conference in philadelphia that attorney general holder announced that he was taking action against the state of texas. in today's meeting, there were a number of things that i think are important to emphasize. .

>> in 2006 president bush signed the bill on the lawn of the white house with members of congress from both parties there in large numbers. we reaffirm our commitment to build that same type of coalition for the necessary legislative response to the supreme court's action.

and we reaffirm our commitment o do that today. >> hi, i'm wade henderson with the leadership conference on civil and human rights. i just want to acknowledge some of the leaders who are here today who joined in this really important and constructive meeting with the president. there's cheryl, the president director council of the naacp, legal defense and educational fund. barbara who is executive director and president of the lawyers committee, the civil rights under law. which by the way is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year having been founded by president kennedy in response to violence against those who sought to register voters in the past. tom, who is president of the mexican american legal defense and educational fund, bringing more lawsuits in the area of voting rights than almost any other latino organization and particularly focused in texas right now. laura, who represents the

american civil liberties union, washington national office, who reminded all of us about the important work that the aclu is doing, bringing over 300 voting rights cases currently. ere's rosalyn brock, chairperson of the naacp, the nation's oldest and largest civil human rights organization. there are state lenl slators, 'm sorry, there's margaret fung. we have state legislators from texas, from alabama, from georgia, from florida. this is really a broad and diverse group. the national coalition of black civic participation i want to just step back for one moment and underscore something that mark said about the importance of bipartisanship. and the president himself alluded to that. we recognize that the voting rights act in the past has enjoyed strong bipartisan

support. and we are counting on that bipartisan support to continue the great tradition of ensuring that every person, every american citizen has the right to vote. this was such an important meeting because the president underscored that right that all americans believe in. secondly, he emphasized the role of the federal government in ensuring that the right to vote for all be adequately protected. the enforcement efforts that were announced last week by attorney general holder were so important, but it is also important that we educate the public and that we mobilize our constituencies to lift their voices above the significance of this issue. that's why the 50th anniversary, commemorative and leadership march on washington, will be so important. so with that let me invite barbara to give us a closing remark. >> i thought the meeting was really excellent.

it was great to have not only the president present but also the attorney general and mr. perez. i thought it was important that we had a real conversation. it was quite instructive. the president was impressive in his knowledge of the issue, thinking about it, and his commitment to making sure that every american is going to be able to have a right to vote unfettered. i was also very impressed that the department of justice has been giving -- and the administration has been giving thought to how to use the full array of voting rights laws, including the national voter registration act, to make sure that there are rights are accorded to everyone to vote. the president also interestingly and importantly alluded again to his commission on long lines and waiting that report, and i think

that report also will be informative to this effort to re-authorize the voting rights act. thank you. oh, and i should have mentioned that the lawyers committee also is very happy that we will be working very closely with all the groups here and others to the ct hearings across country in order to help congress develop the record that is needed and that our law firms will be a big part of that and we look forward to doing the litigation necessary to protect voters. >> let me mention, our last three speakers, cheryl, tom, and trey, a state representative from texas. >> i'm cheryl, i'm the president and director council of the naacp legal defense fund. we were part of the team of lawyers that litigated the shelby county case and argued it in the supreme court. since the decision in that case our clients and americans all over the country have been deeply concerned about whether we are going backwards on the right to vote. this meeting was important today to have the president of the

united states, the attorney general of the united states affirm that we are not going backwards. to reaffirm their commitment on protecting the right to vote. nearly 150 years ago, the supreme court of the united states said the right to vote is preservative of all rights. and therefore this moment that we are in as it relates to voting rights is not a moment about african-americans, about latinos, native americans, or asian americans. this is a moment about america and democracy, what we stand for, whether we are willing to protect that thing that defines us as citizens in this country. and what the president of the united states affirmed today he will stand for t. will he stand behind it, that he will do everything in his power to ensure that all americans have access to the right to vote. we all share the same view. we don't believe that we in this country in 2013 should be fighting to ensure that people have access to the polls and have access to voting. we believe this country should be looking for ways to make it easier for people to vote, to

