claims. that same month in florida a president of a durable medical equipment company was sentenced for fraud and lying to doctors. this is a sampling of what is occurring on a regular basis and one of the things that a little more flexibility at the state level would allow our governors and their administrations to address. with that i'll yield it back. >> i'll like to yield two minutes to congressman price. >> thank you. i want to just recognize the author of this amendment and her appropriate position as the chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee. that which came regarding this amendment is appropriate for the kind of campaigns that is run through the dccc. as a physician i can tell you the flexibility that is

absolutely necessary in the medicaid program is what we desire. all of us want those who are less fortunate and most vulnerable in our society to be cared for. the fact of the matter is right now what happens is that states are required by law to waste money through the medicaid program. and it happens as follows in the state of georgia for example the medicaid population is about 1.8 million. 2/3 are healthy moms and kids. what we require from the federal government is to say that they have to have a soup to nuts health care plan as opposed to pay for every incident of care that they receive out of the pocketbooks of the state and we would save money and have money left over to care for those who are most vulnerable and most in need of the program. right now, however, that's illegal. it is against federal law to do

that. what we believe is most appropriate is to get the biggest bang for the buck and get the most money to the individuals who need the care in our statsz. the way to do that is to provide the flexibility that allows them to tailor the program best for their citizen population. i urge defeat of the amendment and adoption of the underlying bill. >> thank you for your comments and to repeat again the arguments that were made here it comes down to first of all the spending on medicaid. year ten would be 402 billion. certainly by washington standards. we have had significant growth. for those of us that came from the state level and had to implement the mandates from washington, one-size-fits-all is not the answer. we need flexibility,

responsibility and accountability. numerous states have asked for waivers. point being one size doesn't fit all. what we do is provide a plan, a plan by which the states can be responsible for tailoring to the specific needs whether in kansas, florida an opportunity and a responsibility that will i believe improve care. we listen to hear about the problems in medicaid. the difficulties trying to find providers because you have to live under regulations by some bureaucrats. i think this is a tremendous way to improve care, improve the system and actually be more responsible with taxpayer funding. i yield back my time. >> gentle lady is recognized for a minute to close. >> to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle i say facts

are hard things to case. if you look on page 42 refers to the growth in medicaid in this plan except that the fact is on page 42 under theclusion to repairing the social safety net it says constraining by 810 billion dollars over ten years. in your own document you say that you do that, that you reduce it by $810 billion. in the analysis requests by the chairman specifically it talks about on page nine at this time cdo cannot estimate the effects for federal outlays on medicaid or the quality of care. nevertheless with significant efficiency gains the magnitude of the reduction relative means that states would need to increase spending on the programs. at the end of the day forgive me

if i don't trust the governors. the governor of my state -- >> time has expired. >> i yield back. >> the question to the amendment offered from florida. all those in favor say aye. record the vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garret, no. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert, no. mr. aiken, no. mr. cole, no. mr. price, no. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. stetsman, no. mr. langford, no. ms. black, no.

mr. ribbal, no. mr. florous, no. mr. mulvaney, no. mr. young, no. mr. amish, no. mr. o ketoa, no. mr. ghenta, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. van hallen, aye. ms. schwartz, aye. mr. dogt, aye. ms. mcculm, aye. mr. yarmouth, aye.

mr. pascarel. aye. mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan of ohio, aye. mr. schultz, aye. ms. moor, aye. ms. caster, aye. ms. bass, aye.

mr. chairman, no. >> are there any members who wish to vote or change their vote. >> on that vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 21. >> the amendment is not agreed to. now we will recognize the gentle lady from california for the designation of an amendment. >> an amendment offered by ms. bass relating to transportation. >> the gentle lady is recognized for nine minutes. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee i offer this amendment with my colleagues who are cosponsoring it with me that will save or create an estimated 2 million jobs in addition to accelerate highway construction, bridge repair, mass transit system and other essential

projects that keep people and commerce moving quickly and safely. specifically this amendment will incorporate the moving ahead for progress in a 21st century act as passed by the senate into the house budget resolution. the bottom line is that a highway bill is needed. the current authorization for highway spending programs expiresats the end of the month. these projects will shut down, further delay and uncertainty is bad for business and economic development. passing the senate bill will create jobs, strengthen our nation's economy and make communities safer and more livable with targeted infrastructure investments. in california, for example, this amendment will create over 100,000 jobs. this amendment will allow for funding of numerous transit projects such as the light rail, a single transit line projected

