they have to every year. for one very simple reason. we're the world's lowsiest record keepers. we just will not write things down. and i will look into the camera here and ask you out there watching how many of you have debit cards and when you swipe your debit card you do not get a receipt from the clerk? does that mean on april 1 of the following year you're going to remember everything you did for the previous 12 months? host: and that's what you do? guest: every time. 100% of the time. host: and as far as if we are bad record keepers, what's one of the things that you keep records of that maybe most viewers may not know is deductible? guest: well, again, if you go to the doctor and the doctor charges you a fee, and then it gets submitted to insurance, how many of you keep the paper that comes back from the insurance company that says here is the charge, here's what we covered, this is what you paid? the difference is a medical expense.

that's a ton of questions. host: gracious to us. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. pleasure to be here. . .

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> today, a look at the house members' debate on whether to eliminate funding to national public radio. then a look of the american transportation association on budget priorities. then a discussion on the tsa

security project. >> the likely gop candidate on the economy, and whether he will run for the republican nomination. >> i put my toe in the water. the feedback we've gotten from people across the country is that tens of thousands are willing to volunteer. >> this sunday. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal." weekdays, watched live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court's oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on sunday, "newsmakers," "q&a,"

"and british house of commons." it is all searchable online on our video library. it is washington, you are way created by america's cable companies. >> the house voted to ban federal funds for npr programming. the vote would prevent public radio stations from spending federal funds on programming. no house democrats voted in favor of the measure. it is opposed by the white house and is unlikely to be brought up by the senate. here is a portion of the house debate. kburn: mr. speaker, pursuant to houseesolution 1764 -- 174, i call up h.r. 1076, a bill to prohibit federal funding of nation

public radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of e bill. the clerk: h.r. 1076, bill hibthibt -- a bill to prohibit federal funding of nation public radio and these of federal funds to acquire radio content. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 174, the bill is considered as read. the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and mr. speaker, i ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to inser extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: tnk you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1076, a bill to get the

federal government and federal taxpayers out of the business of buying radio program they do not agree with. this is a bill that is long overdue. regardless of what you think of n.p.r., its programming or statements by its management, the time has com to cut the umbilical chord from the taxpayer support that has become as predictable as an entitlement program. much has changed, mr. speaker, in the media landscape since the corporation for public broadcasting was first created in 1967. followed by its creation of national public radio in 1970. today, we have multiple listing choices. there's analogue radio, digital radio, satellite radio, streaming radio over the internet and podcasts, both commercial and the sf-published variety. choi and available content is

not the problem. if you want to find some content, the only question is where you will find it. in these challenging economic times, committing the taxpayer to fund and support particular content, including content he or she may never listen to, highlights this absurd thing of the past. it's time to move forward and let national public radio spread its wings and support itself. this legislation does several important things. it prohibits direct federal funding of n.p.r., national public radio, and more importantly it ensures the american taxpayer will not be funding through their tax dollars radio program from n.p.r. or other outlets with which they may not agree.

it is also important to recognize that this bill does not do a few things. it does not defund public radio stations. and i want to repeat that, mr. speaker, because i thin it's such an important point. it does not defund public radio stations. they still may use federal funding to operate their station or to produce their own programming. public radio stations may also continue to purchase programming from n.p.r. or other sources, just not with federal taxpayer dollars. and this bill has no impact. i want to repeathat. this bill has no impact on public television. the added benefit of this legislation is that it ensures that if taxpayer dollars are necessary and given to local stations, it will not be used

to purchase generic national programming but instead it can be used to produce local content that actually will meet the needs of the community where these are located. mr. speaker, at this time i want to resve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady rerves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield myself three minutes. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1076. this bill will cripple national public radio, public radio stations and programming that is vital to over 27 million americans. we are now voting to deny the public access to one of our nation's most credible source of news coverage. c.b.o. has scored this bill. it does not save a penny.

this means that this legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose. but it does serve an ideological one. this legislation is not about reforming n.p.r., it is about punishg n.p.r. we hd no hearings on this bill. it didn't get referred to the committee for consideration. it's being handled as if it were an emergency. we don't even know all the facts . but that's apparently no impediment. for decades decisions on federal support for public broadcasting have been made two years in advance to insulate public broadcasting from politically motivated interference. this bill removes that buffer. n.p.r. is now exposed to the full force of the political

winds that blow through the house of representatives. that means the independents and -- independence and objectivity that public broadcasting has tried to uphold is now subject clearly to political interference. for those who complained that they don't want content to be one way or the other on the potical spectrum, but to be honest and fair, the right wing republicans are trying to impose in their view of what n.p.r. should be saying in the content of their programming. they'll say that's not the case. but, mr. speaker, that is the case. there is no reason for this bill. it is vindictive. it is mean-spirited. it will hit the smallest stations in rure areas hard. public radio is indispensabl for access to news that's hard to get, especially with broadband service is limited.

i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. i ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from the state of california, ms. eshoo, the ranking member of the subcommittee on telecommunication, control the rest of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to recognize the author of the legislation, mr. lamborn, he is recognized for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam blackburn, for your great work you do on the committee. i introduce h.r. 1076 because the federal government can no longer afford to fund programs that are fully capable of standing on their own. this is not about th ideology of n.p.r. executives or the content that n.p.r. produces. but whether in this age of trillion dollar annual deficits taxpayers should subsidize a

nonessential entity. plain and simple, this bill accomplishes three things. first, it prohibits public radio stations from using federal funds to purchase programming. current federal law requires that about 26% of federal grants to public radio stations be used for the production or acquisition of programming. many stations use these restricted grants to purchase programming from n.p.r. these programming fees are the largest single source of n.p.r. revenue at $56 million in fiscal year 201 second, h.r. 1076 prohibits station from using federal funds to pay n.p.r. dues. over 00 member stations paid a total of $2.8 million in dues to n.p.r. third, my bill prohibits direct federal funding of national public radio. for fiscal year 2010, n.p.r. received over $5 million in direct funding from the corporation for public broadcasti, departments of education and commerce, and the national endowment for the arts. these three sources of revenues

i just described totaled about $64 million in fiscal year 2010. local public radio stations would not be able to use federal tax dollars under this bill to purchase content whether it's from n.p.r. or any othe vendor. however under this bill a station could use other dollars for the payment of n.p.r. dues or the acquisition of programming. should this bill become law, the prohibition of funds would take effect immediately. but the real issue today is the proper role of the federal government with national public radio anwhether government programs and services that can be funded privately should receive taxpayer dollars. we live in an age of digital radio, computerized digital streaming, commercial all news radio, and radio talk shows, many of which are also streamed on the internet or over satellite radio. these provide sources of news and opinion without federal taxpayer dollars. n.p.r.hould the same.

with the national debt over $13 trillion, the government should simply not continue to fund nonessential services. and this bill is just one step. long before any firings, videos, and executive comments at n.p.r., i sponsored legislation in congress to pull the plug on taxpayer funding for the corporation for public broadcasting, n.p.r.'s parent company, as well as n.p.r. last year many of you will remember this issue came up as a youcut item and we voted in support of defunding. last month this house passed h.r. 1, within that bill the corporation for public broadcasting unobligated funds for fiscal year 2011 would be rescinded. when you cupple h.r. 1 with this bill, h.r. 1076, we end taxpayers having to subsidize national public radio. i'm a strong believer in the free market. i would like to see n.p.r. rework its business model and compete for all its income.

n.p.r. already receives a huge amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. n.p.r. can and should be entirely supported with private sources. in my own state of colorado, colorado public radio received in fiscal year 2010 only 6% of its funding from the corporation for public broadcasting. now, according to this bill colorado public radio is still permitted to apply for and receive federal grants through the corporation for public broadcasting, but they cannot use federal money for the n.p.r. dues or purchasing of content. they could use the other 94% of their money to purchase program content. ll this potentially require them to review and reprioritize where money is spent? i'm sure it will. but will it kill its programming? no way. according to n.p.r., federal funding to supplement operations

amounts to less than 2% of its annual budget. some have said this congress should notother with such a small amount of money. only in washington could anyone say $64 milln is not worth saving. you have to start somewhere if you're truly serious about getting our fiscal house in order. if congress cannot make difficult decisions in the small areas, how can we even begin to tackle entitlements or other major programs? if we look at the video that has received so much attention, ron shuler amids n.p.r. would be better off without federal funding. there is no need for further debate. n.p.r. does not need xpayer dollars. we can save a program or we can save our country. americans want washington to get serious about ending our overspending. if we can do that, the economy will get better and we'll have less unemployment and more jobs. mrs. blackburn: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: to wrap up, like many americans i enjoy much of n.p.r.'s programming, but let it live on its own. it can do at simply by changing its business model. just take the taxpayer out of the equation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in fierce opposition to this bill which is going to adversely affect more than 34 million national public radio listeners through 900 local stations across our entire country. my republican colleagues have declared an emergency to rush this bill to the floor without any hearings whatsoever to examine the proposal. i think that's a bad way to do business. we have many emergencies to deal with in our country, but

attacking and crippling n.p.r. is hardly an emergency. what the bill does, and it does it in a very sneaky backdoor way, what the bill does is it cuts off the use of all federal funding to n.p.r. by preventing any grants to it. it prevents any support to n.p.r. by the corporation for public broadcasting. and it prevents support to n.p.r. programming from public radio stations across the country. in other words, it cripples it, it hobbles it. which is really what the majority is seeking to do. this proposal is not going to do anything about reducing the deficit. the c.b.o. has weighed in. it doesn't cut any federal spending. in fact, the bill doesn't produce one penny in savings. what's very ear is what it does do. and it's really purposeful.

and that is to hobble n.p.r., threatening 9,000 jobs at stations across the country. why? i think the motivations behind this effort are quite clear. they are rooted in an ideological view about what n.p.r. broadcasts. and it capitalizes on recent headlines involving ron shuler and ron williams. this attack on n.p.r. strikes at the core of a wide array of n.p.r. programming. that americans enjoy every single day all week long across the country. from the morning edition and to two of my favorites, "car talk" and "the world of agra." i acknowledge that our nation faces threats, but "car talk" is hardly one ever them. and neither is diane reams.

silencing what some disagree with, make no mistake about it, is a threat to our democracy. a great democracy does not silence voices. we want many voices to the many. n.p.r. programming reaches more than 900 independently owned and operated stations across the country. from san francisco kqed, the most listened to public radio station in the country, wi who are than 740,000 listeners iche week, to small rural stations -- listeners each week, to small rural stations, like the chairman of theubcommittee, in pendleton, oregon. these stations provide an important public service to the local community and people trust it and they enjoy it. they want it. they like it. is is national programming with local listenership. and n.p.r.'s listenership has incread unlike other stations by 72% over the last 10 years.

in a recently national survey found, that's why i think this is an ill begotten proposal by the majority, you say you listen to the american people, i think you have to take the plugs out of your ears, recent survey found almost 70% of all voters across the entire polical spectrum oppose terminating the funding for public broadcasting, including 56% of republicans in the country. so i think it's time to stand up for p.r. i think that this is a phony emergency measure and i don't think n.p.r. deserves to be treated this way. i urge my colleagues to vote to preserve really what i think is a national treasure. that it provides in very tough times very clear and important news and information to instruct our country and listeners in

local communities around our nation. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance ofer time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black blurn: -- mrs. blackburn: thank you, i yield one minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, let as -- let's be honest and talk about what this bill is about. this bill is about making sure that we are spending taxpayer dollars the way that the people that earn them would spend it. and we saw as the gentlelady from california indicated, on video, executives at n.p.r. saying, that they don't need taxpayer dollars. so that's number one. that's out there. that was demonstrated for all of america to see.

we are also in the process of making sure that washington begins to do what every american family and small businessperson is having to do right now. it's called tightening the belt. it's called trying to learn how to do more with less. . and inherently what that means is we got to start prioritizing the things that are important to the american people. the problem is we've seen n.p.r. anits programming often veer far from what most americans would like to see as far as the expenditure of their taxpayer dollars. that's the bottom line. nobody's on a rampage. nobody is trying to say that we don't like n.p.r. for n.p.r.'s sake. we've seen how they spend their money. it's time to prioritize.

it's time to reflect the common sense of the american people, and that's why the bill takes the form that it does. it says that we've got to go, number one, listen to the executives at n.p.r. that says they don't need taxpayer funding. well, listen, we are all about looking for ways to cut right now and save on both sides of the aisle. we ought to take that advice for what it is. but we also know that n.p.r. takes its funding and benefits from taxpayer dollars through the payments of local stions across the country. so what we're saying by this bill, those stations are not going to be starved from corporation for public broadcasting grants, unlike the lady indicated. what they are going to be told is you are not going to be using those taxpayer dollars for programming because we've seen how n.p.r. has used that

funding and the kind of funding that's been involved. we are trying to find commonality. our country is made up of much diversity with people of a lot of differing opinions. why should we allow taxpayer dollars to be used to advocate one ideology? why should we? we shouldn't. we shouldnsist that our taxpayer dollars are prioritized and the people's interest of this country are honored. that's why i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady resves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congresswoman doris matsui. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. eshoo: for two minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: thank you.

i ank the gentlelady for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1076. i can't believe what i'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. it's not a lefty hyped organization. this bill would prevent public radio stations from using -- from purchasing programs. mr. speaker, this would be a huge disruption to our national public radio system economy and most importantly the intellectual content and news that so many americans rely upon. according to a recent study, n.p.r.'s overall audience grew last year to over 27 million weekly listeners. that's over 60% overall since 2000. and this is when most other media markets or outlets are struggling. i was a former board chair of

sacramento's local pbs tv station, and i was chairman of a tv station. however, i can attest to the value the national public broadcasting programming offers to my constituents. mr. speaker, thousands of my constituents rely onocal n.p.r. stations to get their news, and this is a very diverse group. in fact, since this bill was introduced, i've received a significant number of calls from them voicing very strong support for our n.p.r. and very, very strong opposition to this legislation. one of my constituents told me that listening to n.p.r. makes him a more informed -- certainly more engaged citizen. moreover, this bill will not produce any savings for the taxpayer and will not reduce the deficit.

my constituents, it's a simple equation of value for money. and also, this is about jobs. we need to talk about jobs. public radio stations employ over 9,000 workers across the country, including 40 from sacramento. mr. speaker, these are jobs we cannot lose. i urge my colleagues to vote ainst this harmful legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to one of our new freshman members, mr. crawford om arkansas, who is a broadcaster and brings that expertise to this chamber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1076. as a broadcaster shes i understand the -- i understand the freedom to express yourself but to do it on your own merit. i brought an idea to the marketplace to develop a radio

news network. started with four stations and within four years was able to grow that with 50 stations serving five states. did not ask for one single dime from the federal government. i think the freed to succeed in this country needs to exist also with the freedom to fail. we have an open marketplace. we have an opportunity toell advertising around the ideas that which express on the radio. i'm a success story in using the open marketplace with freedom to succeed. it also comes with the freedom to fail. earlier in the year or last year, rather, i started a radio station. a small venture. i populated that to staff with folks that were on unemployment. so i know what it means to create jobs. and certainly this not about further burdening our taxpayer with support of an industry that is perfectly capable of supporting itself. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time.

e gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to now call on mr. weiner from new york and also inquire howuch time we have on this side, how much time is left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 21 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york is recognized for -- ms. eshoo: he's recognized for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes. mr. weiner: crisis averted, ladies and gtlemen. what a relief. what a relief. i'm glad we got the economy back going. i'm so glad we secured our nuclear power plants. so glad americans are back to work. we discovered a target we can all agree upon. it's these guys. this is a problem. it's clicking cadillac. -- it's click and clack. now, let's look at the record here. for one, they talk in that boston accent. "car talk." it's a car, congressmen.

second, they talk about master cylinders. it's kinky. i am glad my republican friends are finally getting to the bottom of this. and then with all the giggling and snorting they do every weekend on their show, it's got to be some kind of a code. they're clearly talking to the russians or chinese with all that giggling and snorting. i am so relieved we had this emergency session that we waived the rules of the house that requires 72 hours so we can finally get these guys off my radio. click and clack. i know it. these guys are political. they make no sense about most of what they say. you know what, i'm glad we are not going to have to listen to them. i'm said the republicans said enough of click and clack. that's what they said in campaign 2010. it's a contract with america, get rid of click and clack.

it's about time. the last thing we want is informative solutions to how we talk about cars and think about all the people they are going to put out of work. you know, your cuomer service. and the director of ethics. all of these guys that finally are goi to be taken off the public peril, the republican party, no one can say they are not in touch. they get it. they understand where the american people are. the american people are not concerned about the economy around the world. they're staring at their radio station saying, get rid of click and clack. finally my repuican friends are getting rid of them. kudos to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady fm tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i reserve. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from california. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they're here as guests of the house and that any

manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd now like to yieldwo minutes to a highly respected member of the energy and commerce committee and the telecommunications and internet subcommittee, mr. mike doyle from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: how long are you yielding? the speaker o tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today the house republicans want to eliminate funding for n.p.r. some because they think the government should not operate a new service and some because they think the reporting is biased. i believe they're wrong on both counts. public radio plays an important role in our communities as a source of news and inter-- entertainment. n.p.r. listeners are unaware of

indisputable -- are aware of indisputable facts. even glen beck's website, the blaze, explains that the video is neither fair nor balanced, how it's basically a lie. and my colleagues should consider the fact that many n.p.r. programs have nothing to do with news or politics. where's the bias in "car talk"? there might be a bias between pintos or pacers but not a political bias. what about music broadcast? there might be a bias against wachovia but not platecal bias. even so, if this bill were simply to defund n.p.r.'s direct public contribution th at least it would only impact the organization with the alleged political bias which is again based on a lie. but this bill goes further. it hurts local public radio stations and tens of millions of listeners from across the country. if this bill is enacted, communities across the country

will be denied programming that their residents want. whatever happened to the philosophy that more choice is better? my colleagues, this is bad public policy. this is a terrible bill. this is a terrible waste of our time. and i urge my colleagues to reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. ms. eshoo: does the gentlewoman have speakers? mrs. blackburn: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to clear up what i think is probably a couple of misunderstandings that my colleagues have across the aisle. one of the things i think it's important for everyone in this chamber to realize, and i know some are -- want to make fun of the fact that we areere talking about $100 million, $92 million, $67 million, different

funding that goes in and rough n.p.r. mr. speaker, every single penny that comes from the taxpayer is important, and every single penny that we appropriate comes from those taxpayers, and we are charged with being good stewards of that money. changing the structure in which n.p.r. does their business. as mr. lamborn said, looking at this business model this is a step we can take to save those taxpayer dollars. this is a step that is going to change that business model and free n.p.r. now, contrary to what some across the aisle are saying, this doesn't take n.p.r. off the air. what this does is to say, n.p.r., you got to get out of the taxpayers' pocket because the taxpayer is t going to

allow the taxpayer dollars to be sent to pay those n.p.r. dues and to buy that.p.r. programming. now, another misconception that seems to be out there is about jobs. and saying that programming is going to be denied because these stations won't be able use taxpayer money to acquire some of this government n.p.r. programming. let me tell you, what we're doing is empowering these local radio stations, and i hope, mr. speaker, that our colleagues understand this. we are turning to these local affiliates and saying, look, here are still going to be grants out there. you can create your own programming. this is a great jobs program for these local radio stations. this is telling them you don't have to buy programming you don't want and that your

listeners don't really want to listen to. we are saying, get creative. get that american spirit back to work, just like mr. crawford was talking about, find a niche in your marketplace and create a program. you wanto talk about the jobs that are created? every time you create a new radio show you've got a writer, an editor, a producer, a sound engineer, assistant engineer. you have postproduction to take place. you got a host. you got a call screener. you got a board operator. you got a research assistant working with that writer and working with that editor. you've got a sales and marketing teamworking. you've got aertisers that are looking. of course, n.p.r. call them sponsors. you have affiliate relation teams working and you have attorneys who are working on the intellectual proper to make sure they protect that content. so i would just encourage my colleagues across the aisle to

remember this is about freeing up those local radio stations. it is about getting n.p.r. out of the taxpayer pocket. it is making certain that we are good stewards of the taxpayer money, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i would just like to add something here. that is that one of the mantras of our friends on the other side of the aisleas, read the bill. if the gentlewoman from tennessee would read the bill, she would know tt there's not one dime, not one cent that is saved in this bill. what this bill does, you can talk all you want about how much you love n.p.r., what u are doing is killing o the local station from being able to have the money to buy n.p.r.'s programming. so you a hurting local broadcastsing. i now would like to call on the

distinguished woman from california from the sta barbara area, valued memberf the committee, congresswoman lois capps. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. eshoo: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank the ranking member of the committee. mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this effort to defund public radio. right nomillions of americans tune in to n.p.r. stations across the country for one reason. the consistency of the high quality of its programming. in a world awash by off ill informed and sensationalist cable news and ever louder voices, public broadcasting provides thoughtful, evenhanded analysis of the issues of the day. and they do it every day. the bill before us seeks to end that. it is nothing more than an effort to cripple n.p.r. by crippling our local public radio stations. the bill would decimate local n.p.r. stations by restricting their ability to choose

programming best suited to their community. in my district n.p.r. stations provide valuable international and domestic news. they bring all things considered, "morning edition" and "car talk" into our cars and living rooms. these stations also cover local news, concerts, and school events. they produce shows like "yours on the arts," "community calendar." the bill throws allhat out of the window. n.p.r. reports and media coverage are consistency evenhanded driven by a high standard of journalistic ethics. they are not politically biased. they let the stories do the talking. apparently the public, tax paying public, likes that. according for the project in excellence and journalism, in the last year the television network audience slipped 3 1/2 minutes. newspapers down 5%. radio fell 6%. magazines down 9%.

n.p.r.? up %. since 000, n.p.r. audience is up 58%. 5.7 million unique monthl visitors to the website, up more than five million. this is a reflection of the quality of its program and dedication to its mission. public broadcasting helps educate our society, celebrates the arts, education, respectful debate, and civil discourse. n.p.r. and the 900-plus local stations are a valuable resource for our country. i urge my collgues to stand up for public broadcasting and oppose this legislation. i yid back. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to take just a moment and since the previous speaker talked a little bit about n.p.r. and its listening audience. i would like to make certain that the record reflects a little bit about that listening audien. we know that more men than women

listen to n.p.r. except for the classical music which is 48% female. baby boomers are a big part of their audience. we also know that n.p.r., acrding to their website, says that their audience is extraordinarily well educated, nearly 65% of all listeners have a bachelor's degree, compared to only a quarter of the u.s. population. we also know that they are althy listeners, mr. speaker. n.p.r. hseholds tend to be more affluent than other useholds primarily as a result of their educational retainment. the medium household income of an n.p.r. news listener is about 86 -- $86,000, compared to the national average of about $55,00 we also know that when it comes to geography, more than 99% of the u.s. populationhas access to at least one n.p.r. station.

when it comes to employment the majority of n.p.r. listeners, 63%, are employed full-time. mr. speaker, again i repeat the point. the object of this today is to get n.p.r. out of the taxpayers' pocket. it is time for us to do this. it is time for this structure to be changed. it is time for us to be good stewards and save the money of the american taxpayer. this is another step toward that goal. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentledy reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd now like to recognize for two minutes congresswoman tammy baldwin om wisconsin, a valued member of the committee. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. baldwin: i thank the gentlelady.

mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this bill which prohibits federal funding of national public radio. and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. i'm incredibly disappointed in my republican colleagues for this needless attempt to cripple n.p.r. and threaten thousands of jobs in the public broadcasting community. without so much as a single hearing on the subject, this bill dissolves a vital public radio system dependent upon by millions of americans across the country. 27 million americans listen to n.p.r. each week. and back home in wisconsin nearly 450,000 people listen to wisconsin public radio weekly. over a three statewide network. in addition, 2.3 million visitors visited the wisconsin public radio website in 2010. those who listen to wisconsin public radio know how much there is to love. wisconsin public radio provides

over nine hours each week day of interactive radio programming engaging wisconsin residents and experts from around the world in public policy, culture, arts, and educational discussions. and because wisconsin is largely a rural state, our citizens rely on over-the-air broadcasting more than almost any other state. this means that wisconsin audiences significantly rely on public radio. not only would this horrible bill rushed before us today cripple local radio stations and programming that we enjoy in wisconsin, it severely harms listeners access to national shows like morning edition, all things considered, this american life, a prairie home companion, and one of my personal favorites, what do you know, among many others. mr. speaker, the republican majority is clearly not

interested in creating jobs or dealing seriously with the deficit. despite all of the talk, we are here today considering legislation that attacks public radio. i strongly oppose this bill and i strongly urge all of my colleagues to do so, too. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mr blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding time. i come to the floor to rise in support of this bill. in that the -- the federal government has a few constitutional duties, and we seem to have taken on a lot of fedel responsibilities. and as time goes on, every time we see a need, we think we have to tap into the taxpayers and create another government

function. but this is not one of those functions that is an enumerated power of the united states congress. it is not something that we are compelled to do. it is something that we -- it is discretionary. we are in the operations of a time of austerity. a time when we see what's happened as a prelude to the american economy if we just look over to europe and places like, portugal, ireland, italy, greece, spain for example. that's the direction we are heading with our economy. and as we see this discretionary spending grow, along with our entitlements grow, and our economy contract, we also need to look at these items that are at our discretion as to whether or not to fund. and i think that the image that we have seen on the videos tell us something out the internal culture of n.p.r. and if you haven't seen the videos or if you have just seen a little text in there, that doesn't give you the real sense of what was going on in that

conversation with mr. schiller at that table for two hours that day. if you look at the whole video, you'll see the cast and character and the content reflected the culture of n.p.r. in the same way in my view that the videos of acorn reflected accurate the actual internal culture of acorn. we shut ofthe funding to acorn for that reason. of all the data we put out on acorn, you couldn't be convinced to shut off the funding until you saw the reality of the video, and then we looked into planned parenthood, of all the data that was brought out here to the floor of the house, mr. speaker, and i compliment my friends for doing so, and all those who stood with him, still the american people didn't understand the real culture of planned parenthood until they saw the video. . of all the data we have seen, we

still have not absorbed the real culture of n.p.r. until we saw the video of those two hours that day. of this act and this resolution and i believe it's time for us to draw a line in our budget and e much time we have left on our side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlady from california has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee has 11 minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you. i now would like to call upon congressman ed markey. who i think possesses the broadest and deepest knowledge of telecommunications in the congress. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. eshoo: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized fotwo minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. in an era when edwardian drama

is the only way to characterize the way in which cable news deals with the public affairs of our country, there is an owe kaycies of real news that begins with "morning edition" goes right through the day to "all things considered" which focuses on that most unusual of all subjects, hard news. that the american people can use to make judgments about the affairs of ourcountry and the affairs of the world. it's an owe kaycies of information -- owe waycies -- oasis of information. "on point," other programs that raise the cultur level but serve as a place where people, 170 million americans, can go to get real information. now, what is this debate all about? it's really about an ancient an

mossity which the republican- animosity which the republican party has had to the very creation of n.p.r., through newt gingrich, through the early years of the 21st century, right up to today, where it's on a list of grievances which they have about this ability of n.p.r. to provide this news and information. that's what the debate's about. it's not -- you don't have to be dick tracy to figure out what this debate is all about. they have right from the very beginning of the creation of this network wanted to destroy it. and i think that they are going to run into a razor blade sharp edge reaction from the american public as they find that in place of "morning edition" and

"car talk" and "all things considered" theyant to move to radio silence. when the american people find out about that, they are going to be outraged. i would vote no and urge strongly a no vote for all members of this body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i want address one thing. if this is not an ancient animosity -- i don't think i'm quite that old and i don't think you have to be dick tracy to figure out what this debate is about. it's about saving taxpayer money. we do not have a revenue problem in this town. we have a spending problem in this town. the federal government does not have the money to fund these programs. we are borrowing 42 cents out of ery ngle dollar that we

spend. we have to get the spending under control. we have to create an environment where the american people can get back to work, and we' talking about funding for n.p.r. i just gave the demographic. it is a wealthy, educated listening audience. if people want this programming, mr. speaker, they are ing to be willing to pay for it. but the american taxpayer has said get n.p.r. out of our pocket. now, i pulled the sponsors for n.p.r., and i think my colleagues would be interested in this. when you go to the n.p.r. website and you start pulling the sponsors -- they don't sell advertising but they do have many sponsors. they have some sponsors that land in the $1 million-plus category. $1 million-plus. and then they list sponsors all the way down to $5,999.

this is how wealthy the sponsorship base and the subscribership base is for them. it is time for us to remove the federal support system that they have relied on. they have told us they do not need the money. we need to cut the umbilical chord. we need to see what n.p.r. can do on their own and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i yield two minutes to the dean of the house, mr. dingell from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognid for two minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dingell: i thank the gentlelady from california for yielding me this time and i commend her for opposing this legislation.

i rise in strenuous opposition to h.r. 1076. hastened to the floor in defiance of the commitments of the speaker and without any hearings or consideration by the committee on energy and commerce. no opportunity for the public to speak or be heard on what we're doing. the majority continues to force members of this body to waste time and energy of the house, a critical asset of this nation, on political witch-hunts with respect to health care and the environment. now we're adding public broadcasting to this list. public broadcasting is a national treasure. it provides us impartial, honest coverage of facts and news. it provides information not available elsewhere and, yes, it sheds a little bit of culture on our people, something that my republican colleagues find offensive. it has done so at very low cost to the public.

with huge contributions from the people for the support of -- in support of this. this legislation is going to prohibit local stations like michigan radio in ann arbor and in your own districts and in your states from using public -- from using money from corporation of public broadcasting from producing any public radio programs. as regards process, we are completely evading the processes and the commitments that are -- can be found in the rules and pronouncements of the leadership on the other side. and we are finally -- finding that the history of this, which goes back to the 1934 communications act in the commerce committee has been grossly disregarded. some for regular order and so much for transparency that the majority made such a big fuss about at the beginning of this year.

