essential. we have to cut areas to make sure we're doing what is essential. we can't ignore the debt and the deficit the same time we're ignoring projects as well. let me give you a quick word. oklahoma city is the cross roads of america. if you're from the midwest or from the south. i-35. all cross in the middle of my district. that are there. we are got to find a way to make what we're doing. they look at two quick things. can we raise prices to get more revenue? that's why manufacturing is such a big deal. we have to do that. we have to push back and say are there ways to take a 15-year program and make it a seven-year

program. when i talk to folks, they tell me time is as good as money. you're going to save a lot of money. you're going to get highway miles built with less money on it. >> those are the things we have to look at. we have to look at the hard things on how do we deal with the big issues. oklahoma stepped up recently and said we're going to fund more construction on the bridges. we're behind on bridges as well. we've said 20/20. the federal government pays 80% of the construction and the state does 20%. our state steps up and says 80% is not enough. we have the responsibility to take care of the bridges. we set aside more state dollars to do that. each state has to step up and say the 20% may have to increase on that. those are difficult issues. the transportation committee will have to take on. they'll have to work through the process. all of these are reality. we're dealing with a large debt.

with that i would like to yield three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. it used to be. it needs to be the decisions they used in proportion to their use and so forth. federal taxes were used for those projects that were truly federal in scope. the interstate highways, the national airports and harbors. local taxes paid for walk sidewalks and local streets and

lower energy costs as part of the bargain. now, you know, what we're proposing to do is to raise taxes on people who pay a lot of taxes. apple makes more money on this ipad than exxon makes on the equivalent cost of six barrels of oil. now, i don't care how much money apple makes on this thing. but i don't think we ought to raise taxes on apple to punish them by saying that they make too much money. and then try to expect them to produce more at a lower cost. every day americans know that. our job creators will see that when they get ready to invest in the country or not. this is exactl to go. so i would urge that we reject the amendment. that we rely on the proposals

that we put forth into our budget, into the republican budget to properly fund the highway trust fund and transportation projects and then rely on the committee to do their job, to come up with a way to do this fairly across the united states. and with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> we do have o find a way to do things cheaper. if the federal government is the one causing an increase in costs based on our permitting and process, which right now we are, we're linear in our permitting when we should be sequential. we should be able to reduce the cost and reduce the length of time. as we push through the federal system and say what doe with do to make this cheaper, we continue to have money. we don't try to find that. i'm with you as well. they work very hard to do an excellent job. infrastructure is essential. we have to find a way to do it that honors the deficit. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back the

remaining part of his time. >> first of all, we tried to have more infrastructure in the stimulus, and i wouldn't have put 40% of the tax cuts that nobody knew they got. we wanted to do more for infrastructure. we tried to do it prior to president bush when we had a stimulus and infrastructure wasn't accepted. i'm all for sound principle. one of the things dismissed here and will come out if we have a hearing on infrastructure is that the things the people dismissed are some of the cheapest way to get additional highway capacity. transit, even, dare i say, p pedestrian and cycling freeze up the capacity. but folks, there is a gap under your bill. it assumes almost $30 billion in new transportation user goi to

with the already allocated item, the new mandatory outlays, plus the once suspending in water and aviation. i str either do this, or i guarantee you we'll do it adding to the deficit next year. >> time has expired. >> the question is now agreeing to the amendment offered by the member from oregon. all if favor say aye. noes have it. record of vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. mr. garret, no. mr. simpson. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell. mr. calvert, no.

mr. lankford, no. miss black, no. mr. flores, no. mr. mulvaney, no. mr. young. mr. young, no. mr. mosh. mr. mosh, no. mr. unta, no. mr. aiken. mr. aiken, no. mr. hollen. mr. van hollen, aye. miss schwartz, aye.

miss captor, aye. mrs. mccollum, aye. mr.aye. mr. honda -- aye. mrs. wasserman-schultz. >> aye. mr. caster, aye. aye.chuler. mr. campbell. no. >> mr. campbell, no.

mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. miss bass. miss bass, aye. >> any other members looking to vote or to change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes are 16. the the nos are 20. >> the nos have it.e recognize katherine. >> thank you, members of the committee. i have an amendment. >> the staff will hand out copies of the amendment. the gentle lady from ohio. >> an amendment offered by miss castor. >> gentle lady from ohio is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you very much. the amendment i'm proposed would establish the veterans job

corps. it would employ 20,000 returning veterans in project to reserve the parks, the state parks and other public lands and touch up federal facility ls. the american people know jobs need to be our number one priority. and while the economy is gradually recovering, it's not yet come in fully. there are still nearly 13 million americans without a job, of which three quarters of a million, over 770,000, are veterans. many of these veterans, as we know, when they come home and can't find work, have other issues that they face if their family lives that are truly disturbing. the costs of unemployment are enormous to our families, career for individuals, security as a family, and from a public standpoint, lost revenues for