to create 7,000 jobs on its own. the line will not only create jobs immediately but will connect residents to another area nearby with 400,000 jobs. this project will have invaluable benefits to the los angeles community by facilitating efficient movement. with the capacity to create jobs as well as stimulate this project illustrates the dire need for congress to pass this amendment. the example from my district can be repliicated throughout the nation. in the state of wisconsin 28,000 jobs will be created with the passage of this amendment. mr. chairman, the senate bill is the quickest path, the enactment of a transportation authorization. the house has struggled to develop a consensess on how to approach. the leadership has tried to find

the votes for both a long term bill and short term bill with no success on either front. the senate was able to pass a short term bill rather than continue to struggle to develop a bill and reconcile difference it is time to get the job done. transportation has long been a bipartisan issue. in the house the bill that was advanced according to the republican transportation secretary he called it the most partisan and worst transportation bill he had seen in decades. the house bill desdrois more than half a million jobs. rather than work with democrats to rebuild america the republican led bill proposes to cut highway investments in 45 states, bankrupt the highway trust fund and weaken our economy. today i call on my colleagues to abandon the bill and support the

bipartisan job creating plan. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a strong advocate for cleaner transportation and investments. >> i appreciate your courtesy and i appreciate your leadership. watching what has happened in your community where people have stepped up but it is contingent on a regional partnership with the federal government. what we see in the senate after having worked long and hard the odd couple one would argue of senator and barbara boxer being able to get 3/4 of the other body coming together with something that would provide certainty moving into a construction cycle and give us the opportunity to do some of the hard work here. i sincerely hope we return to the day where we actually have a multi year reauthorization.

i appreciate the comments of the gentleman from oklahoma about some of the intriicacies here and looking at ways to maybe change some. i think there are opportunities going forward that will make a difference. but for us to lose not one but probably two construction cycles, for us to flounder in a partisan way unnecessarily i think the same way that finally the approach that took place in the senate with the faa reauthorization with about 90 senators ultimately provided a framework, i hope here we can look at what has happened. here we can look at the impact that it is going to make on our communities, accept a bill that we don't have to have anymore extensions and be able to give us two years of peace and an opportunity do the groundwork that america needs for a longer

term refined reauthorization to help us rebuild and renew the country. i appreciate the gentle lady's courtesy. i hope we will all support this amendment. get off dead center and show some progress here that will make a huge difference for folks at home. thank you and i yield back to her. >> thank you and i yield back my time. >> are you yielding? recognize mr. ghenta for ten minutes for the purpose of opposing. >> there are a few concerns that i have with the senate version of the transportation bill. and there are three main points. number one there is a cost associated with it for 109 billion that is not fully paid for the nexus is to increase taxes. it is a two year bill.

i have heard colleagues talk about having a longer term bill, something that we have worked out on the house side. and then finally there is no real true long-term reform in this highway bill on the senate side. so there are significant concerns with this piece of legislation. i think we all share the goal of having a highway build. it's in my view an important component of our constitutional requirements as well as the need to ensure that we take care and make and maintain our infrastructure around the country. i think what we have tried to accomplish in the house is far more effective and achieves the objectives of having a long term bill and having it paid for as well as bringing true reform. i would also add that there were 22 minority amendments accepted in this version of the bill. i would argue that is a substantial bipartisan bill that

was adopted in the house, a bill that was marked up. i would request that members oppose this amendment and continue to allow the house to do its work and bring forward a longer term bill that is self sustaining and has the kinds of reforms that many of us were sent here to address in the first place. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from l that i would oppose this bill. the highway trust has been around. the money we spend on the highways was tied to the gasoline tax. it was on an equal level. that has changed with this amendment that has changed over the last several years. highway trust fund has had to be bailed out almost three times

since 2008 and a general fund transfer. and despite all of those infusions of extra money coming in what has occurred it is now basically facing bankruptcy here in 2013. the direction that you are going in this amendment is the wrong direction. it would add more money into the system and keep the federal government adding mandates is not the direction this country should go in. florida was saying she doesn't trust her own governor to handle the last issue. i wonder whether members around the desk trust citizens of their own state to make these decisions when it comes to transportation and to get washington out of the way to the sponsor of this legislation over in california transportation director, do you trust him to make these decisions or does he have to come to us in washington to help him make the decisions. back at home transportation

director, do you trust artida to make the decisions or do we need to be pumping more money and additional regulations here to make these decisions? i trust our governors. i trust our transportation secretaries. i trust the county engineers. i trust the people who actually have to drive on these roads every day far more than any bureaucrat down here in washington who never knows the back route road. they know what needs to be done on those roads, not some bureaucrat that the sponsor of this bill can't name. we should not be going this direction. we shall allow these decisions to be made back at home and the funding level made back at home. i yield back. >> i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i might be willing to accept this amendment if the senate will agree to accept whatever we

pass they'll also just take in tote skpl they'll pass, as well. since we have a jobs bill that we passed just a few weeks ago that is still languishing in the senate as they discuss it to death. here is the challenge that we have on this and has gone on for a long time in the transportation area. when the gentle lady from california, when we arrived in january of 2011 we were on the 19th faa extension at that time. we were on the seventh extension on the highway bill at that time. we are now approaching nine. i understand that a three month extension is being proposed in the house to get us through this bump, as well. this is not an uncommon problem that has been dealt with when the democrats run the senate boempth this is part of the loud noise of democracy.