what's next? are we going to amend the endangered species act on the floor to declare an open season on the big bird or upon programs which educate our kids or which contribute to the advancement of our society? i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1076. it's a bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: resve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, who is the chairman of the house caucus on public broadcasting. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i ank the gentlelady. i want to make five basic points. number one, there are no savings to the taxpayer in this bill. it simply passes on higher costs and fewer choices to local stations. second, it's not going to sto

n.p.r., which will go on in new york and los angeles and even portland, egon. what it will cripple is what happens in smalle local stations around the country who rely on n.p.r. and other public broadcasting entities for their content. my good friend from tennessee just went through all the steps that are necessary to produce local content. that's complex and it's expensive. that's why they voluntarily buy "morning edition" or "prairie home companion" or "car talk." n.p.r. never said it didn't need the money. they're relying on a discredited video that was exposed by glen beck's website of all places. our friends should talk to the thousands of volunteers at home who rely upon public broadcasting resources to provide the content that americans love.

reject this travesty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. in response to this there are no savings, and may i point my colleague to a report on the corporation for public roadcasting, federal funding and issues. and i will be happy to submit this for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and reading from that n.p.r., incorporated which oversees the n.p.r. systems states that n.p.r. receives direct funding in the range of $1.5 million to $3 million from three federal agencies and the corporation for public broadcastinging. those are the national endoufment for the arts, department o commerce's -- endowment for the arts, department of commerce's department of public education. now, mr. speaker, what we're saying is you can't do that

anymore. this is one of the steps that we have to take in order to straighten out this budgeting process. our country does not have the money to spend on this. n.p.r. does not need the money. they will not be able to get these grants. we will save those dollars. the american taxpayer has said, get your fiscal house in order. this is a step in that process. i know they don't like it, but you know what, this is something we can do. this is something we will do. this is something the american people want to make certain that we do so that we get this nation back on a firm, fiscal and sound fiscal policy. the day has come that the out-of-control fedal spending has to stop. a good place to start is by taking n.p.r. out of the

taxpayer pocket, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro mpore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ciilline: i thank the gentlelady from california. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1076, to defund national public radio. overwhelming rhode island constituents agree this legislation is no more than an ideological attack on public broadcasting. mass can raiding as a fiscal issue. -- masquerading as a fiscal issue. it is .003% of the national budget. this legislation will not reduce the deficit by a single penny. without as much of a hearing, this legislation undermines public broadcasting, assisting 3,400 americans turn to weekly and americans across the mittcal spectrum place high trust.

these funding restrictions will devastate public radio, the economy of the public radio, it will harm local stations, it will inhibit their ability to get audiences, most importantly, their ability to continue to produce local programming. national public radio gives voice to the smallest communities in our cntry. i know the high quality that n.p.r. provides in rhode island and all across this country. it would also endanger 9,000 jobs at local public radio stations in communities across the country. i urge my colleagues to vote against this assault on the free exchange of ideas and instead support a democracy that continues to listen carefully to its people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker p tempore: the gentlelady from california. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield a minute to the gentlewoman from new

york, congresswoman nita lowey, who is one of the great advocates of public broadcasting in the congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentlelady. and, mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition. 170 million americans use public media r vital news. 61% of voters who support deficit reduction also support funding for public broadcasting. yet, the assault on public broadcasting continues. when jobs and the economy should be our top priority. this outrageous bill would prohibit public radio stations from using funds from using any radio programming from any outside source. that means that your local radio stations may t be able to air quality programming. we were n sent here to silence "prairie home

companion," "car talk." let's try to stop putting diane ream out of work and try to focus putting more americans back to work. reject this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the ntlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson, the chairman of the house democratic caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. larson: i thank the gentlewoman and wish her a happy st. patri's day. mr. speaker, there's a pattern here. americans are seeing through what it amounts to an ideological purge. in wisconsin, under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they're taking away collective bargaining rights. in washington under the guise of dealing with the deficit they are cutting planned parenthood and taking away

men's rights. under the guise of dealing with the deficit, they are planning to privatize social security and voher medicare as if they had anything to do with causing the deficit and the problem we're in. and under the guise of saving taxpayers dollars, what they're doing is silencing n.p.r., not because it saves money but because it is not on the same ideological freak wednesdayy of the extreme -- free against -- frequency of the extreme right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i yield to ms.

woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. woolsey: the reaction to the plan is so be it. the reaction to an immoral afghanistan withdrawal is a shrug. but defunding national free programming, now, that's a national crisis. i figure they think if they can't catch bin laden then they ought to go after "prairie home compani." n.p.r. provides a vital function in a democracy. it's also twice as popular as the afghanistan war. and it supports 21,000 jobs. that's 21,000 jobs more than the republican agenda would create. vote against h.r. 1076. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california reserves. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves.

the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett:hile republicans insist today that n.p.r. is a four-letter word, the real attack is on k.u.t. and similar public radio. texans rely on kut. the only biased on those who begin with "morning edition" is a biased for truth. my constituents turn to kut because they want fact-based, not fox-based coverage. like their continued assault on pbs, these republicans just can'tell the difference between big government and big bird. while they pander to wall street, they continue to want to terminate support on "sesame street." all things considered, their atck really has nothing to do with balancing the budget it is an ideological crusade against

balanced news and educational programs. cutting access to public knowledge decreases our ability to hold our government accountable. don't weaken oudemocracy by weakening this vital source of reality-based journalism. don't cut kut, public radio serves the public's interest. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: at this time i yield one minute to one of our freshmen members from the florida pan handle, mr. southerland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. southerland: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. susterland: -- mr. susterland: we talk about big bird and that sounds wonderful. we had a couple of big bird in my family. we have four small children and they love big bird. i'll tell you this when the c.e.o. of "sesame street" is

compensated, $956,000 in 2008 compensation, that's over double what the leader of the free world makes. think about that. $46,000 -- $956,000, when in the same year "sesame street" received $211 million in toy and consumer product sails. so -- sales. to stand here and say we have the luxury at this incredibly critical crisis moment in our deficit struggles that we have the luxury, the xury of making sure that pbs can pay $632,000 in salary and the corporation for public broadcasting can pay its president and c.e.o., $300,000 a piece, i mean, really. are we srious? are we serious? we can do better. we must do better. madam chair, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee

reserves the balance of r time. the gentlelady from california has three minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee has six minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: did you say three minutes? the speaker pro tempore: correct. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman, great irishman, from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: mr. speaker, national public radio has the strongest intellectual artistic and informational in-depth content of any radio network in this country. because its content is not compromised by corporate ownership. i love it, but i won't lose it. it's the rural stations that depend on n.p.r. for half their budget. they can't afford to lose this national asset, nor can the 36 million people who rely on emergency alerts from n.p.r. in times of crisis. the commercial market won't do that because there's no profit in it. nor can the visually and hearing impaired afford to lose the technology n.p.r. developed.

this has nothing to do with the deficit. it's a fraction of our natioal debt. it jeopardizes 9,000 jobs and distracts us from solving the real problems that this nation faces by trying to destroy one of the primary sources of an entight lened -- enlightened electorate. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady frocalifornia reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. you know ihink that this is one of those things that's what did he- that's kind of what's wrong around here. don't do this, that's not much money. that's not much money. you know what, mr. speaker? it all adds up. and the american people have had it with the federal government spending money they do not have. with that i want to yield one minute to a wonderful new member who has joined us from dunn, north carolina, miss ehlers. the spker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

mrs. ellmers: this legislation would simply prohibit direct federal funds, taxpayer money, from being made available to the national public radio, or as we know it, n.p.r. and would prohibit public radio stations from using federal funds to pay for their n.p.r. dues. the bill would also prohibit public radio stations from using federal funds for the production or acquisition of programming. i want to be very clear. i am in support of the arts. however i do not believe that n.p.r. has the right to public funds from our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. when they receive plenty of funding from private sources. these prohibitions would not affect a local radio station's ability to use the federal funding for their operations or for the production of their o programming. n.p.r. already receives direct federal funding through the corporation of public broadcasting.

the department of education, department of commerce, and the national endowment for the arts. they also get a considerable amount of money from local radio stations. why do they need more? thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: i would like to inquire how much time we have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has two minutes remaining. the gentlelady from tennessee has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: how many speakers does the gentlelady from tennessee still have? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, once ty finish their speakers, then i will close for our side. ms. eshoo: how many speakers do you have? mrs. blackburn: once they finish with their speakers ail -- i'll be ready to close. ms. eshoo: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: i believe the gentlelady from tennessee is prepared to close. so the gentlelady from california is recognized.

ms. eshoo: i yield one minute to the gentleman, the brilliant, brilliant gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. eshoo: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the gentledy. n.p.r. provides news and cultural enrichment. yes, enrichment that adds value to the lives of millions of americans. and it reaches into all parts of our country. even into that fact-free univse where the other side seems to be living saying that factl information is somehow a liberal thai ass. you know -- bias. we talk about the need for a well-informed public. just this morning we had a reminder of the benefits that n.p.r. brings to america. today there was a news report on the slow progress the u.s. army is making towards seeing that wounded soldiers get the purple hearts they deserve.

the army's second in command remarked in this story that it was previous reporting by n.p.r. that was removing the confusion and misunderstanding that had prevented the serving soldiers from getting the purple heart recognition. this is good reporting. the other side seems to thin that this is -- wait, wait, don't tell me. biased reporting. we need n.p.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. has one minute remaining. ms. eshoo: reser. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady from tennessee prepared to close? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, once they have finished with all of their speakers, i will have the right to close on the bill. i continue to reserve our time until such time as they have exhausted their speakers. the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. the gentlelady from california has one minute remaining. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to

the the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. mrs. malon: mr. speaker, a study conducted by the center for international and security studies found that those who said they received most of their news fm n.p.r. were only about 1/4 as likely to hold a demonstrably false belief about important issues relating to the iraq war, as those who primarily consume news from our colleagues' favorite news channels. a similar study conducted last year on mainly economic issues produced similar results. those who primarily listened to n.p.r. were considerably less likely to hold demonstrably false beliefs. so now our colleagues across the aisle want to pull the plug on n.p.r. one of t most accurate sources

of demonstrably true news and information. our colleagues want to fire the messenger. this is not a move to create jobs or save money. this is a move to save face. at the expense of truth. and i believe that such a move comes at a price that we simply cannot afford to pay. this country needs n.p.r. vote against the republican bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of our time. i do think that our colleagues across the aisle are missing the points on this. we are responsible for making certain that this fiscal house gets in order. this is just another of those attempts. this is not about taking n.p.r. off the air.

there's nothing here that says you will take n.p.r. off the air. what it simply says is if you are an affiliate station and you want to pay n.p.r. dues, you can't use taxpayer dollars. if you want to buy n.p.r. programming, you cannot use taxpayer dollars for that. the taxpayers want n.p.r. out of their pocket. now, there is plenty of popular programming out there, and if the listeners want to hear that, we are not ting to disenfranchise those listeners. indeed if listeners like the n.p.r., they can have -- that they have, they can keep it. but what we are saying is they need to raise the money for this. we went through the demographics for n.p.r. college educated 63% have full-time jobs. their average household income is upwards of $86,000 a year. they have a list of sponsors that give over $1 million a year to n.p.r.

n.p.r. itself has said they do not need our taxpayer funding. so this is a place that we can go and save some money. to those that say it is a job killing ogram, may i remind you indeed to develop local programming, i articulated 17 different positions attached to creating even one radio show. and unlike some of my colleagues, mr. speaker, i fully believe there are talented people, talented writers an editors and programmers all across this great nation who would love to have a platform for the great ideas and the content that they would like to create. i want to encourage all of my colleagues to take a step in the right direction in getting our fiscal house in order. the time has come for us to claw back this money. the time has come for us to send a message. we need to get n.p.r. out of the

taxpayers' pocket. i encourage a yes vote on h.r. you can watch live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return here. and the house is also in recess and returns tuse, march 29 at 2:00 p.m. they will have roll call votes at 6:30. and they are expected to end the home affordable modification program. you can follow live here on c-span. following a number of stories from japan to libya, with the

al-jazeera english network. in libya, the updates there, world leaders are launching military action there as top officials from the united states, europe, and the arab world have announced they will protect civilians caught in combat between the libyan french president said after an emergency summit in paris today that france has already taken military action against libya. earlier today, libyan government troops stormed into the rebel capital. apparently ignoring a proclaimed cease-fire and potentially complicating any military action by allied forces. >> in terms of the preparedness of -- >> president obama is touring south america, meeting with leaders. today he stops in the capitol city of bra sillia to meet with the president. he is scheduled to give a

speech. and on mont he arrives in chile for a meeting with 2 president. and on tuesday, he will travel to el salvador where he will meet with the president before returning on wednesday. the president will remain in el salvador for tours of the national cathedral and the myian ruins. >> this weekend on c-span's road to the white house, likely g.o.p. presidential candidate herman cane on the economy, the spiraling downward of america and whether he will run for the republican nation. >> i put my toe in the water. it is now up to my neck. and the feedback we have gotten from people across this country, tens of thousands who are willing to volunteer. >> this sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> deputy trancetation secretary talks about the obama administration's 2012

transportation budget priorities. he also calls on congress to pass a six-year transportation funding bill. he made remarks at the american public transportation association conference. and this portion is about 10 minutes. >> thanks, mike. and if mike can't get you energized and motivated, nobody can. >> thanks also for acknowledging bill's role. through thick and thin, bill, you have really brought us to where it is today. connecting people and jobs day after day. and let's not forget that's where we're at. it's great to see so many friends and familiar faces here. secretary lahood sends his apologies for being unable to join us. part of being a cabinet secretary means that when the white house asks you to do something at the last moment,

you do that. so he's out of state today. he will be with you tomorrow. so he sends his apologies, but i'm very happy tobe here on his behalf today. we are proud to count all of you as our partners. you've been a leading voice in the discussion about public transportation. your efforts and advocacy continue to ape the way we approach travel as a nation. and as you gather here for this conference, america's at a crucial crossroads for our trsportation network. we all know the history. for decades wee seen chronic underfunding of the maintenance and construction of roads, rails, subway, bus and other transportation systems. now, for the first time in decades, we have an administration that has made transportation ariority and proven that commitment not just th words, but with actions. you've all heard president obama talk about winning the future. he says that in order to do so we need to outinnovate,

outeducate and, yes, outbuild the rest of the world. andwe can't do these things, we can't build world class economy without a world class transportation network. it's as simple as that. that's why the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal invests $129 billion in 2012 as part of an overall $556 billion six-year reauthorization project. what does that mean for transit? we're talking about a 127% increase in funding. [applause] and that unprecedented increase is geared toward making transit more affordable, more accessible and more sustainable. that is 19 billion towards -- 119 billion over the next six years. the proposal also allows cities

to help fund operating costs temporarily, up to 25% in the first year, 15% in the second year and 10% in the third year. targeted and temporary operating assistance. let's face it, there's no point in buying new buseses when you're laying off bus with drivers. there's no point expanding a rail le to new communities if transit agency doesn't have the funds to operate the new service. our goal, first and foremost, is to insure the transit services are not reduced. we can, we can do that while still looking to and planning for the future. and while offering this kind of flexibility has been talked about for years, this the first time in history that an administration has been willing to address the issue head on. another innovative step you'll see in our fiscal year 2012 budget is the national infrastructure bank. you know, from my, from experience the best way to make the most of federal investment is by pairing it with private

investment. that's what the national infrastructure bank is all about. it encourages public/private partnerships, it helps finance projects of major regional importance, the kind of projects that are hard to fund and hard to build any other way. we're also investing $32 billion in competitive grants that will reward cities that focus on performance-based and outcome-driven policies and investments in transportation. think of it as kind of a race to the top for transportation. to make sure that we keep creating jobs as our economy continues to rebound, the president's transportation plan injects a $50 billion up front boost into our o economy to keep the recovery going in the near term and to light the second stage of that rocket. another important way we're creating jobs is thrgh the buy america initiative. ladies and gentlemen, we're very serious about buy america. we're requiring projects to be built not just with american workers, but with equipment, parts and supplies made right

here in amera too. yes, these are some large investments -- [applause] you can go ahead and clap for that because what we're in addition to daily connecting people and jobs, buy america insures that those hard-earned tax dollars stay here in america employing americans. [appuse] yes, these are historic investments in transportation, but we're also tightening our belts. across the government we're reducing waste and eliminating duplicative programs. within d.o.t. and throughout the administration, we're working hard to get the most out of every dollar. and if anyone questions the cost of investing in our nation's transportation networks, i'd ask them to think about the cost of inaction. by 2050 the population of the united states is going to grow

by another 100 million people. 're going to go from 310 million to about 410 million people. put this in perspective, that's the equivalent of adding another texas, california, new york and florida. think about our transportation network today. think about adding 100 million people, adding those four states to it. then you start to understand the urgency that the obama administration feels about public transportation and a transportation system in general. if we don't take action, we'll insure tomorrow's travelers and entrepreneurs are literally trap inside the slow lane facing aging roads, congestion and pollution. if you think it's bad now, things will be a lot worse unless we do more. as you all know, a major part of our investment will go toward building a state of the art high-speed rail lines. the administration has called for an $8 billion investment in

