contractors, the unions, local government, transit, engineers, there is a vast array of people who are beating a path to your door here in washington and meeu for the money and the recovery act that kept a number of them alive bidding looking forward going from here. i sincerely hope that we can approve the senate bill that at le room and gives them some certainty as we go into a construction cycle and we'll have a chance maybe to vote on that later. a way to fill a serious gap his in the bill produce bipartisan support and give people at home they need. and at this point, mr. chair, i would recognize my friend from kentucky, mr. yarmouth, for a minu m friend from oregon, and i wanted to say that many times we talk about infrastructure and we talk about the need and we talk about ther

these become my district this ie than rhetorical. interest september until just a few weeks ago we had a major bridge on our interstate 64 across the ohio river shut down because it was too dangerous to drive across. there were 80,000 vehicles a day that normally use that bridge that had to be rerouted. some hours out of their way to get to their destination, to conduct commerce, and this costs businesses in our communitns of dollars. mr. young is also very much aware of the impact that closing had on our district. this is a situation that potentially is repeated to s th country. this is a way we can put tens of thousands of americans back to work for every billion dollars invested in the nation's

highways. you know that supports 28,000 jobs. this is money and jobs that can immediately stimulate economy and accomplish something that is critical to our future. our entire economy -- a large part of our economy in my district is based on distribution and logistics. u.p.s.'s global hub is there. our country cannot is yosurvive without making the kind of investment that would be facilitated by this amendment. so i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back. >> thank you very much. i would, mr. chairman, if i could, yield to m from oregon, for a minute and a half. >> thank you, mr. blumenauer. we all talk about jobs and now we can do something about it. we have a long historyth o this area, infrastructure projects are really a win-win.ing peoples

to market and, as my colleague mr. yarmouth just mentioned we need to look at safety here are structurally deficient bridges just in the state of oregon. let's think what we could do nationwide if we support this amendment and fund infrastructure projects. finally, the united states is far behind too many other nations in the percentage that's spent on infrastructure. it's time to step up, and we can do that and create jobs by supporting this good amendment and i yield back any time.blume. >> thank you. i appreciate your comments and i appreciate your support. the $50 billion if you look at the amendment as it is before you would help cover the gap that we've got in terms of outlays in the next fiscal year and it would continue for 2014 and 2015.

it would help get us through deficit.ruly a crisis and not i suggest that failure to this gives us a choice because it if we don't do this, it's going to be like the alternative minimum tax. when push comes to shove, we blink. because we're i hope, going to down construction activities in thisnt obligation but we will be doing it adding to the deficit. adding to the deficit. this is a way to do it n them t certainty that they need, people who are relying on us, who largely small -- almost all of this is contracted out, the businesses, and it supports family wage . anything, too conservative. the $50 billion here with a conservative multiper family wa

over the next couple of years. i would strongly urge my colleagues look at this amendment. i hope you'll support it >> the time for the gentleman has expired. i recognize mr. langford for 0 ten minutes. recognize myself for the first three minutes. we do understand full well the problem with the highway trust fund. it is insolvent, it is under funded. i completely agree with that. we have been over spending on it without enough revenue coming into it. that's been a fact. it's been supplemented by the general fund for a we recognize that. solvency of the highway trust fund, we have to resolve that. projects have to be done. infrastructure is essential for our commerce and is a

responsibility we do have as well. that's why this process sets up a reserve fund similar to what we're already proposing to say we need to find some way we are setting aside this account because highway and infrastructure is essential. we've got to find other areas that we can cut to make sure we're doing what is essential because we can't just ignore the debt and the deficit at the same time that we're also ignoring projects as well. let me give you a quick word on if you're from the midwest at all or from the south, in all likelihood what you're wearing or the furniture in your house probably came through oklahoma city on some truck at some point, i-35, i-34, and the highway there is are essential to interstate traffic. so i ust those things. but we have got to find ways to make what we're doing more efficient. every business when they look at any product in anything they're doing they look at two quick things. can we raise prices to get more revenue? ifca efficiency. that's why lean manufacturing is a big deal that all ofith the