broadening the franchise, to ebb sure -- ensure greater civic participation, encourage our young people to participate in the political process. we think it's sad that at this moment we have to engage this this kind of work to ensure our democratic processes remain open. yet we take up the challenge. those of us who litigate take up the challenge in the court. we are heartened by the texas suit using one of the remaining features in the voting rights act that minority voters are protected. so many different groups recognize this as a water shed issue in this contry. we are looking forward to august 24 and the march on washington where we'll have an opportunity for america to see how much not only these individual groups, but americans, millions of americans from all over the country feel about this right that is presiffive of all our other rights. at the naacp defense fund, we are continuing to engage in litigation to protect the right

to vote throughout this country. we are talking in communities both small and large, and we are not going to let up the fight to ensure all voters have equal access to participate in the political process. today was tremendously encouraging. we are happy the president is focused on this and thrilled he and the attorney general were willing to meet with all of us to reassure us of their commitment to preserving the right to vote. thank you. good afternoon, i'm thomas, president of the mexican american legal defense and education fund, one of the organizations litigating in texas around the redistricting. it plenty one of the opportunities to use one of the critical remaining tools in the voting rights act of 1965 to ensure that a jurisdiction with a long-standing and continuing history of discrimination in voting is subjected to appropriate review of any changes it anticipate in its voting processes. that immediate occasion makes

this meeting with the president particular opportune, i would reiterate what others said,ed breadth of the coalition that met with the president is a demonstration how critically important this issue is to all of america. this is a time for all of america to come together across partisan lines, across geographical lines, across community lines, across experience lines to ensure that that very precious right to vote that belongs to all of us is vigorously defended and vigorously asserted on behalf of every citizen in this country. at the end of the day we know that no supreme court decision, no matter how wrong headed it may be, no supreme court decision can deny that most precious of rights to every citizen in this country who has earned it. >> our last speaker, state representative trey martinez from texas. >> thank you van hollen, san antonio, texas. i -- thank you very much.

i represent one of the largest latino caucuses in the country. we have been lead plaintiffs in texas redistricting litigation as well as defending interveners in voter i.d. it's refreshing to hear from the president of the united states that when both republicans and democrats fight for americans in order to vote, america wins. we know that sometimes that doesn't happen overnight. and unless and until we hear from the congress, we have to make sure that this coalition that's been doing it for, many, years, several decades, will workday in and day out, boots back on the ground, to ensure every american has the right to vote and every american has a place to go when they see shenanigans at the polling place. so in addition to the efforts at the department of justice to retool and reprioritize in the wake of the shelby county decision, it's refreshing to learn that both section 2 and section 3 of the voting rights act will be strictly and

vigorously applied by the d.o.j. and texas will probably be ground zero because there is litigation happening right now and there are live pleadings that discuss overly section two and section three to give america an opportunity to see first hand how and the reason why it's so important that not only do we have the right to vote but we have those out there to fight to protect that right. that's what this coalition represents. i'm glad to see everybody here in washington come together. put our arms around a difficult issue. i am encouraged by the words of the president, inspired by the words of the attorney general and senior team at the white house, that they'll not let one election go by without having proper vigilance by the department of justice. >> thank you. thanks to all who have joined in this meeting today. there are a couple of questions we are happy to have my colleagues -- >> texas being ground zero, what other states are part of this battle? 50 years ago there were marches. there were people that were booten. there was a lot of activity on the ground.

what is this battle like today in texas? and also in those critical states besides texas? >> sure. there are several states but i'll say in texas there is a lawsuit that is pending right now and so sort of the timing and sequence of events we have an opportunity to display just how important the voting rights act is and just how important it is to have section 2 and section 3. while we fight in the courtroom with the laws that we have left, we demonstrate the importance of the need for the congress to give us a voting rights act that's going to apply to all americans. >> we are also pleased to have representatives from both georgia and florida who are here . both of those states have been engaged in activity to -- in fact those who are here have been working to preserve the vote. let's ask them to speak briefly. >> i'm state representative calvin, past president of the national black caucus of state legislators. 650 legislators in 42 states. we have seen a lot of action as it relates to the voting rights

act. in georgia alone we just had a situation where the voters , roved a partisan elections but yet because of preclearance and now the supreme court ruling the legislature has changed it to a nonpartisan election. that's one of the examples. i think what's important about today's meeting is that we have to watch the trickle-down theory. those of us at the state level, we have to now look out for those at the local school board level, municipality level, those areas where the voting right act can bring serious prepercussions. we as state legislators want to not only look at the state level and federal level, but the local municipalities. >> we also have state representative alan williams from florida. >> today was an opportunity to not only hear from the attorney general but also from the president and to have a full broad coalition supporting what we believe is a critical,