2012 and a $53 billion investment over the next six years. high-speed rail has the potential to connect americans in unprecedented ways, expand access to jobs and revitalize reons of our country that have faced economic decline for decade. high-speed rail is important, but it's only one part of our transportation system. it's only one weapo many our arsenal. yes, it's critical to moving passengers between regions and cities, but once they arrive, they need reliable and efficient networks to move within the city limits. you are that network. the members of after that are on the ground in our cities and towns planning, maintaining, repairing and building our nation's vital arteries. high-speed rail and public transit are remarkably effective at making it affordable for people to reach the places they work, learn and shop. we think that's incredibly important. that's exactly why d.o.t. has teamed up with our friends at the department of housing and

urban development and the environmental protection agency to promote livable communities. i could tell you about the theory behind livable communities, why it's good for our economy, our environment and our health, but i think it's best illustrated by an example. a few year ago the computer and consulting giant ibm was searching for a place to locate a new campus. they visited dubuque, iowa, a town of 65,000, and they were quickly taken with community's plan to refurbish its old downtown by bringing in restaurants and retail with apartments and condos. ibm immediately recognized this is exactly the kind of environment today's young, talented professionals are looking for. they can get to work, find something to eat, have a good time without getting behind the wheel. so d.o.t. provided funding for constrtion of a street network with bicycle and pedestrian routes throughout the community, and our modest investment has helped give an old river town a new beginning. that's livability.

when we made livability planning grants available through the tiger program, the response was overwhelming. we couldn't fund a the worthy projects, but we were able to help literally dozens of initiatives like dubuque, iowa, get off the ground. that's the kind of work that makes us proud. it makes it more about iron tracks and rubber wheels. it's about building healthy, prosperous communities. going forward, we'll continue to do our part. we'll push for better buses, railways, subways and streetcars because we know that our 21st century economy demands a multimodal approach. after so many years of decline, we finally have a real opportunity to set transit back on the right track. transportation has always been and always wi be the thread that binds us all together bringing families together, moving goods to market and helping our economy thrive. ladies and gentlemen, i'd ask you to think about transportation this way. be you look around -- if you

look around the country and you look at it objectively, look at the transportation facilities and equipment, we are living off the investments that our parents and our grandparents and in some cases our great grandparen made. then ask yourself, are we doing right by the next generation? are we doing right by those 100 million additional americans that'll be here in 40 years? i think we all understand the answer is, no. that's why president obama, that's why secretarylahood, that's why all of us are so committed to rebuilding and enhancing our transportation network. we know we are literally building the foundation for future prosperity in america if we do it right. and i'll tell you, there's no better illustration of it than if you pick up a copy of our fiscal year 2012 budget and brief. it's the hoover dam. the hoover dam was built during the depression. think about t optimism that it took, ladies and gentlemen, to

build that in the midst of the worst economic crisis in the nation's history. what's in front of it is a bridge that just opened this year that was built during the worst economic crisis since the great depression. think about whathe hoover dam and the hoover dam bypass bridge mean in terms of america. it's about reinvesting. it's about doing right by the next generation. it's about connecting people and jobs. it's about making explicit the link between transportation, economic developnt and the future prosperity of our country. working together, we are going to win the future. so thank you very much. [applause] >> our coverage continues with remarks from administrator peter rogoff on the need for a long-term highway bill and

transportation security association projects. also, karen ray, deputy administrator of the federal rail administration on the president's high-speed rail initiative. this is an hour and 15 minutes. good good afternoon, everyone. we're happy to host and please

to receive their hotel-moatle taxes. and being from illinois you have all these people coming from indiana. we used to have the wisconsin folks and of course our legislature needs all the help it can get. but i'm not sure if we want it from those guys at this point. but hopefully they get their problems taken care of. before we start this afternoon's session, i would like to introduce our sponsor representative, larry murphy who is the surface transportation market leader. >> i'm based out of new york. one of the exciting things that cdm is doing right now is we just joined forces with will bur smith associates.

so we bring an expanded capability. i'm talking with one of my colleagues this afternoon and we were both commenting on what an exciting time it is to be in the transportation industry, and especially being here with some of these great speakers before us. and cdm is just honored to be a part of this. so thank you very much. [applause] >> we've got a great panel today. we'll start out with peter, karen, the deputy administrator from the federal railroad administration and chief of staff from t.s.a. art. we're pleased to have them here today. and if time permits we'll have questions at the end. >> i would like to introduce administrator rog of. prior to joining fda, peter had a long career in the senate appropriations committee

including 14 years as the democratic staff director. bill made a little faux pas on sunday and referred to him as peter rogue noff. and i was talking to peter beforehand and there's a grain of truth in that. he has been administrator of the fta but he told me he has consolidated his power and just become czar of the f.t.a. being from the long-standing rognoff czar family of russia. it is amazing what you learn when you talk to these guys. so please give a warm welcome to administrator peter rog of. >> well, thank you, bill.

it is good to be with you. i would say my wife is wondering where all the gold is that comes with being czar. it is good to be here. i have met with many of you in the last couple of days, had the opportunity to sit in on some of the committee meetings. and first bill, let me congratulate you of getting into the big tournament. that's just more excitement and more revenue, i'm sure. but i'm now approaching two months away from being the administrator for the last two years. over that time, secretary lahood and i and deputy secretary has had the opportunity to visit with a great many of you both at home, at your transit agencies, seeing the great service that you turn out every day. but we've also had the

opportunity to speak at several conferences, rail conferences, bus conferences, and at state association conferences. but in my view, i believe this is probably the most important conference of them all. mike talked about it this morning. my observation that this is a year like no other. when it comes to the intensity and importance of the debate over investment in transportation broadly and in public transportation in particular. we are about the business of working with a congress that is going to make very difficult decisions that will in effect seal our fate when it comes to investments in public transportation hopefully for the next six years. the stakes truly have never been higher. i can tell you i came to washington, d.c. and started working in public policy in 1983, about 28 years ago. i have worked in and around

budget battles in the congress for 28 years, i've worked on three separate comprehensive transportation reauthorization bills, and i can never remember a time when there has been such conflicting and dive urgent views on which we way need to take the nation and which way we need to take the federal budget in terms of investments in our future. this even includes the second reagan administration. at times when the fta was even considered for termination, then known as umta. but it was known as a time when i don't believe the stakes were as high because i believe the outcome was more certain back then. we see like i said extraordinarily divergent and conflicting views. one is the view of president obama. it is a view that you heard in the state of the union message. never in the modern era has a president spent so much time in the state of the union message

talking about transportation, talking about the promise that transportation investment brings us to the future, talking about the essential need to invest in transportation to win our future. and when he talks about that, he's really talking about investing not just in transportation broadly but specifically in our enterprise. the high-speed rail, the daily bus, the daily transit services that our public transportation and inherently are dependent on public support. now, let's be clear the president proposed to sharply restrain spending in his budget. he included in his budget a five-year nonsecurity freeze that will save more than $400 billion over ten years. it is a tight budget in which the president has made many difficult decisions and as had been pointed out he had to reduce funding from programs that he cares deeply about.

at the same time, within that very same budget within that funding freeze within that funding freeze that will save $400 billion in ten years, what has he said is the needs in our enterprise? in this same budget he is proposing to more than did you believe the fta budget in a single year -- double the budget in a single year. he is calling for a bill that will set us on a path for growth in fact some 119% over the levels of funding that we saw over the six years that we saw in the safety will you law. he is talking about a 167 presidents brotesdz. we are talking about going from 10.7 billion. as people know the budget is still under debate in the congress but we would grow to

2012. we have really benefit like all the other important surface modes this transportation from the president's commitment first outlined in a labor day speech in wisconsin of billions of dollars, in this case $50 billion in up-front investment to keep us moving forward on infrastructure invest ylt. secretary lahood has been articulate that he believes we have benefited from the president's support in this area because of the work that you all successfully executed under the recovery act. the f.t. budget surged up. we created thousands upon thousands of jobs. this has been one of the areas there has been little debate as to the merits of these investments or the fact that they created jobs. or, as i said all over the country, created jobs now on projects that will benefit citizens for generations to come. that was your work with our help. and you are to be congratulated

for it on having done it right, putting those dollars to work promptly. we have obligated every dollar. we created jobs all over the country and we are still seeing the benefits rolling off of those construction sites every day. but for 2012 the president wants to keep us moving forward. so he put in $50 billion of up-front investment across the transportation budget. f.t.a. benefited from $11.7 billion. so what does that mean for the coming year? for the coming year he proposed to increase formula assistance to all the nation's transit agencies and assistance would increase some 43% in a single year. our new starts program would grow by 75% in a single year. why? because those projects hold great promise of delivering huge transit benefits, huge transportation benefits to communities across the country. but we need to be able to deploy them more quickly and

get the benefits to the public more quickly. and that's why we put more money into more mojects especially at a time when we have to worry about gas prices creeping up to $4 a gallon again. we all saw what it did to ridership back then. we are not going to be able to deploy these projects overnight. but the compelling need to provide the public can transportation choices has never been more startling apparent to us. and importantly, a theme that you have heard me talk about before, the state of good repair of our systems. we have proposed, as part of our comprehensive six-year reauthorization plan a good state of new repair program. it would be formula assistance to all transit riders. when you compare the funding level that the president has put behind this initiative compared to the programs it replaces, the president would propose to more than triple this investment in a single year. it would grow by 305% over

current funding. it is an extraordinary statement and an extraordinary commitment to making sure quite frankly that we don't lose the handle when it comes to the condition of our transit systems. we all know what systems that are not adequately maintained means for the public. it takes away the reliability of the service that you turn out every day. and reliability is not just a convenience for working people. it is an absolute necessity. it is the difference between picking your kid up at child care on time or not. for someone who is struggling to get a job and keep a job, it is the ability to get to work on time or not. no employer in the current environment is interested in a new employee who can't get to work on time. it is also the difference between getting home and seeing their families so that they can supervise homework or not, getting home in time that you can have dinner together as a faxly or not. these are core quality of life

issues that apply to all of the passengers that you serve every day. and when it comes to our budget for 2012, we are determined to improve that quality of life through improved and increased investment. that's one vision of where the future should go as it relates to transportation investment. another you hear from all corners of the country, and that is that the most important imperative is that we cut and we cut everything. we cut everything without regard to its impact on the public, we cut things without regard for their impact on america's future. like i said, the president put forward a budget that saves $400 billion over ten years just on the discretionary side. it is a very serious budget. but even within that context he saw a way of investing in the future and investing in it through us. the question i'm here to ask is who is standing behind us?

this year, more than ever, we need the visitors here who come to washington as part of the legislative conference to go forward, go and speak to their members of congress, and talk about what the impact will be on getting a six-year reauthorization bill that is adequately funded, on getting the increased funding called for in the president's budget or not. i want to echo something that bill said earlier. there is a lot of fine speakers on the program here at the legislative conference. none of them are worth hearing and are more important than your getting up and using this time in washington to go to the hill and talk about your daily circumstance at your transit agency to your member of congress. i want to give just some thoughts about how one might best approach a member of congress. it's really about trying to get people to look past the

feelings that some of them have that if they are not a legislative expert, they are not the right person to deliver the message. if they don't know the difference between a reconciliation bill and an appropriations bill and a budget resolution, then this isn't something that's important to them or it's not something that they are really the right spokesperson for. nobody can speak better about the circumstances, the daily challenges, the expenses, and the benefits that you provide than you do. you see the transit passengers every day. you know what your ability is to turn out service every day. you don't need to go up and give a convoluted k34 plex message with all kinds of legislative jargon. you need to speak truth to congress and say this is how federal funding impacts my ability to do my job and serve your people. and this is what the absence of federal funding does to my ability to do my job and serve

your people. importantly and critically, as members know, we have an historic number of new members of congress right now. and there's been a lot of talk about how you reach out to these new members. i want to suggest to you that we have an outreach challenge that goes well beyond the new members of congress. we need to focus on new members of congress, we need to focus on old members of congress. the reality is, and i found this increasingly in the visits that i have paid on congress in recent months, there remains a very deep-seated misunderstanding as to what role the federal dollar has in your daily enterprise. perhaps it is because our governing boards are made up largely of local officials. or that this is a program that largely sends moneys not through state government but also directly to transit agencies at the local level. i think if you polled members of congress, they would believe that the vast majority of dollars that make daily transit

service available are local dollars. and that is true in certain systems. and ironically it is true in our largest systems. you know, it may be because our are our urban systems important? yes. do we send a great deal of money to them? yes. they have extraordinary number of riders that are highly dependent that have absolutely no other choices and we should make no other apology for that. but the other reality is when you look in smaller cities in suburban communities, and especially in rural communities, the fta dollar is the most critical dollar. and certainly when it comes to things like capital expenses and some of those communities we're upwards of 40, 60, 80% of the enterprise.