manufacturing processes. we have to do that in the transportation side right thousand. we have to push back and say are there ways we15 cear program and make it a seven-year program. do the exact same permi, proces. they told me time is as good as money to them. if yan take a project with the same permits in seven years oingtho save a lot of money and get as many highway miles built with less moneyhavek at. we have to look at the hard things on this, how to deal with the bisuand id we're going to f more construction on our bridges because we're behind on bridges as well. so now we have set as a magic formula 80/20. that the federal government pays 80% and th 20%. our state has stepped up and said that 80% is not enough but we have the responsibility to take care of our bridges and have accelerated the construction of that and set aside more state dollars to do that. that is a has to step up and say the 20%

for your use of driving may have to increase on that. those are difficult issues. will have to take on and work through that process on it. all of these things are reality eb and so in the middle of that we yield.o do transportation but we >> i thank the gentleman for yield i yielding. i want to put in a pitch for getting back to the fundamentals of finance that served this country and served this country well. it used to be that we taxed users for the transportation systems that they used in proportion touse. we didn't tap general taxpayers for that. highway taxes were once reserved for highway construction and maintenance. transit fees, harbor fees for h harbors and so forth. federal taxes were used for those projects that were truly terstate highways, the national airports and harbors. local taxes are what paid for sidewalks and local streets and

roads so every day consumers dollars. how much would go to each transportation system based upon how they found that system to be convenient and economical with their needs and they got accurate price signals to make those decisions. somewhere along the way abandoned those principles. we began raiding highway taxes for purposes unrelated to our highways not just public transit, hugh seems, flower plantin plantings, bicycles, regional development programs, parking lots, university research, thousands of earmarks. we began robbing st. petersburg to pay st. paul. forcing one community to pay fo and began tapping general taxpayers for transportation projects that benefited one specific class of users. so now we have about 35% according to one estimate of our highway taxes going to purposes unrelated to our highways. this budget moves us back toward

the sound principals of transportation finance that serve the country, that built the interstate highway system, that built our harbors and airports. these amendments -- and relieve ed general taxpayers from having to support those projects that benefithlass of users. the amendment seems to me to move us in exactly the opposit it taps general taxpayers to pay for transportation systems. it continues to bleed our highway funds for purposes unrelated to our highways. it seems to me a giant step backward. the budget moves us in the right direction. th the direction that serve this had country well. we need to with that i yield back. >> thank you,r.lark. as an oklahoman i can assure you sharing in the pain. i would like to recognize mr.

flores and it's a personal offee for 80% of the bike trails in texas as an oklahoman. so if you would feel free to take that on as well. >> thank you, mr. langford. trust me, we're a net donor to the highway fund. let's it would have been nice if we used part ofhethis instead of $ hard-earned taxpayer funds. i want to address the revenue side of mr. blenauer's amendment. first of all it relies on some false premises and that is that you can raise taxes on job creators and get more revenue. you cannot. revenue. i gave you a quote this morning from the uk where they rolled back their top tax rates and corporate tax rates because their h to their economy. what we need is an energy plan and we propose that. you get a lot of benefits,

higher revenues to the federal government and republicans pre get a couple other benefit out of it. you get more jobs, more american jobs as we're mining for american energy. and you get lower yield cost and bargain. now, you know, what we're proposing to do is to raise taxes on people that already pa. you know, 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 and punish them saying they make too much money and expect them to produce more ipads at lower costs. that violates the economics. everyday americans know that. americans on main street know that. and our job creators will see that when they decide whether to invest in this country when we're enacting punitive tax on