our community. veterans, particularly. returning from employment in iraq and afghanistan have been disproportionately affected by the depressed job market. a year ago more than 1 million veterans were unemployed, and in february, that number had to climb somewhat to the 770,000 figure i mentioned earlier. we should not sit by as a country and allow such human talent to go underappreciated and underemployed. this is a problem that we can build our way out of literally. economists estimate that for every dollar we investment in public infrastructure, the economy produces another $1.44 worth of economic activity. that is why i reintroduced originally hr-494 to create thousands of infrastructure jobs in our region and across the country, and shared my proposal with president obama, and he joined me in calling for a job corps.

the proposal was actually inspired by the original. the conservation corps, which during the depression of the 1930s was created. to alleviate chronically high employment. and it worked. it's amazing to look at the numbers within three months. three months. not years. over 300,000 americans were employed through that course. we're talking here about 20,000. they worked at over 1,000 sites making lasting improvements to the nation's public assets. many of the projects remain standing. the course accomplishments were mammoth in scale and in lasting, and we are still benefitting economically as a country. and the work done by them. and that was nearly eight decades ago. within five year's time the core

plan is over a million and a half. restores thousands of acres of public land. completed hundreds of thousands of miles of trails and roads in addition to countless other projects. just in ohio, it's one of the many registration rational buildings and still enjoyed by visitors to the cuyahoga valley national park. those investments have stood the test of time and benefitted america and generations of americans indeed. i would like to ask committee members for serious consideration of the amendment. and i would yield two minutes to the gentle lady from milwaukee, wisconsin. congresswoman moore. >> thank you so much, representative katherine. this is a very thoughtful amendment when you consider the unemployment rate among our veterans from iraq and afghanistan stands at 12.1%, as compared to the 8.7% among the

general population. when you think about the the returning veterans as we end the wars one of the greatest resource is with the post office. i would hope members give it the considerati consideration. >> we have made substantial progress in reducing the number of unemployed among our veterans. particularly as atravel across the county, i see at a dfw post, at a community gathering, too

many veteran who is still have much to give but cannot find the job that they need to give it. we tried to address this in a number of ways in recent years. many of us worked together on the trips to teachers program. we've approved tax credit that i have supported to encourage employers to hire veterans. recently i was at an event focused on small business opportunity for veteran owned businesses. but with all the different areas and different skill sets for veterans who come back. not all of whom are returning officers. not all of are returning ncos with stripes on their shoulder. many have been in positions in the military where they learned some skills, but they're having a hard time matching the skills with the job opportunities that are available there.

the program that miss captor is recommending and i'm glad to co-sponsor will particularly address the needs of those individuals. it would have them not doing leg work, but doing real work. she's mentioned the projects that you can see in communities across america, that are the lasting legacy of president rose roosevelt's era and initiative. she has a modest program. just in contrast, the program has 75,000 every year. and we have seen how much it's meant for the young people to contribute. we have the teacher of america program similarly. these are veterans with a legacy of service of putting their lives on the line. they're now back. they're not employed. perhaps they have fewer skills than some of their colleagues. this is also a way of resbe sbrating them into the country. because then they'll have a job

they can point to that they've done which will be go and apply later for another job. i see it as a real win/win to help our veterans, help our economy. just generally accomplish something that is appropriate for people that have offered so much to our country and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his support. and in concluding wish to say this is a real support our veterans by supporting jobs in america, to really thank them, but to give them opportunity. it's not a handout, but it is a hand up. we know many of the suicides that we are experiencing in the military relate to challenges to family life and reintegration into civilian life when our veterans are coming home. you can think of situations in your own district where this is extraordinarily relevant. so i'd ask my colleagues to

please give this amendment serious consideration. it is a very, i think, reasonable amendment. i wish it could be larger. we're only talking about 20,000 out of 770,000 unemployed veterans. but it is a way for america to properly begin to say thank you and at the same time bring our veterans home to help rebuild america. i would yield to the gentleman from texas again. >> you pay for this, fully paid for by closing some of the loopholes that are letting some corporations export our jobs. instead of exporting jobs abroad you would encourage jobs at home for our vets. >> we then source our veterans to work right here in the united states. rather than building schools in iraq and afghanistan they would be helping america rebuild herself over the next generation. i would ask favorable consideration from colleagues. i thank you so much for listening. >> i now would recognize mr. stutzman for purposes of opposing the amendment for ten