if you take transit funding backward, the urban systems will have a challenge to work with and they will deal with it. if you take transit funding backward, in a big way, some of those smaller systems will disappear. that's the financial reality. a lot of that is lost on a great many members. i don't believe that we could spend enough time just reminding them that fta dollars is in fact -- what we referred to as the tent pole of the system. we're the thing that leverage as lot of other money be it state or local. but we are 2 difference between having a capital program that keeps people employed on bus assembly lines, that provides quality service or not. so i would encourage you, like i said, don't worry about legislative jargon. don't worry about this numbered bill or that numbered bill. what you really need to do is explain to each of your members of congress just how the federal dollar fits in making that connection between the

votes they cast, the federal dollars they provide, and each of their constituents. and let me also remind you that while this is an important opportunity while you are here in washington, even better opportunities exist right at home in your district. members frankly compared to congresses of 10, 20, 30 years ago, spend more time home in their district than they did back then. and there are opportunities to reach out to them in an environment that they know, in an environment in which they are comfortable, and in an environment in which they are not necessarily running between floor votes and have more than 5 minutes to talk about it. and it's an opportunity to see first-hand the connection between the service you provide and the vibrancey of their community. so let me encourage you to reach out to them there as well. like i said, it is not just about new members. it is about all members. and all i would ask you to do is you do this is be consistent

and be persistent. there is no reason why any member of congress should not have the time to meet and discuss what public transportation means in their district. and there is no reason why any member should not be taking the time. we are only as strong as its members. and the members have a very, very important message to deliver. i obviously believe that the president has made an outstanding statement on the importance of public transit going forward and that is an important message to embody and bring forward. but you bring forward your message. you bring forward what makes the most sense to you in terms of your needs, i think we have made a great start this year with the leadership that the president has put together. but we will only be as strong as your collective voice. so thanks for listening. i hope there will be times for questions later. [applause]

>> next up is deputy administrator karen ray of the f.r.a. now, what can i say about karen ray. oh. here it is. karen has led a nome addic life. she has been deputy commissioner of policy and planning at new york state d.o.t., deputy secretary for local and area transportation at pennsylvania d.o.t., and director of the virginia department of rail and public transportation. and she did that all in a period of six months. i am particularly happy to welcome karen here today

because she is planning to announce the funding of the 2 -20 high-speed rail system between chicago and st. louis going through champagne-urbana. so welcome, karen ray. >> i think i left that check in the office, bill. and since i'm not a czar ena there is not a chance of seeing your application late. thanks. i have to look back. and two years ago today i was here at the conference and received one of the most amazing phone calls in my life from secretary lahood asking if i would join president obama and his team. none of you knew that because of course it was going through the process. but it is kind of a lot of fun to be back here today with colleagues and friends and the best news is i don't just see you here. i continue to see you some, more than i would like, like

mr. scanlan but i still get to see you on a regular basis. and that's a great part of my job. it is an honor to work not just with a president, a vice president and secretary of transportation. but my boss who sends his apologies for not being here today, he is home with his dad. and dad is doing very well so we are all glad. but we do miss him today and he was very much looking forward to being here and promising you our continued commitment to be part of the message and making sure that we connect with you on our initiatives above, as peter talked about, the very important focus we have on public transportation. . .

before mr. obama was elected to be present. the passenger rail investment act passed before mr. obama became president. no one envisioned we could take a program that has a solid grounding and move it aggressively and as far as we

did. we will connect americans do our high-speed rail network over the next 25 years. [applause] if we know the messages from the president, he wanted to say 10. we told him that was half of the time to implement the highway system. we have this mild mannered gentleman named vice president biden, who only feels passionately a little bit about the importance of inner-city and high-speed rail. i was fortunate to be part of an announcement he made one week before the budget came out. he stated we cannot compromise. the rest of the world is not

compromising. if we are going to be part of the future and position america for the future, we must be sure part of that picture is high speed and inner-city rail in this country. why are they so am fattah? why is secretary -- so emphatic? because we are going to have 17 million more people living in america. we will not be able to provide them with mobility if we stayed be flat course that was rejected by all of us. we need the investment offered in the present's budget. -- in the president's budget. today, i thought i would talk a little bit about how we are

doing at fra. i talk about something that happened friday, which was our attempts to get money for the movement. there is a major shift in our program that you may see in your communities. first of all, how are we doing? it is important that we not lose sight that although three states have chosen not to go forward with high-speed rail programs, 33 states have said, we are going forward. more have come to our table in the last word and said the best in the last week and said, we want to go -- more have come to our table in the last week and said, we want to go forward. we have also obligated, in what

some might say it does not seem fast enough, almost $5 billion of the $8 billion we were given in the recovery act. we were given until september of 2012 to obligate the money that was given to us to recognize the new nature of this program. we will have the entire amount obligated in at least one year in advance of the time we were given in the congress. we are proud of the hard work the states and many of the operators in this room and the staff have put in to make this amazing obligation happen today. [applause] one other little detail you may have heard. we are having some challenges with our freight rail partners. i am here to tell you we have had some major successes in the last several months.

five of the six corridors we have defined as part of the high-speed rail inner-city an issue tiv currently have agreements with their freight rail operators -- intercity rail initiatives currently have agreements with their freight rail operators. there have been tough negotiations but they have led to strong agreements that will upgrade rail transportation in this country for the next 20 years and beyond. [applause] i want to say it is wonderful to be working with administration that can be decisive. unfortunately, we had a state withdraw from being a key candidate for high speed rail money. for many people who are in florida, i am simply amazed by

the grass-roots passion that went into trying to save that program. even the city of miami jump in and said, this is important to us. the city's got it. the regions got it. -- the cities got it. the regions got it. the governor did not get it. secretary lahood announced that we would be putting out funding availability so that the money we got requests from can come back in -- all but one of them -- just kidding. our biggest focus will be good, solid products that are ready to move. those applications are due on

april 4. a short turnaround. we are confident that the states that are the primary folks working on these will be able to deliver these to us and focus on big projects that are important. the other big news we have is that when the president announced his 2012 budget, which, as peter rogoff stated, look at things to come. there was a program that was going to sustain the development of the system, the development of the labor force and labor force opportunities and a construction market. our budget begins to put the new path down. it does it by doing too important things.

number one, taking a card off of the playbook of mr. rogoff. we have to get our current system in good repair. the safety program is to help get a good state of repair back into a system that has had under investment for over 30 years. that includes amtrak operating capital. it includes equipment across the system. we are focused on how we stabilize that space. at the same time, we are moving ahead a program of new network development, which is focused on $4 billion. it will include the corridor development we have begun to see across the country connecting major areas with many areas in between. we have also suggested many some -- suggested something many of

you may find interesting. the focus on how you connect and use that in the system. we have also proposed a u.s. rail equipment develop a program that has slotted to launch a $45 million in 2012 that will help began to define in the long term -- a long-term rail manufacturing sector in the united states. we have to develop technical research and development to go along with this program. it is amazing to think that over two years ago none of this existed. i am proud to say that what we are looking at is achieving many things with our program. a strong focus on developing a world class system that is, with our transit agencies and our highways and aviation, we can be proud is part of our system.

opportunities for private sectors to be part, whether it is development, we have to have that. we also have an amazing work force here that we want to make sure we secure and moved toward working hand in hand with many of the men and women who have helped sustain over many years a lot less investment. we are going to look at investment in the northeast corridor. that is a national asset. we need to continue to move that. we need to bring all stations into a.d.a. compliance. this is something that has cost challenges for city rail and long distance rail passengers. we want to build a base and set up a network to move all were. we have services we are looking at. high-ces,ss' services

speed rail. the key is travel time between the cities and focusing on two- three hours. regionally, there will be lines running 125 miles per hour. a major piece of what we vision -- what we envision being able to reach the 80% goal. we are creating the kind of networks to create every day in your communities with transit operation. we are doing it to connect communities and regions together. a key component to the success -- we are not building 5000 parking space garages at the end of these things. we are going to connect downtown to downtown.

with that, i look back and we look at how much we have done in the last year and how much we have a good base going forward. sometimes in the midst of what we heard described as a very challenging time, we have to look for everyone in this room to understand. a harris poll showed that 2/3 of americans support funding for high-speed rail. many of these people have been around the world and are seeing things from the rest of the world and are saying, why can we? we believe it is important that we take that challenge on. we also need to continue to educate. that is something we have been focused on in our spare time as , to to educate on what high-speed rail is and what it isn't. people ask, why are you spending

your money on it? 25% of the passengers are writing -- riding on the high- speed rail segment. that is an important message that has an important base in our approach. just as public transit connects community and thus a phenomenal job at that, high speed in a city -- and does a phenomenal job at that, high-speed inner city rail connects people and economies. our real problem is not our strength today. it is the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. i want to thank president eisenhower were giving us our

marching orders as we stand here today on the presses of either making public transportation -- precipice of either making public transportation a priority or deciding we are not going to fight because it is not that important. i will sit here with my colleagues and ask you to please join us as we continue to educate about the importance of what we are trying to do under the leadership of president obama. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, karen. i want you to know that i introduced tsa chief of staff art macias at great personal risk. there were a few jokes about tsa that i'd -- about

that i just heard at lunch time. i do have to fly back to california. later this week. [laughter] i do not know if you remembered my name. mike scanlon . i just wanted to make that clear. art has a background that some of you may find interesting and profitable. he was once the executive director of the arizona lottery. if you brought your checkbook with you, if your system needs some extra funds, you might talk to aret. you might not. while he was director, he had a

2.2% profit for the state of arizona. take your chances. a long career in arizona before becoming chief of staff for tsa. art may look a little bit this jumbled up here. -- this shoveled -- dissheveled. he was subjected to a full body packed down. i hope you have recovered and can tell us your views on that. welcome. [applause] >> california, huh? good luck with that. [laughter]

can you see me over the podium. ? i was taller before the pact dt down. [laughter] we really appreciate the opportunity to join. is the first time to address the conference -- it is the first time for us to address the conference. we are proud of it. i came out of the arizona lottery. i was proud we were able to find public transit. i remember governor janet napolitano asking me to take that on. she said you will be able to do some great things with that. she asked me to come and join her here as part of the department of transportation security. i would like to say that the

administrator is on the hill this afternoon. i think i have the better of the deal. i just wanted to say -- i wanted to echo the minister. i am working on that -- administrator -- i want to get you back your title. we are talking about the importance of your unique perspective. i came to washington d.c. trying to connect the importance of those dollars and what it is we do. what it is that you do on a local level. i think you make it happen. we here in washington are here to help support you. -- we recognize you are on the front lines. what can i do today to make your

lives, your quality of life, better? what is it that we at tsa are doing to help with that effort. the secretary is focused on mass transferred -- man's transit. -- mass transit. we can talk about some of the programs and what we have been able to do in this current budget in parliament, which is unique. we are much more than aviation security. bob, maybe you can take the train home. we will see about that. we are also responsible for and focused on surface transportation security. we begin each day with an

intelligence brief. it tells us day in and day out that the threat is real. whether it is moscow and the recently thwarted attempts, it drives us to be a risk based and intelligence driven agency. we strive to be one. that has some great symmetry 's first administrationor day on the job. his first act was to take a whistle stop tour with her. we are deploying an initiative across the country to a list ending dates the public in this important effort. the-to enlist -- to enlist the

public in this important effort. the secretary asked what can we do to reinforce what we do in the surface transportation security? we know how important it is that people feel safe and secure as they travel to work, as they get their groceries, as important meetings happen during the day. these things are real to people across the country. we play an important and critical role in that. the president was briefed on mass transit and rail security last month. he showed keen interest in what we wanted to see on surface security. we want to increase -- we want to decrease the vulnerability of surface transportation. we want to maximize

transportation protection security while protecting privacy and facilitating the flow of illegal commerce. we continue to work with our partners to reduce those vulnerabilities. we are working to direct grants to use the bible tools and direct that funding to the most -- use vital tools and direct that funding to the most areas.bilitiele our visible intermodal response

teams, and pipviper. we deployed them in thousands of mass transit and maritime security issues. tsa officers are law enforcement officers. local law enforcement, state law enforcement, to have an unpredictable presence in mass transit. despite all our efforts in technology and screening processes, the threat remains high. it is a committed enemy. a committed in that collects its own intelligence, that what is our security measures to exploit the vulnerabilities in that system. it is truly dynamic. as a result, we need to work

hard to stay ahead of this constantly evolving threats. i believe that our best defense against these and other terrorist threats remains a risk based approach that utilize a range of measures both seen and unseen. this means using grants to enhance security and to supplement the efforts of law- enforcement and to supplement those local and state efforts that are law enforcement that provide industry with timely intelligence and increase international collaboration. another example, -- >> we leave this program to take you live to paris where hillary

clinton is speaking. >> warren christopher was a friend, a mentor, and a diplomat's diplomat. he served our country with such great distinction in so many capacities over his long and productive life. there are a lot of days in this job when i asked myself, what would warren christopher do? from the balkans, to the middle east, to china and vietnam, he guided the united states with tremendous grace and wisdom. my thoughts and prayers are with his family and his many friends and colleagues throughout our country and around the world. this has been a quick but productive trip. i want to give you a brief update in answer to your question. first, let's remember how we got here. as you know, americans and people around the world watched

with growing concern as libyan civilians were gunned down by a government that has lost all legitimacy. the people of libya appealed for help. the arab league and the gulf liberation council called for action. the international community came together to speak with one voice and deliver a clear and consistent message. colonel gaddafi's campaign of violence against his own people must stop. the strong vote in the united nations security council _ this unity. -- underscored this unity. the cease-fire must be executed and immediately. water, electricity, and gas

supplies must be turned on to all areas. humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of libya. yesterday, president obama said clearly that if gaddafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences. since the president spoke, there has been some talk from tripoli of a ceasefire. the reality on the ground tells a different story. colonel gaddafi continues to defy the world. his attacks on civilians go on. we have been monitoring be troubling reports of fighting around and within bengazi. as president obama also said, we have every reason to fear that, if left unchecked, gaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities.

nations across the region and the world met today in paris to discuss the ways we can, working together, to implement resolution 1973. we all recognize that for the delay will only put more civilians at risk. let me be clear about the position of the united states. we will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of resolution 1973. as you may know, french planes are already in the sky above benghazi. america has unique capabilities and we will bring them to bear to help our european and arab partners to stop further violence against arab civilians, including the effective

implementation of a no-fly zone. as president obama said, the united states will not employ ground troops. there must be no mistake in our commitment to this effort. we will conduct smaller focused conversations with many of my colleagues. i met with president sarkozy and other key partners. they have stepped forward to play a leading role in enforcing 1973. we discussed how we can work together most effectively in the hours and days ahead and how we would work cooperatively with our other partners, including belgium, canada, denmark, germany, greece, italy, and lithuanians, the netherlands, norway, poland, portugal, spain,

turkey, as well as others that are not in that long list. i also had the long -- had the opportunity to engage with my arab counterparts, including the foreign minister from iraq representing the arab summit, the prime minister of qatar, the foreign minister of jordan. we have said from the start that arab leadership and participation in this effort is crucial. the arab league showed that with its pivotal statement on libya, what that meant. it changed the diplomatic landscape. they sent another strong message by being here today. we look to them for continued

leadership and partnership going forward. with shake abdullah and the prime minister, i -- sheik abdullah and the prime minister, i reiterate that we have a strong commitment to security. we work together about our strong concern about iranian behavior in the region. we share the view that iran's activities in the gulf, including efforts to --all gulf partners are critical to the international community's efforts on libya. we thank them for their leadership. we have a decades long friendship with bahrain that we expect to continue in the future. our goal is a credible, political process that can address the legitimate

aspirations of all the people of bahrain, starting with the crown prince's dialogue, which all parties should join. that process should unfold in a peaceful, positive atmosphere that protects the freedom of peaceful assembly while ensuring that students can go to school, businesses can operate, and people can undertake their normal daily activities. ,my gcc havec , thcounterparts the same goals in bahrain. the gcc has announced a major aid package in bahrain. we have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing bahrain. as i said earlier this week, violence is not and cannot be

the answer. a political process is. we have raised our concerns about the current measures directly with bob raini -- bahraini officials and will continue to do so. i thank the arab leaders for their generous contribution to aid refugees fleeing gaddafi's violence. we agreed that this will be a critical concern in the days ahead. egypt and tunisia, in particular, will need all our support. the united states has made significant pledges of assistance. we look to all our allies and partners to join us in this work. this is a fluid and fast-moving situation, which may be the understatement of the time. i know that there are lots of questions that people have about what next and what will we be

doing. let me just underscore the key points. this is a broad, international effort. the world will not sit by while more innocent civilians are killed. the united states will support our allies and partners as they move to enforce resolution 1973. we are standing with the people of libya and we will not waver in our efforts to protect them. -- waiver in our efforts to protect them. thank you. >> you said twice that the u.s. will support our allies. i am wondering how active will be u.s. military be. >> i will stand by what i said.