fundamental building block of our democracy, that's the voting rights act. we know that each and every day folks want to know that they have the fundamental right to vote, they want to know that right is protected, and what the department of justice is doing in texas is critical to ensuring that right post the shelby decision. we know in florida that governor scott has led now because of the decision, is now starting to begin to purge the voting lists. we have to make sure we continue as legislators in that state to stand strong with our citizens throughout all 67 counties to make sure that is something that is not violated. one thing thing that's not lost upon me, lawmakers down there, that post the shelby decision, but also post the zimmerman verdict, we know that next year would have been the first year that trayvon martin would have had the opportunity to vote. we know that's very sacred. something that's not lost on us.

so we are going to make sure that everyone has that opportunity. and we are going to continue to protect that. >> the big issue is the voting map, the new voting rights map. naacp if i ve the could, what are you looking for with this new voting rights map? what would you want congress to draw up with this new map? > candidly it's too early to speculate on what in fact the legislative response is going to be. there are some very smart lawyers, experienced voting rights litigators, working with the justice department and outside of the justice department, and on capitol hill in order to do what is necessary to respond. so i think it's too early. and i think also that speculation would not be helpful

to the ultimate goal. the ultimate goal which is to pass on a bipartisan basis a legislative response. in the interim the attorney general reaffirmed this, we saw him utilize section 3 to bring texas into an enforcement -- preclearance -- seeking to bring texas into preclearance enforcement regime. there are monitoring opportunities. there are resources that are being shifted to section 2. there are other tools in the justice department's toolbox to protect the right to vow. what i would encourage you all close eye on ep a action at the state legislative levels. these state legislatures, in the last 24 to 36 months there have been a long list of bills introduced in states across the nation, particularly in the

south, but not exclusively in the south, that fall into the category of voter suppression. only those which actually passed those which would challenge garnered public attention, because there were efforts inside of these legislatures to stop and thwart many of these things. i think that this is one of the places where attention on the states, attention on the states, no longer can we wait, particularly for the old covered states, to pass whatever they wanted to pass and then submit it to the justice department for preapproval. we really need people to understand that this is not an isolated law here or an isolated law, but this has been a concerted effort, particularly in the last 24 to 36 months to pass new types of voter suppression legislation and new

discriminatory voting methods in many of these states. >> our last comment is from rosalyn brock, chair of the naacp. >> i want to respond what april asked. i agree it's too early for us to have a strategy in place right now, but the naacp is going about educating our membership across the country. we are having town hall meetings. we are having a campaign that's called summer heat that we are engaging our membership to look at the city and local state elections happening, 2014 is a critical time in this nation. we are so pleased that the president called this meeting along with attorney general holder. this broad coalition. we are committed that we shall not be moved in our pursuit to ensure the unfettered access to the right to vote for all americans in this country. at the naacp we say that courage will not skip this generation, but the right to vote will also

not skip this generation. and we'll continue to work with coalition partners across this country, and we are also going to mobilize 50,000 voters, new voters, to vote in the midterm elections next year. we know that a power structure in this nation happens at the polling place. so we want to ensure that everyone who has a desire to vote and to be a part of the civic process in this nation has been opportunity to do that because too many of our sons, our daughters, fathers, and mothers have died for this franchise. >> thank you all. on that note we'll end this press conference. some of us will be around if you have other questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] >> news this afternoon army private first class bradley manning has been acquitted of

aiding the enemy for giving secret documents and cables to the organization wiki leaks. he was found guilty on five counts of theft and five counts of espionage. reports are that he will be sentenced tomorrow in fort immediate by the -- fort meade by the judge. army private first class bradley manning acquitted of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to wiki leaks. while the house and senate are in this afternoon, they'll gavel back in, the house coming in at 2:00 p.m. eastern briefly for general speeches. back at 3:00 for legislative work. as members take up the 2014 transportation and housing spending bill. later this week in the house, a bill addressing the doubling of student loan interest rates. also a bill that would prevent the i.r.s. from implementing any portion of the health care law. the house live at 2:00 here on c-span. the snack back at 2:15 on c-span2. also this afternoon we'll bring you live coverage of an energy