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by saying i do oppose this amendment. even though i think the amendment is one that has good intentions, i think we can do better. i think we can do better than jobs for veterans that is only temporary. if you actually calculate out the billion dollars in spending that is being proposed here that would have to be raised by raising taxes, a billion dollars in taxes for a new temporary entitleme entitlement, i think we should -- if you break that down, billion dollars for 20,000 veterans that comes out to about $50,000 per veteran. i think we'd be better off taking those dollars and using them for education, training opportunities for veterans that we already currently have in place. so, mr. chairman, i believe we could do better than even this particular program with the programs that we have in place. as the chairman of the subcommittee on veteran affairs

and the economic opportunity committee we've had several bipartisan hearings with congressman brayly in iowa and also in indiana, and they've been very helpful in giving us a new direction, new ideas on how we can assist our veterans that are coming home. because we do -- i know this committee recognizes that, that with the wars in iraq and afghanistan winding we are going to have a large influx of veterans coming back home. and i think what's very important and all of us would agree with this, that we have jobs here for our veterans. one of the things i would quickly point out that i think that we've had the discussion here about the national guard. i think this is the national guard would be -- should be utilized more and it would be an excellent place to give our veterans the opportunity to continue to serve our country, but as well as living and working in their communities.

there are no reductions in this budget for veterans programs. in fact, the republican budget increases spending for veterans, fully funding the president's request for veterans health care. you know, we could, instead of creating another program here, mr. chairman, we could maybe ask the department of the interior to hire more vetera basis. according to the latest opm report only 14.6% of interior employees are veterans compared to 26.3% for all federal agencies. so. i want to go back to the hearings that we had earlier in iowa and indiana. we talked to a lot of business folks, a lot of chamber of commerce groups, communities out there that are already doing some very unique and creative things in preparing for veterans as they come home, whether it's job fairs, whether it's connecting employers with these particular veterans that are

coming home. and there's a lot of -- a lot of success that is being done there. unfortunately, mr. chairman, we're not seeing the same type of success within the federal government's agencies over at the va. whether it's the t.a.p. assistance program. there's a communication breakdown between our veterans and employers back here at home within the programs that we currently have. and so i think for us to -- to go down this route and create another program would really be ill advised, because we already have programs in place that aren't being fully utilized and that we should be focusing on them and making sure that we are connecting with veterans, whether it's overseas before they're coming back home, whether it's -- whether they get back on the homeland side where we can be working with them, connecting them with employers that do have jobs. because i can tell you, businesses that we spoke with

like the idea of hiring a veteran. because of their work ethic, because of their integrity, because of the abilities that they have. but we have to connect them. and especially -- there's an especially -- right now there's a disconnect between small businesses especially compared to larger corporations that have the ability with larger hr departments that they may already have a veterans outreach program. but small businesses don't have that. i think it's important that we focus on the programs that we already have to utilize them in connecting small businesses with veterans. you know, another thing that we, you know, should be focused on instead of spending more dollars is the economy. just as we've already talked about in this committee that what really is important for our veterans as it is for every american is to reduce government spending, to get our economy growing again. that's what this budget does do. and i believe it's important

that we move this bill forward, pass this, and start down the road of -- of fiscal responsibility because that ultimately is going to help our veterans along with every american. at this time i'd like to yield to mr. hulscamp, two minutes. >> thank you, congressman stutzman. i appreciate the outline of what our veterans affairs committee has been doing. one thing i'd like to remind the committee as well is what the entire congress did do in the present signed into lou that hasn't been he thinksed already, house resolution 2423 the vow to the higher heroes act that did pass and the president did thankfully sign that into law. that provided many new initiatives to hopefully move our veterans back into the job market very quickly. expands education and training opportunities. transition and assistance program. provides disabled veterans additional rehab and employment benefits. it provides tax credits for

hiring veterans. so we are doing that. and it's starting to take place and have an impact. secondly as well, i'd like to mention a conversation and remind the committee i had about a gentleman in junction city, kansas, who would like to start a small business, his third one. the other two are successful. the uncertainty caused by the regulatory environment, the uncertainty caused by the health care law. junction city is where ft. riley is at. he would hire seven veterans if he had that certainty. so the concerns of my fellow member from indiana as well as point attention to the fact we are making progress because it is a real commitment, i think, to both par tties and the president to make sure veterans have jobs when they return from serving our country. and i yield back my time. >> thank you. i'd like to make this point. on february 15th during a va committee hearing, va secretary

shinseki couldn't answer questions about this particular proposal, va jobs corps proposal and how it would be managed and paid for. we asked for further details. we haven't received those details thus far. even senator patty murray is skeptical of this particular proposal in her committee's views and estimates letter she states questions remain regarding the president's $1 billion jetter rans job corps initiative. the source of funding has yet to be identified. i believe this is really an idea that is not wise to move forward with. the chairman's mark makes keeping faith with those who served its highest priority. with the veterans affairs function. over this budget window the chairman's mark provides $270 million more in mandatory spending for core responsibilities of the va providing disability competition and education benefits