we will support the enforcement of 1973. we have you need capabilities to bring to the international efforts and we intend to do so. >> you mentioned twice that it is important or crucial for the arab leadership to participate. do we know what that participation is specifically and what countries will be participating? >> the fact that we had people dissipation around the table that we did today and the strong statements made by arab representatives is extraordinarily important. i will leave it to them to announce their contributions. that is the appropriate way for any further information to be made available. >> do you expect something more from them than just being at the table today? >> yes. we do expect more. >> the reports coming in from

benghazi is that it is quiet and it appears the tanks have stopped. in general, president sarkozy has said that the doors to diplomacy will open when the aggression stops. can you explain what that means? could it actually -- could be coalition engaged with gaddafi? -- engage with gaddafi? >> i will let president sarkozy explain his own statement. the aggression by gaddafi's forces continues in many places in the country. we saw it over the last 24 hours. we have seen no real effort on the part of the gaddafi forces to abide by a cease-fire despite

the rhetoric. several of the speakers around the table said forcefully that they have heard these words. they have heard them publicly. they were conveyed privately. they are not true. our assessment is that it is time for the international community to take action to back up resolution 1973. >> what is the goal of this operation? is it to protect civilians or to remove president gaddafi from power? >> it is to protect civilians and provide access for humanitarian assistance. if you read the comprehensive resolution that the security council passed, it is focused on protecting civilians from their own government. yes? >> has bahrain or the united

arab emirates event any indication that it will fly fighter jets? >> i will let the individual countries make their own announcements. >> is there any way that the u.s. sees the libyan situation resolving itself with gaddafi still in play? what does this action with the u.n. resolution means for gaddafi's survival in the short term or long term? >> those are all questions that, standing here, are difficult to answer. the conditions will unfold as we began to enforce this resolution. they will make a new environment in which people are going to act, including those around

colonel gaddafi. i think we should take stock of where we are and how we got here and how many times the international community calls on gaddafi to end the violence against his own people and to take demonstrable steps to end the aggression and pull back. time and time again, starting with the first resolution, 1970, through the succeeding time. bank -- succeeding time period, there was no indication or effort of him doing so. this show of unity indicates

that action must take place. if you look at all deportations of what could or could not happen once the international community begins to enforce the resolution, there are many different outcomes. i was not speculation -- i would not speculate on what will occur. >> what did the group of leaders today actually agreed to do? >> they agreed to take all necessary measures, including military action, to enforce 1973. those are operational details. it is understandable that we are not going to lay out every asset that has been pledged and every action that has been endorsed. i think coming together under president sarkozy's leadership today to reiterate that the words agreed to in the security council were more than just

rhetorical commitment, but are being translated into specific action -- some countries are more public with their specific pledges to what they are willing to do. others are looking at how they can best contribute. but the conclusion of this meeting was, for me, positive because it was an unmistakable commitment to enforcing the 1973 provision. >> what is the timeline for gaddafi to act? >> as i said, french planes were in the air as we were meeting. there will be other actions to follow. there is no doubt that we are going to begin to enforce the resolution >>.

. >> for much of the 40 years gaddafi has run the country, it has been branded an international outlaw. what are the interests today? >> with all the activities that colonel gaddafi engaged in in the past, we in the united states had a clear interest in trying to contain him and prevent him from taking both direct and indirect actions against us and our people as well as many others. following his decision to give up nuclear weapons in 2005, when it was finally resolved, it appeared that there might be a new opportunity from him to join the international community.

unfortunately, that was not born to be true. we now have the brutal crackdown he is conducting, which reminds us all of why he was considered an outlaw in the past. it is a reality we have to take into account. this has been a time of great ferment in the region. you have to countries bordering libya, egypt and -- two countries bordering libya, egypt and tunisia, that are committed to a transformation. they are facing a humanitarian crisis on those orders. there is concern about the people who are inside libya, both libyans and third-party nationals, that no one can get to and who are basically on

accounted for. -- unaccounted for. gaddafi does not approve of democracy and the actions being taken by his neighbors, which poses a lot of questions about what he might do in the future. the arab league and the gulf cooperation council statements calling for action by the united nations were of historic importance. there was a recognition by the arab countries that gaddafi had to be suspended from the arab league. even beyond that, a no-fly zone and related actions have to be taken. i think it would be quite unfortunate if the international community were to have ignored

those requests. it is in america's interest along with european and canadian allies to forge strategic partnerships with arab nations as we move forward into this new era of change in the arab world. room there are specific reasons -- there are specific reasons. there are strong strategic rationales as to why the united states will support. we did not lead this. we did not engage in unilateral action in any way. we strongly support the international community taking action against governments and leaders that have behaved as

gaddafi is doing so now. we think an international order that can bring about this kind of unity is in america's interest. >> could i ask one follow? you said conditions are on folding that will create a new environment in which -- un folding that will create a new environment in which people will act. does that mean you are aiming at a lot of this at people who are around him and who are supporting him? >> we are aiming the messages at all of the decision makers inside libya. there have been quite a number of defections. the opposition is largely led by those who defected from the gaddafi regime or who formerly served it. it is certainly to be wished or that there will be more such defections, that people will put

the future of libya and the interests of the libyan people above their service to colonel gaddafi. >> you met with -- you had a meeting in paris not too long ago. will you follow the french lead in recognizing the benghazi position? >> we are not ready to make a decision. we have increased our outreach and cooperation with leaders in the region. we are in almost hourly contact with someone. we think the most important step to take right now is to assist in every way that is unique to american capabilities with the enforcement of 1973, which is the principal demands of the opposition. that is what we are trying to meet.

>> you said you were in hourly contact with someone. who was that person? >> with many people. >> will you describe what is going on now as a war? >> no. i think the president made that clear in a meeting with congressional leaders that he held in outlining all the reasons why the united states was prepared to act in support of the international efforts on behalf of 1973. we would always welcome congressional support. the president is clear that the

united states is acting in a way that is within the existing authority available to him. >> thank you. >> thank you all. have a great night in paris, those of you get to stay. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> secretary of state hillary clinton among the world leaders meeting in paris today. french president nicholas sarkozy announced france is taking action against libya. the associated press reports that fighter jets are far -- are flying over benghazi. earlier, troops with the libyan government struck benghazi. that news from the associated press.

meanwhile, president obama has wrapped up a speech in brazil where he started a three-country trip in south america. he says the u.s. and others are ready to act. the u.s. joint brazil in condemning human-rights abuses in libya. now we go to the american public transportation association legislative conference. republican and democratic staff members talked about congressional plans for a long- term transportation bill. >> you know me as being the boys of the -- voice of the mta. i was being head of the general contractors for new york. i am looking forward to continuing and bringing a new

perspective to the transit world based on my work with the general contractors. today, we are joined by a terrific panel, a group of folks who many of you know after having worked closely with them over the last few years. these people have worked with the previous authorization bills. they have worked with us and listen to us and have had a constructive dialogue. we look forward to hearing from them in terms of where we are going and what to expect and what the dialogue will be in the future. things are, hopefully, going to heat up in the authorization world. that me introduce the folks who are here today. to my right is mitch warren, the majority staff committee on

transportation -- on banking, housing, and urban affairs. on the far end is ward mccarragher, who is on the house committee on infrastructure. one guest is stuck and will not be able to be here. i will ask ward to take the republican and democratic side. [laughter] all of these staffers have tremendous experience in this area. ward, i do not know how far back you go or how many bills you have worked on. i would not say how many years ago. today, we will let each one of them talk about what they are working on.

what i would like to do is ask them to give me their impressions in a different way, a little differencet spin, personal spin. i represent private-sector folks in the heavy construction industry. 70% of construction is transit construction. they generate 20,000 peripheral jobs in the area. their motto is, we build new york. they have done that for over 100 years. there are general contacting organizations that build illinois projects, texas projects, the georgia project. every state has the equivalent of what we have. these folks are people you know. they are your brothers, your

cousins, your friends. maybe they are some of you. right now, the thing that people do not know is, in the heavy construction industry, which is part of the happy transit family, there is a much higher unemployment rate than in the work force in general. i surprised some folks by asking them how high that the unemployment rate is. we are at 8.9% across the board in terms of the regular work force. in the construction industry in new york, about 30% are unemployed. we are doing a lot of work in new york. l.i. is close to 40%. -- long island is close to 40%. the anxiety is that a lot of the work that has been done over the years is starting to dry up.

the people want me to explain why the pipeline is drying up and where we are going in the future. the one thing they provide aside from their hard work is that they leave good stuff behind. they leave behind infrastructure that will be there for generations. what i want to ask my panelists friends to do is to help me explain to my 7000 heavy construction contractors what this all means in laymen's terms. mitch, in five words or less, can you do that? [laughter] the first one up to tap a mitch warren is to be -- the first one up happens to be mitch warren. he formerly worked on capitol hill in a variety of roles. he worked in the private sector

as a transportation consultant. he was active in the the legislative committee in the washington area transportation industry representatives group. mitch, if you can kick off the discussion, maybe we will have time for some questions from the audience. >> thanks for having me. the banking community has been going through a transition of the last couple of months. from christopher dodd to chairman johnson, you will continue to see the banking community be supportive of the transit industry helping you do your job to provide transportation to the millions of americans who depend on it. the chairman has seen in south dakota the importance of transportation in rural areas and small communities. if you look at the members on the committee, senator chuck

schumer from new york, senator merkley from oregon, senator bennett from colorado, senator reid from rhode island -- senator reed from rhode island -- the list goes on. senators are going to continue to want to see the committee >> -- the committee be a priority. nobody knows what is going to happen. many of us, especially in light of some of the things chris said, would like to see a strong, long-term bill with substantial funding levels. fta did a study that showed there is a backlog in transit repair needs of $70 billion. they said that backlog will

increase, especially if we do not have increases in transit funding. if you look at the unemployment in the construction industry, the numbers i have nationally are above 20%. if you look at some of the bids coming in for our projects, they were consistently coming in below expectations. we have a situation where infrastructure is on sale right now. we should be buying. the prices are right. there are people out there who need jobs. we could create much needed short-term jobs. not just short-term jobs. in the coming years, we are investing in our neighbor -- in our nation's future. that being said, as important as all of this is, we all recognize the challenging situation we face in washington right now. we have a trust fund that seems to be consistently on the verge of bankruptcy these days.

we have a congress that is going to be difficult to move new spending and new revenue through. there are challenges there. it is imperative for us to continue to make the case for transit. discussions in the coming months on the budget will help determine the size and length of the authorizing bill that we can hope to pass. in the meantime, we have been working closely for well over one year now on transit issues, trying to work on our reauthorization proposal. . .

so we are continuing to work on a bipartisan basis in transition legislation so that when we are ready to move a bill we will have a good product and be able to move forward. i think the bottom line that we all need to be looking at as we talk about transportation, as

we talk about funding levels is that there are a number of realities, a number of trerneds that the nation is facing that really highlight the importance of public transportation. we are all familiar with the transportation institute studies on the impacts of congestion and some of the costs there, the most recent one estimated $115 billion a year in lost time and fuel as a result of congestion in metropolitan areas. and that's only projected to get worse. you combine that with projections of population growth, we are going to have over 100 million new americans between now and 2050 and a lot of them are going to be in the same metropolitan areas that are suffering that congestion. so unless we do something significant on transportation and particularly on public transportation we are going to have problems. we need to increase the number of people using public transportation, the share of people using public transportation. if we are going to address the

gridlock that is coming. that gridlock is going to have negative consequences for future economic growth and for people's quality of life and we need to do our best to make sure we are ahead of the curve there. you look at the situation in the middle east. it reminds us all of the importance of energy security. it reminds us of the unpredictability of world oil supplies. you look at gas prices which are rising towards $4 a gallon right now and i think we are all familiar with some of the studies that have been done that show how access to good public transportation can save households a lot of money on the transportation costs. and that's particularly important as we do get up to $a $4 a gallon gas. we need to have good alternative soss they can address the household budgets and some of the challenges that they are going to be facing. if you look at the demographic trends, the aging of the

population, the first of the baby boomers are hitting 65 and over the coming decades we are going to see the fastest growing part of the population as people over 665, 75, 85. and a lot of the older americans aren't going to be able to drive or aren't going to want to drive and are going to need medical care, need to go shopping. they are going to want to live near public transportation. an aarp survey showed that 71% of seniors said they would like to live within walking distance of public transportation. so that is going to become increasingly important. the other side of the spectrum, look at the echo boomers who seem to have different housing preferences than some of their predecessor generations. it's clear that they want to live near transit. 81% of millenials surveyed said they want to have a house near

public transportation. so you look at all that together and the demand for public tration, the demand for communities with good public transportation is increasing. when you add up the rise of the millenials, the aging of the baby boomers, the growing metropolitan congestion, $78 billion backlog in repair, 100 million person population increase, rising gas prices, concerns about climate change, it all adds up to we need a lot more transit. we need to invest in transit. we need to make progress if we are going to have the access to transit that people and our nation is going to demand. so it is great that all of you are in town right now and it's critical to get out there and make the case to your members of congress this week, make the case about the importance of transit in particular to make the case about the importance of investing in transportation and more generally.