the house version of the bill does bring construction. and i think that's a very important piece. contrary, and i know the comment was made about the house version actually runs us down to 0. actually, the senate version is the one that runs us down to 0 in the highway trust fund. it spins all of it down and assumes there will be a large flush of money. two years from now they're going to come in and replace that. that's quite a gamble to run us all the way down to 0 in the highway trust fund. house version, no earmarks. we talked about before, but the key thing is it puts more controls in the states. ray la hood hates this bill because it takes power from ray la hood and puts it back in the hands of states. i can understand why he deeply hates this bill. because it removes a lot of authority from his office. and ends it back to the states and since they need to be able to make these decisions in a local manner. oklahoma does not need a special designation for covered historic

bridges. we happen to not have any. we need the flexibility to spend that money in the areas that we see there. we need to work through the loud noise of democracy that's .haing in the house, finish it and go to congress and settle on it. i will yield back. >> the senate bill unfortunately outpaces the revenue to the trust nund. we need to shore that up. when you look at the years from 1999 to 2008, by about $1 billion a year, we had been

outspending outlays over receipts. we need to change that, reform it. and that's what the house bill aims to do. i hope that we can find a reasonable solution on the house side to get the house version passed. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady is recognized. >> i thought he was going to say the house was going to have a long-term be ill. then i was confused when my other colleague said it was a short-term bill. so i guess i have to say my colleagues in the majority are a still a little confused about what is going to come forward, so i'll remain optimistic. as my colleague, mr. garret seem to know my history very well, should know my constituents in culver city and other areas strongly were in favor of this

amendment. and called me to say definitely do what i can to make sure the transportation bill goes forward. construction workers have 40% unemployment in some areas. it's time for the ho us to put people back to work, invest in road rail transit. and i would ask my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. thank you. >> the question on agreeing to the amendment by the gentlelady in california. those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. okay a roll call vote is requested and the clerk of the court will call the role. >> mr. garret? mr. garret? no. ms. simpson?

mr. campbell? mr. calvert? mr. aken. mr. cole. mr. price? mr. price, no. mr. mcclinton. >> no. >> mr. mcclintock, no. mr. jaffitz. mr. stutzman no. mr. langford, no. ms. black? mr. ribble, no. mr. yulescamp. >> no. mr. young.

mr. woodall? no. mr. simpson? mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell. >> no. >> mr. campbell, no. >> mr.calvert? no. mr. van hollen, no. mr. dogget, aye. mcmccallum, aye.

mr. yarmith, aye. mr. honda? aye. mr. ryan of ohio. ms. wasserman shultz. aye. ms. moore? ms. moore? aye. ms. caster, aye. mr. schuler, aye. ms. bass? ms. bass, aye. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. woodall. >> no. >> are there any other members who wish to vote or change their vote?

hearing none, let the clerk show the report. mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nos are 18. >> the amendment is not agreed to. that was tier one. all right. now we are into tier two. these amendments are 15-minute amendments. so the author will get 7 1/2. can we do halves now? we can't do halves. that's right, we'll split it the other way then. going to mr. honda for the purpose of offering an amendment. let's do 15 on mr. hondas, then we'll talk. >> agreed. >> do you want to call your

amendment up, mike? >> thank you very much. i have an amendment at the table. >> an amendment by mr. honda relating to education. >> what are we doing? six? seven? >> we'll do seven then. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. democrats and republicans alike share goals of deficit reduction, but i reject the republicans' choices on how we should get there. let me highlight discretionary spending cuts. a report yesterday reads, and i quote, house budget committee chairman paul ryan's new budget plan specifies a long-term spending path under which by 2050, most of the federal government aside from social security, health care and defense would cease to exist according to figures in the

congressional budget office analysis released today, end of quote. not only am i severely disappointed that the chairman would walk away with a deal made with the president on the budget control act, but i'm saddened the republicans have such a poor view of government. i'll be the first person to admit government is not a panacea for all the country's problems, but it isn't the singular cause of all of our troubles as some would suggest. as a former teacher, principal and school board member, i will tell you one area where we shouldn't be cutting back and that is education. youngsters are more than a work force commodity to be left to the free market. the role is to fill in where state and local governments have funding gaps. this is critical in ensuring all children have access to high quality public education. the students from every