hearing. senate hearing. they are hearing from the energy secretary on managing nuclear waste. he'll be among the witnesses talking about alternatives to the cooling pools that currently hold most of that waste. that hearing live at 2:30 eastern on c-span3. up until 2:00 and the house gaveling in, a conversation from this morning's "washington journal" on this the 48th anniversary of lbj signing medicare into law. host: on the 48th anniversary of medicare, tom scully is joining us from new york. the former administrator for the centers for medicare and medicaid services. served from 2001 to 2004. mr. scully, thanks for coming back to the "washington journal" this morning. i want to begin with the front page of "usa today" overall on health care spending. here's the headline. the white house is hailing the smallest growth rate in 50 years. personal health care costs rose

in the 12 months ending in may at the clowest rate in the past 50 years as spending on hospital and nrsing home services decline. personal consumption spending rose 1.1%, according to alan krueger, chairman of the white house down civil economic advisors. hospital readmission rates dropped from an average of 19% to 17.9% for medicare patients since the passage of the 2010 health care law. what do you make of that, mr. scully? guest: it's good news and bad news. on the health care investor, that's what i do in new york these days, and i guess some of that is -- a lot is the economy being slow. we own hospitals and a lot of other facilities, and admissions are down. the best news in that is readmissions. the one thing the administration has been pushing the last few years is trying to change behavior and get fewer people to be readmitted to hospitals. that particular number is very good. a lot of employers have higher deductibles, co-payments, consumption is down.

some is just the fact the economy is slow. it's obviously good news. any time we have all been trying on a bipartisan basis to slow health care spending for 30 years, so the fact it's slowsing is good. sadly i think a big piece is the economy. it's definitely good news. host: the "usa today" goes on to say this, in may a congressional budget office report showed us $618 billion drop in projected medicare and medicaid spending over the next decade. recent study by the department of health and human services show that for americans who receive health insurance through their employers, premium rose 3% from 2011 to 2012, the lowest increase since 1996. hat's your reaction to that? guest: well, it's good news but a lot is, again, my firm owns the largest chain, surgery center, a lot is higher deductibles and co-payments. people not putting off elected surgeries. it's good news in many ways but a move in the right direction. but a lot is the economy.

host: what do you think it means or the medicare program? guest: it means slower spending in the medicare program. i'm not sure in the long run, the problem with the medicare program, it's a wonderful program and i love it, but he demographically, 50 million people in the program and in the next 20 years it will go to 80 million. we have a rapidly approaching population. i'm 55, the peak year of the baby boom, we have a ton of people aging into medicare and not as much -- many taxpayers my kids' age to pay for it. the real problem is demographic in the long run. in the short run i think we are in good shape. host: want to show our viewers this congressional budget office chart and the medicare costs as a percentage of overall economy when you are looking out over -- here it is in 2012, and when you look at it, reaching about almost 4% by 2015, looks like about 8%, can you speak to that

a little bit more? >> if you look at medicare and medicaid, the two programs i ran on social security, the three critical, there's others, critical safety net programs, that's 45% of the federal budget now and growing. obviously everybody wants to preserve social security and medicare and medicaid. it's critical and growing massively under president obama's plan. but swallowing up the budget. so you get to the point where we have to -- most policymakers worry everybody loves those programs but at 45% of the federal government and growing, at some point you have to build roads and schools and other things, too. it's fundamentally an economic problem. when you are running deficits that are 8%, 9%, 10% of g.d.p. that's a person. the program -- that's a concern. the program, the seniors love it. it's a critical program. host: we'll talk more about what it is, but to those numbers, the keyser family foundation pew

research center, says in 2012 there were 49.4 million medicare in 201247.5 and million. 11,000 new seniors become eligible every day as baby boomers retire. and then medicare spending from the centers for medicaid and medicaid services it was in 2006 it was $403 billion. in 20122 went to $506 billion. and the 2022 estimate is $1 trillion. tom scully, why -- >> carl sayingian. host: what's your reaction to those numbers? what's driving this? is it the demographics as you said? what else? guest: it's really the demographics. health care inflation has always been a little above general inflation. it's way above until the last few years. the earlier numbers you quoted are good news. things are relatively getting better. if inflation is 2%. health care inflation is always a couple points above that.