we have fy 2011 appropriations process that's going on. there is the house proposal does make some fairly substantial cuts to public transportation. hopefully make sure that the final product keeps those cuts to a minimum. the fy 12 appropriations process is going to be another tough one. there's going to be pressure on spending. we're going to have to try to protect transit funding in that. and we're going to have to make the case for the importance of investing in public transportation, transportation in general. in a transportation bill. so we can get a well-funded long-term authization bill done this congress. so thank you all for having us. thank you for being here. keep up the good work on your end to make the case and hopefully we'll have some success. >> we're going to save the questions for the end. but let me introduce our next

speaker. shannon is in a very unique position in that she represents not only the ranking member of the senate banking committee, senator she will by but also senator shell bi is a senior member of the appropriations committee. so she has both sides of this issue. so as we know, the guaranteed funding issue has kind of changed the dynamic a little in the last fewmonts and it is important to understand this issue from both an auth rising side and appropriations side. mitch said you gice worked closely together on this stuff. maybe give us your perspective on what you are doing. >> thank you all for having us here today. i think i can say ditto to everything that he said. we have been working very closely together. senator shelby is excited about chairman dawson taking over the banking committee. he has worked closely over the

years with senator sar banes and senator dodd and expects that to continue. they have a long history of working together. and so we are excited about what is going to happen this year. we are very hopeful we will be able to complete a re authorization bill but as we know there is a significant issue with respect to funding and that is biggest issue that is facing all of us. and until we figure out how were going to settle that i think we are in the unfortunate position we have been in for the past couple of years, and that is we're going to be sitting still until we figure out how to move forward. chris asked us to address a little how he would explain to his members. so that kind of threw off our whole speech issue. so i will try and explain and talk a little bit about how i would explain. and i would say first and

foremost from senator shelby's perspective the senate sent up a budget that has a significant increase for funding for the next authorization bill. they have also shifted all of the transportation funding into the highway trust fund. as we all know, the trust fund has some issues with solvesy. i am not sure how we are going to shovel all that extra stuff into the trust fund. plus those categories. and without any new revenue stream. so i think that that is a significant short-coming and it is very disappointing that we have received a reauthorization proposal without any meat on the bones. that's me in my republican hat. unlike mitch in my democrat hat. but we are hopeful that we will be able to move forward and figure out how to do this. it has been hard. nobody's been able to figure out what to do. there has been discussion of a gas tax.

many folks don't right to in these economic times don't want to consider a gas tax. the administration has said no vmt. but we are left with these proposals that were issued by the revenue and financing commission. they did a lot of work to figure out how we can increase the renuzz into the trust fund. and senator shelby said we need to look at those, whether it be a vmt or some other effort to bring more money into the trust fund. now he has also said he does not support a gas tax increase. that it is difficult, it is hard. the amount of money that you would have to raise in a gas tax to provide a significant level of funding, to provide the significant amount of infrastructure spending that folks are talking about could be devastating to the regular people everyday people who drive and have to put gas in their cars to get to and from work or the baby sitters or the hospital or the doctor or

whatever it is. so but he really believes that we should look at as many options as are possible to figure out how to move forward. the other thing that he, as many of you know, has long advocated is the prospects of innovative financing and public-private partnerships. public-private partnerships have been his touchstone for many years. and i look around and see lots of people shaking their heads. and i've listened to many of you enough to know that you would say to me, shannon, public transportation is not like a toll road. and we recognize that. that public-private partnerships don't work in all places, just like toll roads don't work in all places. but you have to be willing to consider the option. and public-private partnerships aren't just about capital investments. they are all across the board. you see in places all across the country where public companies have moved in to do

maintenance or any kind of cooperation with the private sector is a public-private partnership. those efficiencies can work to maximize your dollar, make your dollar go further. and all that senator shelby is saying that knotting should be off the table right now. times are tight. and when everybody is talking about cutting we have to be willing to consider all the options to figure out how to make our dollars go further. and so that is a really important component of any re authorization bill to him and re recognizes it is not the only way to pay for the bills. it is not going to solve all the problems. the other thing that is not a panacea is an infrastructure bank which a lot of folks have talked about. infrastructure bank is the way to go. it is going to fix all of our problems. it is the same set of issues. there have been a number of proposals the administration has had a couple of iterations

of an infrastructure bank. congresswoman delauro has a proprofle. former senator dodd and hagel and now senator kerry is working on an fraffle proposals. to date he has not supported any of those proposal. from his position they have had a number of short-comings. we saw how that worked out with fannie and freddie. we don't need that again. and many of them just simply recreate the wheel. they recreate the government grant process and don't enough to reinvest in infrastructure. and so what he said is we're willing to talk but we need to figure out a new and different way to do this. if what you are going to do is recreate the wheel, use the tifea program. it's working well. people finally know how to use it. that's not -- an infrastructure

make is not the only way that you can promote multi-modelism. and that's something that people like to talk about. public transportation is multi-modele. you provide access the all kinds of other transportation, to jobs, to day care, to hospitals. to bikes, to cars. trains. buses. it's all there. it all works together. and we think in moving forward and considering the multi -modele component that folks really need to look at public transportation and figure out how that fits into that multi-modal box so that when we talk about building highways and access points and investing in these really large urban and even rural projects, that we need to bring all of the pieces to the table. a lot of what we talked about last year was liveable communities. senator shelby has his doubts.

if they are planned by the federal government. but they worked really well when they have been planned at a local level. when they are locally driven decisions. so bringing all of those pieces to the table helps maximize your dollars and helps bring economic development and all of the pieces and parts that you guys are used to doing and looking at. so we encourage you to bring your ideas and bring your successes to us. how you've gone out and sought funding and how you've achieved the multi-modele components. how you've gotten other players to work with you so that we can try and form a program or a proposal that works so that we can figure out how to move ahead in the future with the limited resource that is we have. i think that's generally it. i mean, hopefully we're going to move forward. >> i memorized all that so i

can tell the construction guys back home. but that's very good and interesting bipartisan discussion about how to handle this issue and i think that's the one asset that we have in our part of the domestic budget world is that both sides kind of work together nicely. and that's why our next speaker is going to be able to discuss the issue from both sides without speaking out of both sides of his mouth. an old friend to me and to many of you, he's been with the committee for a long time although he has a new boss now who is congressman nick joe ray hall from west virginia. but ward has been with the tni committee through congressman oberstar and programs some of his predecessors. and over the years has worked closely with the republican side of the aisle now too. and while we don't expect you to give joyce's presentation, maybe you can give us a sense

of what you are thinking from what you are hearing on listening tours and all that kind of stuff. and whatever else it is that i can bring back to my members. >> well, thank you very much for having me. and it is great to be back. it's been several years for me to be back here. and very much enjoying the conference so far. i think the short answer to chris' question, if you know why is this taking so long and why do you -- what can you tell your contractors, is at least from my perspective, having been through a couple of these before, is this one is different and it is harder. the revenue question we have never really faced in the same way that we face in this bill and i think it is hard for people to understand how difficult that is right now even under current funding levels let alone to increase them. our committee kind of like the senate a little bit is very

much in transition. we have a new republican majority in the house with chairman mica taking over the committee and also a new ranking member with mr. ray hal. and mr. mica has begun the process of reauthorization by doing listening sessions around the country and some field hearings is where the focus has been. so there has been a lot of travel plarksly to our new members direction, new committee members' districts to learn about the transportation issues from their local side. i think that is the beginning of the process of the authorization. but we are not really in the same spot necessarily we were in the last congress in terms of developing a bill at this point. i am able to talk more about kind of where we have been with the past bill of the last congress than kind of where we are going because it's really going to be more outgrowth of this listening tour and the

republican majority kind of laying the frame for how we are going to proceed. there are three critical issues that we included in the authorization proposal that the committee move forward on a bipartisan basis in 2009. consolidation and termination of programs, trying to take on highway and trancity and research at across the board safety and each of the different areas there is a panoply of programs. and special initiatives. and trying to really take those and consolidate them into a much smaller set of programs. but then also, as part of that, to build in performance both performance met rirks to assess them and transparency and accountability to ensure that we are achieving specific goals as an outgrowth of that. i will go into those issues briefly. but on those two sets of issues

i think there is probably going to be similar agreement in overall concepts, or at least principles that we should do both of those things. i think the third issue is investment. and that's where i see almost complete divergeance from where the administration is and what they have proposed and at least the kind of discussion and rhetoric we've heard from the republican majority in the house in terms of how to proceed on that issue. so first with regard to consolidation, we took all of the highway and transit programs and took what were more than -- we consolid dated or eliminated more than 75 programs and basically set up four core highway programs and four core transit programs that would focus on a state of good repair through the urban and rural formula, rail modernization, access and mobility, and new start construction.

kind of in those four major groupings with then some minor programs on the side that deal with specific issues. i don't know that it will set up this exact same way but i think there is definitely a consensus that we need to move in that direction. we have too many niche programs in the transit arena. on performance and accountability, to me the great template we have seen so far has been the recovery act. we included an enormous number of new requirements which i'm sure all of you are aware of in terms of the reporting under the recovery act in terms of the number of jobs created, greater transparency in that process, not really as much performance met rirks at that time but more reporting to better understand how the funding was being used, whether it was being used, how many jobs it was creating. i think you are going to see the transportation programs across the board move very much in that direction. because i think there is a great deal of interest and

better understanding how the federal resources are being used. and then lastly on investment, i think the key thing that we have seen to this point is i guess first you need to begin with kind of the context of where we are. right now, with the transit program at about 10.7 billion, about 8.4 billion of that comes from the highway trust fund, from the mass transit account of the trust fund. but the revenues are only 5.1 billion. so we are greatly exceeding the expenditures each year of the revenue that is are coming in. and although we've kind of restored some funds to the trust fund over the last several years, we've, we are basically at a point where all the restorations that i'm aware of are done. and now if we're getting additional funds it's truly just a transfer at this point.

and so the transit program can probably go at the current levels without any increase for not just this coming fiscal year 2012, but at some point in fiscal year 2013 it will run into a catch balance problem. the highway program is likely to run into some trouble earlier than the transit account. so it's likely that in soment form congress is going to have to address the issue at some point in the next probably two to three years. i think in that frame, we see the president with an extraordinary proposal in terms of the investment. it is in essence doubling the transit program in fiscal year 2012 to a $22 billion program. when you include the economic boost elements of what the president has proposed. with $119 billion over 6 years.

that is even more than 99.8 billion that we had proposed in the last congress. and i think it's hard to overstate how important that is in terms of moving this forward. i think the other element from the president's standpoint as we heard it in the state of the union, we've heard it in different forms over the last couple of years. on a personal level, the president really seems to understand transportation and its importance both to the economy and to people's lives. and i don't think we can easily say that about prior presidents. i've been doing this for about 20 years and every state of the union i listen for the words transportation and i never hear them. so it has been, that part of it has been very refreshing. i think on the kivende of with the opposite trajectory, in the

house with the new republican majority, i think one of the concerns that we have is there doesn't seem to be any difference or recognition that there's a difference between spending and investment. it's simply all spending. and so there's no -- and in fact, the idea of the word investment is disparaged as that's kind of another word for spending. i think our members on the transportation committee have always recognized that there's a difference between long-term capital investments that will improve the economic fortunes of the country and create jobs and those that are simple operating expenditures and some ongoing program. with that, we're seeing in h.r. 1 which was the republican proposal to finish out the fiscal year, enormous cuts in

infrastructure including about $1 billion of cuts in transit. you know, we're waiting i think at this point to see as we g through these couple week continuations right now to see how the house and the senate and the president get to an end game on those. but i think we are hopeful that the senate and the president will push back against those cuts and that we won't see significant transportation cuts as part of that proposal. and with that, i think it leaves i guess very different approaches from where we are right now, and i think we will be very interested to see how the senate moves forward. because they will be a third voice in this. and that will really -- i think that will help push the debate one way or the other in terms of how we're going to proceed. because given the current

revenues to the trust fund, the financial difficulty it faces, it seems as if you are faced with a very small set of choices, none of which are particularly politically popular right now. one is to cut the programs by 40% so you are only meeting your current revenue levels. another is to begin to transfer funds from the general fund to pay for the ongoing purposes of the program. but then the whole highway trust fund loses its loser fee nature and its special status. or, third, to find a way to come to agreement on revenues. i think that discussion needs to continue. and that is really why this will be harder than it has been in past bills. we haven't had a gas tax increase since the 1980s that

was really increased for the purposes of transportation. all the other increases that are done in 90 and 93 were, those were done initially at least as part of deficit reduction and then were transferred at subsequent points into the highway trust fund. so i don't see the gas tax as the immediate solution given the current economic situation. that doesn't seem to be something anyone is interested in pursuing. but the kind of what the other possible financing options are is a very open question. and i think from our standpoint we're hopeful that the people are willing to have that dialogue. and then lastly, in terms of how will this process go, our committee is also doing the federal aviation administration reauthorization, which is in a much -- is much farther along in terms of the process right now, the legislative process.

the senate has already passed a bill this congress. both the house and senate passed bills last congress but didn't reach agreement. the house has moved one through committee and that will come to the floor probably within the next month. so that is going to i think be instructive to how quickly do the two bodies reach resolution on differences. some of which will be funding levels. and how in the end do they reach those differences. and i think that will be at least partially instructive to how things will move forward in the surface transportation reauthorization. which is much harder because it faces revenue issues that the aviation programs don't. >> thank you. i'm going to actually kick off some discussion further discussion. but if there are questions from the audience and you want to start lining up at the mike, feel free to do that. we're going to end this maybe

25 after. but you all touched on good issues. of course, the global issue is what do we do about the revenue side of this, because we wouldn't be having the same discussion if we knew what the answers were to that question. and i think the frustration level out in the industry, whether it is transit or highways, is who is going to sound the first volumey in the serious discussion? we have a tremendous proprofle from the administration in terms of the $550 billion proposal. on the other end of the spectrum, the revenue that is in the trust fund, if that's all we have to support the program, there's a huge gp in between there that perhaps can be filled if we have some rational discussion. obviously cost efficiencies. we didn't talk much about how

you make the process really more stream lined so we can get the money out and constructing the things and building the equipment and so forth that we need. ppps, which may be as shannon said part of the answer but not the entire answer. infrastructure banks. and you know, again, part of the solution maybe not the full solution. who is going to kick off the discussion? who is going to be the first one to say here is the range of things? safety lieu had recommendation for two conditions. shannon you mentioned recommendations. there was a lot of stuff in there. do you think there's going to be a debate? will it start with the authorizors? will it start with appropriators? ways and means committee, finance committee? we're all going to need everyone involved. who wants to take that general question? >> i think a lot of this is going to depend on big picture budget discussions.

this is tough stuff. and we're talking depending on how you look at the trust fund, if you want to do a six-year bill or something like 60 or $70 billion short or somewhere in the $50 billion to $70 billion range. that's tough. and there's going to be discussions going on about the fiscal year 2011 process. we have a debt limit debate coming up. there's this gang of six right now that is meeting on a bipartisan basis to talk about are there ways to look at spending entitlements revenues to address the debt issue. so i think some of those bigger picture discussions in the coming months will help to lay the groundwork. i think it is hard for one committee to solve that problem. and that's a much bigger picture problem. >> are all of you then

discussing these issues with those is the? it will take a lot of the folks to make this work more than just the authorizing committees. >> i think the discussion has begun. it started when the reports were issued. i mean, it opened the debate. how robust that debate is or becomes is really contingent upon folks' interest in actually moving forward with a bill. we talk a lot about really wanting a comprehensive reauthorization bill with levels significantly above the previous bill because we recognize that there is a significant amount of infrastructure investment that folks want and that is needed. but how serious that debate becomes really i think frankly be led a little by politics. and part of a broader discussion like mitch said of the budget. because you are going to have to figure out where the priorities are.

