i certainly agree with you that that probably is the future. we are not ready yet. the technology is probably there, but there are still many concerns, many issues that will have to be worked out. one of the things we are hoping to see in his legislation, if it passes, is the ability to carry out some pilot projects to determine just how a system like that would det work in the country. we have one state that is charging user fees, based on the number of miles that they drive. host: what about the privacy concerns about that for folks knowing that the driving information is going to some massive database that tracks how far they have german and perhaps where they have different? guest: that is a legitimate concern and has been raise, but there are ways to collect my list pag mileage information without tracking where someone has driven. there are a lot of variations on how a mileage-based user fee would be implemented. certainly location-based fees is something that some localities would want to do. i doubt the federal government would want to be in that business, but just knowing the number of miles driven would be sufficient. our number of ways of doing that without violating privacy. host: marsh is waiting on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i just went to comment about the roads. i believe that our president will give iran billions of dollars, which is a known terrorist organization. if he would quit giving away all of her money, we might it have enough to fix our own country. you should take care of home first before going to fix other countries, especially when they are our enemy. it does not make sense. host: any proposals out there to trim foreign aid to countries and ever that money to the trust fund? guest: that is not currently being considered by the senate. it kind of goes back to the overall theme of why do we have highway and transit programs competing with other general fund needs? there are ways to fund transportation improvements through sustainable long-term sources, user fees specifically. i think many of the transportation committee would say let's get out of the battle for other resources and use a source similar to the one in existence since 1956. host: washington, d.c., darren is up next. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. thanks for letting me on. i'm a regular caller. i love c-span. i just have two questions for our guest this morning. one is what are your thoughts on general road expansion? i am in my early 30's. i travel the 95 corridor and there has been pretty much know expansion since i have been a kid. i know there are plenty more cars on their, and it really hurts congestion. that, and then -- host: you are going in and out, but i will let bud wright take up your question on road expansion. guest: darren makes a good point. we are not expanding roads and this country, especially in states that continue to grow like florida, texas, california. much of a responsibility in other parts of the country is to efficiently operate existing facilities. we know there are a lot of ways to get more out of what already exists, making sure they are in tiptop condition using rap metering, traffic flow kinds of features. we can get more out of what we a already have. i think that is something you will see emerging as a theme going forward. especially when you look at urban areas, we cannot do more roads. we want to provide mobility choices and make sure people have a variety of ways to get around, which is why i think there should be transit investments in urban areas. we will not build enough highways to take care of the population growth that we know is happening. we need to squeeze as much efficiency out of investments that we have aid and be strategic about giving people especially in urbanized areas, a variety of choices for moving around. host: is there an example that you can cite of a city or locality that is at or near maximum capacity, where there is no room for expansion? guest: you can look at places as obvious as new york city where there will not be significant roadway expansion there. what you are thing is they are putting a much bigger focus on things like bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which especially in in urbanized environment allows someone to get to work or to recreation as easy as getting in an automobile . there was an effort in the past for new york city to actually charge congestion fees. that's not happen but it is something we are seeing in other parts of the world that if we can provide incentives for people to travel a different times of day, carpool, or use public transportation, that will take the stress off read roadways. host: let's go to boulder, colorado where greg is waiting on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: go ahead, we are doing well. caller: you hit on something that i thought was important. you said there is a lot of fighting for government funding i agree with that. and, there was a woman who called to say she wanted to know where her money was. we note the pentagon is building -- we know the pentagon is building trillion dollar airplanes. we don't need them. and, the attacks that -- tax cuts for rich people they say it is to get jobs. and, i hear all these republican contenders for the presidency wanting to ignore the american people's votes when it comes to changing our marijuana laws. we spent billions and billions of resting our fellow citizens for something that the american people don't want them arrested for, and we have republicans on tv saying they don't care what we vote for, they will enforce the laws whether we like it or not. come