when you population is rapidly aging and growing, it's going to be a real serious burden on younger taxpayers. we are going to have to make reforms at some point. weather it's raising the retirement age, reforming the program. there's no way you can sustain program as it is. obviously politically everybody puts it up -- off, but it's a challenge. most people think the social security retirement age is 65. it's actually 66. congress quietly moved it up one month at a time and now it's 66. medicare is still 65. we need -- people are living longer. raise the rirme age gradually so people don't get too shocked by it. probablely need some -- probably need more market based reforms. medicare is a popular program. host: that's the future of medicare. tom scully headed up for the centers for medicare and

medicaid services, and we also want to talk about the history of medicare as it is -- the 48th anniversary of that program. our phone lines are on the screen and we want to hear from medicare beneficiaries as well. special one for you 202-585-3883 as we talk from tom scully from new york this morning. let's just for those that might not be so clear, what's the difference between medicare and medicaid? guest: medicare is roughly 50 million people. about 42 million are seniors over 65. there's another large group, about eight million, that are disabled. and there's also probably about 400,000 dialysis patients. regardless of your age, you get covered by medicare. if you are disabled you are clared social security disabled, you qualify for medicare regardless of age. the bulk of it is for seniors over the age of 65. there's some differences in the way medicare program is

structured, about 72% of people are in the traditional program run by the government where they operate as the insurance company and sets rates and pays claims. about 28% of the people are medicare advantage, which is the government essentially for one year you want to buy anet in a plan, buy private insurance. that's the medicare program. it's a seniors and disability insurance program run by the federal government, spends about $600 billion a year. medicaid is for lower income people, varies by state. basically 56 different medicaid programs, 50 states and six territories. all are really radically different. they don't look much alike, but they all generally cover low-income people. president obama's one of the contributions to this plan was the expansion of that. it's roughly financed about 60% by the federal government, 40% by the states, depends on the state. it covers low-income people. it's about the cost of the program is about 1/3 for women and kids. and another low-income benefits,

traditional health care benefits b. a third for disability, low-income disability people. and about a third for seniors nursing home care. probably 70% of the nursing home beds in this country are covered by medicaid. lower income seniors, or seniors who spend down their resources, they age, generally have the nursing home beds paid for. medicaid is generally low-income. covers a lot of long-term care for seniors. medicare has been -- much more -- couldn't cover much in the way of long-term care. medicare for older seniors. there is an overlap, about 10 million seniors roughly who are low-income seniors over 65 will get medicare and about nine million will get dual eligibility. which means medicare is significant deductibles and co-payments. about nine million or 10 million will have the state medicaid program will cover those costs. they are call medicare-medicaid dual eligibles. host: why was medicare started? guest: medicare started originally in 1965 because

seniors didn't have health insurance. obviously as people age and aren't working, they burn through their resources, they tend to consume a lot more health care thank yunner people. major social problem in the 1950's and 1960's before that where seniors not employed couldn't afford their health care. medicare basically was to put in to solve a massive societal problem which is that older people got sick and didn't have health care coverage unless they had an employer that had ong-term health care coverage. created in 19635, it's a very complicated program, hybrid of traditional blue cross coverage was back there. i think many people would argue medicare is stuck with a 1965 model and hasn't modernized as much. it really is a -- go through part a and b, but a complicated mishmash of what traditional health insurance looked like in 1965 and probably needs to be update. host: part a is the hospital, nursing home, and other health

facility insurance. part b, the medical insurance includes doctor visits and procedures. part c is the medicare advantage plus, supplemental program covering other costs. part d the prescription drug coverage. jody tweets in this, allow younger people to buy into medicare. wouldn't this bring down the cost since they don't use it weekly? or is that too close to single payer? guest: it is single payer. you can debate it. my complaint about the health care system, i love the medicare program, if you try to fix the health care system we have three different systems. if you are over 65 we have a government single payer system for the 72% of people on traditional medicare. if you are under 65, with the exchanges that president obama and congress put in, you have more of a kind of private insurance system. then medicaid is different. i think it would be a mistake to have people buy into medicare. medicare has a lot of wonderful things about it, covers a lot of people the worst thing about medicare is the government fixing prices.