and you're going to have to kind of rack and stack, so to speak, what those priorities are and where you're willing to make those investments. >> i think just to echo the same point. i think the idea of a first volley, there isn't going to be a first volley. i think it is much more likely that parties either through a broader budget discussion or even just a discussion on this bill come together to try to reach some idea of how to do this. if there's -- i think the first step will be to get the house to agree that we need to significantly increase the investments. and the house majority to do that. i think if we have that agreement, then i think you could have in the room house and senate and the administration to come to a consensus. but i think we saw what the president's budget, i don't think there's a great willingness for anyone politically right now to come out with here's the revenue solution.

because i think the fear is, no matter what it is, the politics of that are just, there's very little upside to it. >> good discussion. let's have our first question. >> one quick comment and one question. joel with the national center for transit research. shannon your point about p-3s. i was in a meeting with the mayor of london kind of financer sort of position and he was looking more of those in the united states. he was saying there was only 19 in the whole country and in england they use it for everything, building schools and transit systems and libraries and you name it. so i'm sure there are opportunities. it won't help many operating budgets but it could help projects, i suppose. my question is this may be too traps parent but i wonder if there is any legs possible behind the thought of taxes oil at the barrel instead of at the

gas pump where people line up every day even though the price of gas may go up 50 cents, they grumble but they pay it but it's wow tax went up 5 cents, that's the end of the world. but if it were taxed at the barrel they wouldn't see that tax at the gas pump and the revenue could still be coming in for helping to fund more transportation. i know that would affect people getting home heating oil and well and i don't know if there would be a way around working that. but i'm curious if that's been discussed and dismissed or any possibility. >> i think it has been discussed previously. i don't think anything's been off the table when you talk about gas tax and where you tax. what's the point of taxation. the reality is people will feel it. home heating oil and other sectors, you'll feel it. it will get passed on in some way shape or form the company will show or people will recognize that the price point has just been shifted so they are taxing you at the barrel

versus at the pump. a tax is a tax. so i think that we have to get past that and figure out how to move forward and increase the revenue stream versus just trying to hide the ball, so to speak. and i think my bozz would say that's simply trying to hide the ball. >> a question, no jokes, please. >> thank you. charlie rose. bill, champagne-urbana, illinois. john this morning talks about performance measurement and that's been mentioned this afternoon. how much of an increase in the small transit intensive tears system -- tier would you expect then in a new authorization bill? >> well, talk about a loaded question. i think performance measures

are things that everybody is looking more towards. what are the measures, what are the goals, how do you plement it across the board with respect to the transit programs that we have in place? it seems to be that buzz word and it sounds really good. we've kind of struggled with what are we measuring and why. what are our -- what are the outcomes we're seeking. the stick program has worked. can you apply that across the board? speaking directly to your question about how much do we expect it to be increased. i'll turn that over to mitch. >> should we test around the new formula table? you know, formulas are not something we've gotten to yet. it's hard to do formulas when you have no idea what the level of funding is going to be. so that certainly is the stick program is certainly something we'll be discussing what to do with it. it is a program that tries to

look at need and how much transit service are you delivering but we haven't gotten there yet in terms of what we are doing on formulas. >> we haven't either. >> that's into the weeds. but let me just suggest aside from the global issues that apta is interested in like a six-year bill at good levels, you know, we had a reauthorization proposal that was hashed out over two or three years that has a lot of good specifics in there. so we'll make sure everybody gets a copy before we leave. next question. >> as we pursue new technologies for transportation, in december 2009, there was legislation proposed to allow fta to mandate to develop safety standards for subways. unfortunately, this apparently

did not, was not enacted into law. is there any hope for safety standards to be developed by legislation or regulation in the near future? this is vital for passenger safety. >> well, we did work on the public transportation safety act last year. i mentioned that senator shelby and senator dodd and senator men end ezz joined forces to put that legislation together. we passed it on a bipartisan basis through the committee. it did get held up at the end of the year in the senate, unfortunately. but we do plan to bring that back if we are moving authorizing legislation. we are going to seek to include it in authorizing legislation. and if we're not, i think it's important enough to try to move that separately. >> thank you. >> and that has been an issue from the house side. the chairman mica has not been

supportive of. he's not been supportive of at least the administration's proposal and in essence kind of the senate's proposal on that issue, on he's wanted to do it from kind of the other end which is more to the state safety oversight existing program to beef that up some. but that -- and again, i don't know now as chairman and it will be dependent on what and if the senate passes on that. but that's been an issue that he has been at least very up front to his opposition. >> i think from an industry perspective, i can't speak for everyone, i think that the concern in the industry is how onerous it is in the certainly in the context of having less resources available and what is the end game and what's the advantage you are providing to increase safety and so forth. but why don't we take the next question. >> thank you. gary.

i'm a board member for san joaquin transal district, stockton, california. gas tax. a two-part question. we know, we've heard that the administration is in support of transportation, transit and so forth. this administration is also in support of alternative energies as well as alternative energy sources such as electric and alternative fuel. how is electric going to pay their fair share first question. second question, is indexing of the gas tax. how do you feel indexing might be more palateable to the consumer? thank you. >> i like that you look at me immediately. >> i'll take this one. >> ok. >> and i will dodge it pretty well. i think that -- obviously we have a big hole in terms of

revenue into the trust fund. and it's such a big hole that is going to take bipartisan discussions to come up with that. so it is probably, that's for that process not to to be too out in front on specific revenue but to try and figure out when we can at the right time have those bipartisan discussions hopefully sooner rather than later. this is not going to be a quick turn around kind of thing. but everyone is going to have to get together and if we agree that we want to continue with a program that is tied to revenues and we want to have a program that is larger than we have today or even as big we are going to need to come up with a way to pay for that. and it is not going to be easy and it is going to take some serious bipartisan work. >> but i will kind of address the first part of your question, wh is how does the sector pay their fair share which is not something we've discussed a lot of.

we've had a lot of discussions about a gas tax and increasing clean fuels usage and alternative energy sources and those kinds of things. but there has not been a lot of discussion about bringing those other parties to the table and ensuring that they are paying into the trust fund or whatever it becomes in order to ensure that the programs maintains the level of investment that it has over the years. >> that segment more than any other segment kind of drives the user pays philosophy all over again. and interesting discussion and debate. and this is really good because we have one more question that we can fit in and one more question. >> susan binder. one thing i want to say is congratulations. you got us off the hook of the hand to mouth, week to week, month to month business with an extension through september and that was really good.

so now you can concentrate on all of the challenge. so don't fall back to that hand to mouth ways. but having said that, it's probably a question more for the senate folks than you have the luxury ward of having so much under your jurisdiction of your committee. is there any thought to, in order to get the work done that has to be done, quickly, tute suite this summer before we get into real presidential politics of a multi-committee and dare i say multi-chamber strategy? i mean, the idea a lot of folks from this town are saying we've got to get this done before august, before september and the appropriations hits the fan, before the presidential election mudies the waters. so any thought of how you might speed that up and have you worked with commerce or epw or dare i say finance to answer these questions? >> well, certainly we've had

conversations, we're all facing very tough issues. and it's going to require that all these kess work together. it's going to require that both parties work together. and ultimately it's going to require that the senate, the house and the white house and the administration work together. i mean, these are i mentioned earlier, the challenges are real. this is getting new spending and new revenues out of this congress this particular time is not an easy task. and i think these discussions will help demonstrate what is possible to do. i think it's in everyone's best interest if we can do a bill that provides substantial resources and provides more than a few years of time. but what is possible. i wish i could say more and speak more definitively. it is just going to be a tough situation. but i think it is critical that all the committees work

together and just have got to get much broader than just those committees. >> i think you know better than anybody that it is kind of unheard of for banking and commerce and finance a to all sit down and write a bill. so i think i would have to say i haven't heard of anybody considering sitting down together to write. >> might be a message [inaudible] >> it could be. for all of us to work together towards a common goal, unified time frame. you know. i know, you laugh. but it's congress. come on. >> and interestingly enough, i think as we go out and lobby, and susan your point is well taken. what i find is we end up poll nating a lot of stuff, too, bringing people together. i think the good thing about our panel -- and i don't know if you want to add anything on this or escape. while you still have the chance. but we are very grateful to

have three professionals like these folks here, because mitch, shannon and ward do talk to each other. and more importantly, they talk to us. so even though we don't have time for more questions today, the good thing is they're all accessible. almost any time you ask they make themselves available for further discussion. so with that, if you would join me in thanking them for being here. [applause] and that will be the end of our session. thanks for coming. >> thank you all very much. >> our coverage continues with republican representative steven laut rhett and democratic representative blum an hour on transportation funding bills. this is about an hour.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> when we began the day together, i promised you good speakers and great information throughout the day. and i hope you will agree that that's exactly what we provided. and -- [applause] . >> well, thank you. and i will make you one more promise. that's about to continue. because we have a great lineup of speakers for this closing session, which we've titled capital hill summit kickoff. this is the session where you've heard a lot of things from a lot of different people today. and we want to use this as a little bit of a sints sizing figuring out how to go forward and take our message up on the

hill. now, to do that we have two very distinguished members of congress. you know, the kind of people who sit from the table from you, they've heard it all. so we're hoping they give us just a few hints and a suke secrets as to how we can deliver our message in a way that is helpful to them because they are both leaders who care deeply about infrastructure investment in our nation. and just hear from them a little bit about their thoughts on the issues of the day with transportation and then how we might make our message a little more effective. after we've heard from our congressional guests and then our plan is to hear from gary thomas of dallas start. gary will share some of his perspectives on his many years of working with congress. and finally, we have the advocacy guru here. and i will tell you more about her a little bit later.

so, let's begin. first, it is my deep pleasure and honor to introduce to you congressman steve laut rhett. he represents the 14th district of ohio which is in northeast ohio. my sister, my two nephews, their families all li in his district. they're all voters. so i don't want to put any pressure on him. but the 14th district is basically that northeast corner east of cleveland. and he is in his ninth term. he is a member of the house appropriations committee. and of particular importance to us, the transportation appropriations subcommittee. he has been a strong voice in congress for many years for the importance of infrastructure investment. and he has been with afta on numerous occasions. so please join me in welcoming

back congressman steve la tour rhett. [applause] >> well, thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here. and i know i'm going to be followed by one of my great friends, earl blum an hour. and there's a lot of myths about washington and one is that we don't get along. republicans don't like democrats and democrats don't like republicans. well, that's not true. actually this town has a lot to do with relationships. and earl and i have been lucky enough to work together on a number of issues including these issues that bring you to washington today. i wish that i could stand before you and tell you that there is good news in what's about to occur relatively to transportation funding. but that would be a big fat lie so i'm not going to tell you. i spent 14 years on the transportation committee. was there when bud shuster put together t-21 as the aftermath to ice t, the historic

legislation. and frankly t-21 was good legislation. chairman shuster pushed the envelope. he amended the house rules and that drove the appropriators crazy and i'm supposed to tell you it was bad bad bad but at the time it was really good in that the outlays, the appropriators were always constrained to appropriate to the level of the authorization in the t-21 bill. and that continued through the next bill safety will you. safety will you in my opinion was not a good piece of legislation. we delivered it two years late. and we got into a little dustup with president bush. his omb indicated that because of the declining revenues in the trust fund that he started the bidding on a six-year bill at $256 billion which flew in the face of the d.o.t.'s estimates that we needed 400-some billion dollars to get

the job done and have a protective highway program. and transportation programs in the united states. after two year of ping ponging it back and forth, we finally got up to about $300 billion. woefully inadequate for the times. two years late, as i indicated. and, sadly, it became the poster child for what is wrong with washington. and it incorporated the now infamous bridge to nowhere. and so the bridge to nowhere started this forward cascade of earmarks are bad, transportation projects are bad. transportation funding is bad. and that brand sticks with us today. even though, and somebody we had a motion to recommit on the floor a couple weeks ago and somebody got up and said we're going to defund the bridge to nowhere. and if alaska wants to build a bridge to nowhere, let them use their own money. because it's below the line it

is their own money and it's up to them whether they want to construct it or not. but we now find ourselves operating under a series of short-term extensions. short-term extensions are now the death of transportation because how can you plan for anything? you don't know what the smun going to be six months from now, you don't know what it's going to be six years from now. so you can't contract with the engineer to draw the plans. you can't begin to hire the workforce to get things ready to go. you can't talk to the orange blarle people to make sure that they're all squared away. and you certainly can't buy buses or retro fit existing fleets because you don't know where the revenue stream is. and i would love to tell you that there is going to be a six 46 year bill here but i don't know how because i don't know how there is going to be a six-year bill. i have a great deal of affection for the current chair of the full committee but on my side i sit on something known as the steering committee. so everybody sort of comes in front of the steering committee

when they want to be chairman of something and they apply for the job. and i asked mr. mica how are you going to come wup a six-year highway bill? because no one has figured out where the money is going to come from. and he said private partnerships -- private-public partnerships. and i said, again, how are you going to come up with a six-year bill? and the fact is no one wants to address it. which was a great idea in 1956 when dwight eisenhower was developing the interstate highway system. it is not doable today in 2011. and then, on top of that, little disappointed. i'm an equal opportunity basher so i beat up president bush a little bit. now i'll talk about president obama. and, quite frankly, secretary lahood, is a class mate of mine. we were both elected in 1994. now that he is a cabinet secretary, he has consumed the

cool aid and speaks a little language than i'm used to. he said we're going to go on an 18-month listening tour rather than coming up with a proposal. and nonwhat they're listening to because we've known since safety lu that we needed to raise the gas tax. and if we had the courage of our convictions in 2005 and actually confronted president bush and said we have to get more money into the trust fund, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. but we didn't. and clearly now in 18 month listening tour traveling around the country listening to people say, i would doubt that your message has changed much. you need money. and you need money, and you need money because it not only runs your systems but it creates jobs all across the country. so at the end of the day, unless we raise the gas tax, unless we exercise some excise fee on barrels of oil, unless we take the pilot program that's now under way with vehicle miles traveled, unless we make a decision to toll

more, the trust fund is limping along at like 32, 34 billion a year. you multiply that by six. you don't even get to a $200 billion bill. so again, everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. and that's where we find ourselves with this particular set of discussions. so i know that this is your kickoff as you are about to storm the hill. and let me just tell you something. you need to get in people's faces. i mean, don't come to my office, but go to everybody else's office. go to everybody else's office and get in their faces. i know earl is having the same experience, because this is a tough time. we have a serious, serious deficit and debt problem. we're going to have to come to terms with it. so all the people that i've seen in the last month come to washington, all the different groups, they come with their wringing their hands and hats in their hands and say we know these are tough economic times so we're not going to ask for very much.

well, you've got to go in and ask for something. because there's a difference between spending where we just take a bunch of your money and shove it out the door and spend it and invest it. bud shuster, man e he schooled me. every billion dollars we spend creates 47 and a half thousand jobs from the people who do the construction to run the trains, the asphalt guys, the construction guys and we need jobs. unemployment is still hovering around 9%. so you have to talk about being an investment. there's no fairer way to fund something than we fund transportation. it's a user fee. if you use it, you pay for it. if you don't use it, you don't pay for it. so even the knuckle draggers who have been elected in this last election that sort of wander in and say we hate taxes, we're not going to raise taxes, we're not going to do. i don't know how we're going to function as a government unless we spend something. but at the end of the day, this is fair. and we're not