on. i don't know what it will take to get these people to start listening to the will of the american people. $1 trillion for a warplane. and, republicans on tv talking about cutting social security and food programs, cutting all these things that people need to live, while they are inventing things that kill people. host: we got your point. bud wright, a lot there, i will let you comment. guest: i'm probably not the right person to talk about the defense budget, because back to the point that i was trying to make earlier which is that there are a lot of competing needs at the federal level. transportation has had a dedicated source of revenue for a long time. it has kind of state out of that fray. i think as we look to the long-term, to the approaches that we hope we would be utilizing, that we would not be income petition for other needs. that is certainly an important responsibility for the federal government. those are the battles that will continue to be fought. we would hope that we could get transportation out of that cycle, rely on sustainable long-term servi sources, things that are not competing for resources for other federal priorities. host: as we noted in our first segment, the highway trust fund debate is now being tied up with the debate over the export-import bank. here is a piece from stephen moore in the commentary section of "the washington times" today. he notes that the bill would raise government spending, increased taxes on businesses, and possibly provide a new lease on life for the export-import bank. this happens every time a highway bill comes up for a vote. k talk about the export-import bank complicates the effort this week? guest: i think it does come with hit it. certainly it is not germane to the trepidation legislation. it is not a unique washington phenomenon that when a so-called must pass legislation gets considered, other things tax onto it are attached to it. some votes the otherwise may not be there will in fact support the transportation legislation. our biggest concern is that there has been some moments from the white house that a bill without the bank included on it might not be signed by the president, or at the very least the president said he would not support legislation that does not included. that means that because of something that is really outside of transportation issues, we might see this program expire. we would hate to see that be the impasse. we know there are jobs that will be effective. jobs and communities will be affected. it will be because of political issues like the export import bank. host: nancy is waiting in kansas. go ahead. caller: i have a question. i don't know if your guest knows the answer to this. exactly how are the highway funds distributed amongst the states? i live like five minutes from kansas city, missouri, and i noticed that when i travel from kansas to missouri, the roads are really different. the roads in kansas are pretty good, but there is a stark difference between the roads in the two states. kansas does have a toll road and a republican governor, and missouri does not have a toll road, and a democratic governor. i don't know if it is the governance or how the funds are distributed. maybe kansas is getting more money than missouri. that is my question. guest: the funds artistry of based on formulas -- funds are distributed based on formulas based on the needs of each state. it is important to note that the federal program and the dollars that flow through that are not the only expenditure. each state has their own gasoline tax. the federal program constitutes somewhere close to 50% of the so-called capital investment that happens in the country, but that differs from state to state. one, there is a different formula -- a different about the each state receives from the federal program, but is also true that there is a significant stake how to be sure. sometimes the difference you see from state to state is more the fortune of that that the federal dollars that flow through this program. host: let's go back to pennsylvania, virginia is waiting on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: so, i thought the reason we have the tolls was to pay for the highways. years ago, when they started all that, that was said pay for the highways. also, i think that if they got rid of all of these tollbooths and toll takers and put that money towards the road, it would be a big help. also we don't know where the money is going. it is disappearing. the financial state of this country is ridiculous. it is like no one is watching another person. guest: a couple of comments. one, the federal government does not impose any tolls. that is a choice left up to states or local communities. if you travel around the country, you will see that tolls are not common in many places around the country. certainly on in the northeast, the west coast, florida other places you see tolls. it is not ubiquitous. it is commonly associated with the construction of new facilities. as to the comment on tollbooth and toll takers, and facts, what you mentioned is happening. that is that most toll facilities have electronic charges. some of the people in this area are familiar with easy pass. it is a means you do not have to stop and handover money to a toll taker. you can breeze right through a cold collection -- toll collection area. when you talk about mileage-based fees that technology of electronically will be utilized. host: how much the company can keep? how much has to go back into the roads themselves? guest: that is subject to agreement between the entity that allows the toll to exist and those who take on the project. there