certain industries. this is the wrong way to go. i would urge we reject the amendment, thawe rely on the proposals that we put forth in our budget, in the republican budget, to properly fund the highway trust fund and transportation projects and then rely on the committee to do ei to disi yid back. >> thank you, mr. flores. we do have to find our way to do things cheaper. if the federal government is the on based on our permitti permitwee linear in our permitt when we should be able to do them simultaneous to reduce the cost and length of time. as we push through the federal system to say what can we do to make this cheaper we'll find some of those efficiencies. we continue to have money. obviously we don't try to find that. a lolocal, small

er companies. they work very hard to do an excellent job and we shoul lined up and ready to go. infrastructure is essential. we have to find a way to do it. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yield of his t. mr. blumenauer is recognized for one minute for the purpose of closing. >> first of all, we tried to have more infrastructure in theo tax cuts that nobody knew they got. we wanted to do more for infrastructure. we tried to do it prior president bush when we had an economic stimulus and the infrastructure wasn't accepted. let's be clear. i'm all for principles but one of the things that are dismissed here and will come out if we ever have a hearing on infrastructure is the things people dismiss are some of the cheapest ways to get addition highway capacity, transit, even, up i say, pedestrian and

highway capacity, but focus on what we're talking about here. there is a gap under ybill. it assumes about almost $30 billion in new transportation user fees if you are going to simply deal with the already allocated eitems, the new mandatory outlays, plus the ones in water andwe d this or i'll gu we will do it adding to the deficit next year. >> all right. time has expired. the and from the gentleman from oregon. nos have it. recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. r.no. mr. simpson? mr. simpson, no. mr. mr. calvert?

mr. calvert, no. mr. akin? mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. cole, no. mr. price? >> no. >> mr. price, mcclintock? no. mr. mr. stutsman, no. mr. langford? >> yes. >> mr. langford, no. s. black?>> no. mr. flores? >> no. >> mr. flores, mulvaney, mr. young? mr. mr. okita? >> no. >> mr. gunta? kin? >> no. >> mr. akin, no. mr. woodall?n hollen?

>> aye.ay ms. schwarz? >> aye. aye. >> ms. captor, aye. mr. doggett, blumenauer, aye. ms. mccollum yarmouth, aye. mr. pascrell? mr. pascrell, aye. mr. mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan of ohio? mr. ryan, msscltz? e.aye. ms. aye. mr. schueler? mr. schueler, aye. bass?

ms. bonamici,. campbell? >> no. >> mr. campbell, no. >> no. >> no. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chirman, no. ms. bass? ms. bass, aye. other members looking to vote or to change their vote? if not, the clerk shallr. cirma the ayes are 16, the nos a the amendment is not agreed to. next we are going to recognize offering an amendment. >> thank you. i have an amendment. >> the signate the amendment. the staff will hand out copies of. >> an amendment offered by ms.

captor, relating to veterans. >> the gentle lady from ohioise. >> thank you very much. the amendment that i am pr proposing would establish the veterans job corps. it would employ at least 20,000 returning five years in and restore america's national parks, our state parks, and other public lands and touch up federal facilities. the american people know need to be our number one priority and while the economy is gradually recovering it is not yet humming 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 are disturbing. the costs of unemployment are y,

career development for individuals, the security of the family, and from a public standpoint lost communities. veterans particularly those recently returfr ly 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 mentione. we should not sit by as a country and allow such human talent to go underappreciated under employed. this is a problem that we can build our way out of literally. economists estimate that for every dollar we invest in publi 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. theactuly was inspired by the original ccc, the civilian conservation corps, which during the depe io1930s wf a comprehensive plan to . it's amazing to look at the numbers within three months -- three months, not years, over 300,000 americans were employed through that corps. we're only about 20,000. but those who were employed during that period worked at over 1,000 sites across our country making lasting improvements to our nd many of the forests, the librars,dams, accomplishments were enormous in