it doesn't drive, i don't thirks very good behavior. i don't agree with president obama's plan. i personally think, as you can guess, i'm a republican, i worked for both bushes, that it spent way too much money way too fast. but the concept of what it did for people under 65, is put them in exchanges, which has always been not that controversial an idea. they are basically buying private health insurance. it's the right way to go. how much you are going to subsidize people and fast you spend that money is another thought. but the concept of a private exchange, well organized exchange, i think is a better way to go than people buy into medicare. medicare is a wonderful program, but as far as efficient insurance program i don't think it is. it looks more like a 1965 insurance program. i personally think it's much better to get away from the government fixing prices, which we do in medicare. every doctor, every hospital is paid the same thing. there is no competition over price. that's largely driven by

medicare. what president obama has done in the commercial market, private insurers, pay hospitals and doctors differently, they drive some sense of market pricing. that does not happen in medicare. host: brian is medicare beneficiary. democratic caller in oklahoma, go ahead. caller: yes. areve a question about, why ome -- guest: why are some services -- caller: offered and others aren't. guest: well, obviously there's some services not covered. medicare has a fairly large, i think pretty good staff physicians that make coverage decisions, much like any blue cross or insurance plan would be. every device company that comes up a new device, every drug company wants to have it pay for that regardless of cost, at some point whether it's private insurance company, humana, or the federal government and

medicare, somebody has to make a decision as to what you are going to cover and pay for. medicare has a fairly technical detailed coverage policy. if you are a drug company or device company, or a new medical procedure you basically apply to medicare for a coverage decision. the medicare goes through a fairly lengthy process as to whether they are going to pay for it and what they are going to cover. there are some things that aren't covered. medicare generally is generous relative to private insurance. host: rose is next. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i just want to make a couple of comments and you're right, medicare is very generous. what i find interesting is a lot of these discussions involve description of medicare and medicaid as one -- two entitlement programs, and i know people get sick of hearing this, but medicare is, people actually paid in for that. whereas medicaid the taxpayers

have supported that program in general. the thing is what people may not know, and i find it interesting in light of medicare, everyone is screaming how to fund, it is depleting, and needs to be reformed, is that just a few years ago, at least in new york state, they took the individuals who were state disabled in terms of medical and mental health in-i illness, they took all of those receiving prescription coverage under medicaid and had been for years, they took them off medicaid for prescription coverage and put them on to medicare coverage. so what i don't understand is if the medicare fund is being quickly depleted, why would they remove all of these medicaid prescription covered people on to medicare?

guest: there it's a lot of complicated answers to that. why would the state of new york move all of those people from medicaid to medicare. the reason is under the medicaid program the state pays for half and the federal government pay force half. on medicare the government plays for the whole thing. it was a cost shift. lots of states do that. they were covering before it was a medicare drug benefit, it did not start until 2006, most states covered drugs for their disabled and low-income people ho were seniors. rather humanely i would say. once the medicare drug benefit became available, most said the federal government is going to pay for all, shift it over. i think that happened when the medicare drug benefits started in 2006. it happened in many states. the discussion about the trust fund for me personally is political. there is no such thing as a trust fund. there is no social security trust fund, medicare trust fund. it's a silly argument. we select taxes. we have a deficit of $1 trillion a year. where the money comes in for the taxes, it comes in one door and goes out the other, so it's a

nice memo entry to figure out how much money we have to collect, but there is no such thing as a medicare trust fund or social security trust fund. i think we are kidding ourselves to think there is. we are collecting x number of taxes. right now we are collecting more money in health h.i. taxes, the payroll tax everybody pays, then we are spending out. in current services the fund is solvent. as time goes on and there are more seniors and fewer taxpayers, there are going to be fewer tax dollars. the reality is there is no money in the trust fund. it gets transferred right back out and spend on something else. it's a fix -- fiction. we have more seniors coming down the pike, including people my age, i'm 55, and fewer taxpayers. at some point we'll have to cut benefit or pay more taxes. there is no trust fund sitting on the side. i spent many years at o.m.b. it's a budget fiction to make you feel better. host: sea of tranquility on twitter, how do you measure the