is not a national standard, but probably what i would call industry norms. certainly there are some administrative costs associated with toll roads. they are more extensive than a gasoline tax, but that is up to the state of virginia for example there was an agreement reached between the private onto the newer in the state of virginia as to the amount that could be set aside for administrative costs. host: bride is in michigan on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i will suggest an idea that eisenhower made when he returned from world war ii. he solved the german autobahn -- saw the german autobahn and decided that we needed a defensive highway system. when he did that, some of his advisers said, you can't do that because part of the gdp comes from war. he decided that -- he talked to an economist and said, you can go ahead and do this because it will be a virtuous cycle. it will generate tax revenue and pay for itself. not only that, it will get as out of debt. guess what, it did. and, we have a new highway system as a result. jack of the interest rates -- the tax rate on the rich and get yourself a highway system that together. we might have to defend this country. guest: well, the interstate system that present as his heart was associated with is called the national interstate and defense highway network. certainly it has different needs as part of its role. as to this notion of highways paying for themselves, the caller makes a very good point that transportation investment does stimulate the economy. it does enable people to get the jobs. it enables goods to move more efficiently. it makes the united states more competitive. there have been studies done that if you make an investment in transportation, really you are saving money, creating economic opportunities, and they do pay for themselves. unfortunately, it is a different pocket and sometimes that phenomenon comes into play. those dollars to not go back into the transportation budget. they really stimulate greater tax activity. while the overall economy gets that benefit transportation programs don't necessarily benefit from that. host: we have 5-10 minutes left with butter right of the american association of state highway and transportation officials. he is here to to answer your questions about the trust fund. john is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the reason i'm calling is because you are making a huge mistake on raising the federal gas tax. for one reason. everything is tripled down. just like when you go to the supermarket, if the price of something goes up, it does not go down. by taxing the gas tax, when you tax the gas tax, you will get surcharges on certain products. the food, restaurant, anything that has to do with the economy the price will go out. i will tell you again. your make a huge mistake on the gas tax. host: what would be your solution to this funding question? caller: my solution -- you need new leadership. the people of the united states are getting tired. i helped republicans get elected in the state of pennsylvania. i sat at home with them, and they don't want to vote because it is the same thing over and over again. people are getting tired. how about natural gas? all the natural gas places throughout the united states. one person wants to put natural gas in every state in the united states. why don't we tax them and use it to try to get the roads done? that is my opinion. i think the people in the united states are getting tired and tired. host: i will let you jump in, but right. guest: i guess the good news for john is the gasoline tax increase is not on the table right now, so we will not see at least in this political cycle , any increase. i guess the most more important point that would make is that when he does talk about the out-of-pocket gasoline taxes, there is a cost for not making improvements. the average driver in this country pays about three had $50-$400 dealing with things in her automobile that are affected by bad roads. if we could make that investment and had a source of revenue that means the average user would see a decrease in cost. you may pay a little more and the tax -- in the tax, but you would pay in less in maintaining her automobile. host: let's go to mike. caller: first off, i want to correct the woman caller from florida who said that the money is going to iranian, and that is american money. that is false. that is money that was frozen during the sanctions. it is their money. the other thing, during the iraq war, bush's iraq war, we lost billions of dollars over there. no one could account for where it went to. american taxpayers are getting i don't know, screwed over by the military complex. when you pay $1600 for gear that you can buy down of the auto store for $20, and that is going all over in the military complex. remember what i eisenhower told us -- beware of the military complex. people are taking money from us in the military complex. not the soldiers, but the people who build the weapons. we had two boats out in california that were supposed to be minesweepers. one of them almost sunk. the avionics on the ship couldn't find it. we have to cut the cost on everything, not just the things that republicans want to cut. guest: let me tied up back to transportation. i think it does have to do with the notion of that we are very serious about is making sure that taxpayers -- we want the users to be assured that when they make that investment that they are going to receive something back in return. host: john, in ventura, california. caller: i am just amazed, every day there is a new tax, do this and you get less oriented.