scale and we are benefiting economically and recreationally the work done by them. and that was nearly eight decades ago. within five years' time the corps planted era half trees, rs of acres of public ted d,ndreds of miles of trails and roads in addition to countless other projects. just in ohio whether it is one of the many recreational buildings built by the corps and still enjoyed today by ntional preservation of the chesapeake and ohio channel, those investments have stood the test of time and benefited america an indeed. i would like to ask committee members for serious consideration of this amendmento the milwaukee,sin, congresswoma. >> thank you so much, representative kaptur. this is a thoughtful amendment when you consider that

the unemployment rateour v veterans from iraq and afghanistan stands at 12.1% as compared to the 8.7% among the general population, and when you look at our younger veterans aged 18 to 24 that over 29%. when you think about the returning veterans as we end these wars and they're coming back, one of the greatest resources for their finding a job has been with the post office. and of course our post offices are closing. and so ex temely important amendment and i hope members would give it the consideration that it ani would lady. >> i thank the gentle lady v yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. t gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue.

we have made substantial progress in reducingploy in our particularly as i travel across the county i see at a v many veterans who have much to give but cannot find the job they need to give it. we've tried to address this in a number of ways in recent years, many of us workede achers progr. we've approved tax credits that i have supported to employers to higher veterans. recently i was at an american gi forum event focused on business opportunities for veterans on businesses, but with all of these different areas and different skill sets for the veterans who come back -- not all of them are returning off e officers. not all of them are returning ncos with lots of stripes on their shoulder, many have been in positions in the military

where they learned some skills about but they're having a hard time matching those skills with the job opportunities that are available there. the program that ms. ckaptur is recommending and that i'm glad to co-sponsor is one that would of those individuals and it would have them not doing make work but real work. she has mentioned some of the projects that you can see in communities across america that are the lasting legacy of president roosevelt's era and initiative inspired by that. she has a very modest program, 20,000 veterans across the entire united states just in contrast the75,000 every year a have seen is how much that has meant for those young people to contribute. we have the teach for america program similarly. these are veterans who have

legacy of certificaservice, of their lives on the line. they're now back. they're not employed. perhaps they have fewer il of r them into this country because thenhey'll have a job they can point that that they've done which will be valuable as they apply later for another job. i see it to help our veterans, help our economy, and just generally uch to our country, that is 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 in america. to give them opportunity. it's not a handout. but it is know that many of the suicides that we are experiencing in the military relate to challenges to family life and reintegration into vet

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 vy, i think, reasonable amendment. i wish it could be larger. we're only talking 20,000 out o 770,000 unemployed veterans but it is a way for america to begin to properly say thank you and at the same time bring our veterans home to help rebuild america. i would yield to the gentleman from texas. >> you pay for this, this is fully paid for by closing some of the loopholes that are letting sejobs. instead of exporting jobs abroad you would encourage jobs at home for our vets. veterans to work here inside the united states rather than building schools just in they would be helping america rebuild herself for the next generation. i would ask for favorable

and i thank you so much for listening. >> i recognize mr. stutzman for ten minutes. >> tha i want to start by saying, first of all, i do oppose this amendment and even though i think the amendment is one that has good intentions i think we 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 have to be raised by raising taxes, a billion dollars in taxes for a new temporary entitlement, i think that we should -- if you break that down, the billion dollars for 20,000 veterans comes out to veteran. i think we'd be better off using those dollars for education, training opportunities for veterans that we already

currently have in place. so, mr. chairman, i would -- i believe we can do better than even this particular program with the programs we have in place. as the chairman of theetan affa and the economic opportunity committee, we've had several bipartisan hearings with congressman brailly in iowa and also in indiana and they have been very helpfuli us a new direction, new ideas on how we can assist our veterans that are coming home because we do -- ars in iraq and afghanistan winding down that we are going to have a large influx of veterans coming back hom wha important, and all of us would agree with this, that we have jobs here for our veterans. think of the things i would that we've had the discussion here about the national guard. i think the national guard should be utilized more.