quality of care in the medicare and medicaid programs? has it changed through the years? what are the factors? guest: it depends on the state. medicare and medicaid, depends on the medicaid program. they are vastly different. there's 50 different programs. they pay different amounts. the caller mentioned new york state. new york state probably spends 8,000 or $9,000 per medicaid beneficiary. some of the lower income states, lower covered states may spend $2,000 or $3 thow. medicaid varies vastly by state both by what they providers and what they cover. edicare is consistent across the country. i think they are both -- for the most part pay for most things. it's hard to find an access problem in the medicare program in particular. i think they are pretty good payers. on average in medicare most hospitals and physicians, medicare pays 95 to 100% of costs. there's been a cost shift to commercial payers. your employers insurance company may pay more. maybe 110%. medicaid generally pays about

60% or 70%. the government payers pay less and force a little bit of cost shift on the private insurers. that's been going on for years. at some point that will get fixed. as a general matter mare are pretty good payers. and certainly critical to a doctor's practice. host: "usa today" editorial board weighs in for pay for providers in medicare. and they say this -- doctors help set their own pay and the specialists prosper. host: "the washington post" found according to the panel 75-minute estimate for colonoscopies, one doctor

somehow managed to cram 26 hours of paid work into a single 10-hour day. host: could medicare do the work itself, tom scully? guest: they should. this is a complicated argument i have been in the middle of. it's not the a.m.a.'s fault. one of the major reforms to pay for physicians have in the 1989, i was working for president bush 41 at the time, was very involved in it, when the bill passed in 1989, the agency, c.m.s., had a different name, had to come up with a way to pay doctors. you can say it's $125 billion a year now. and they need a way to come up with the relative payment structure to say what you pay a surgeon versus primary care versus a urologist. they didn't have the staff or the panel at the time in 1991, 1992. the a.m.a. said we'll volunteer

to do this. at the time the agency delegated this to the a.m.a. not their fault. a.m.a. showed up and created this advisory panel, i didn't see the "usa today" but i saw the "post" article. for the last 30 years the a.m.a.'s panel has made these recommendations to medicare about what to pay doctors. 31 doctors on the panel. i'm sure they are ethical, moral people. the issue i have with it, and i think it's wrong and all my colleagues around the agency agree, it was an accident of history, was because c.m.s. doesn't have enough staff to do this, the a.m.a. makes recommendations about what doctors should be paid, then they delegate -- give the information to medicare, which takes about 95% of the recommendations over the years because they don't have the personnel to do the work. i don't think the a.m.a. is an independent trade association should make the decisions. they decide who is on there. it's very political. you can imagine between the surgeons and the urologists and the chiropractors who gets on

the panel. they control the price fixing for $125 billion a year. i would be happy to take those same 31 doctors and put them aside and have them part of medicare, part of government. er don't think an independent trade association -- it's not their fault. they volunteered to do this when the government had a gap in 1992. ever since then they have had a disproportionate impact on making polcy. you have this private trade association effectively deciding what doctors get paid for $125 billion a year, which i think is crazy. it would be like asking the hospital association the hospital rates. it's not the a.m.a.'s fault. i'm sure they are honorable people. this is a long overdue problem. every person that's run this agency agree was me, democrat and republican, this thing should be taken and put inside the government so it is more independent. you can pick the same 31 doctors. they should rotate off and shouldn't be on based on who has the biggest membership.

they should be on as a sampling. it's a very political -- it's a little u.n. for health care price setting for doctors, but run by the a.m.a. it should be part of the gotcht. it's not their fault. they are angry at me for making this argument. i have stirred the pot. it's not the drgs' fault -- doctors' fault. it's just the process. i hope it is fixed. $125 billion a year is a will the of money to be price fixing. host: the c.q. is reporting that there are tentative steps under way in the house, bipartisan effort to look for a new way to reimburse doctors in the medicare plan. the a.m.a. did write, the opposing view for "usa today" this morning, dr. hoeven, serving toose the president right now, and writes this, as medicare's ultimate decisionmaker, c.m.s. has a seat at the table and is not

obligated to accept any of the committee's recommendation. when the government does accept it, medicare's expenditures for physician services do not change because funding is capped. any payment increase requires an offsetting decrease. according to the government's own estimate, 2014 medicare fees are expected to cover on average about 54% of physician direct practice costs. guest: you can debate that. government has a seat at the table. thank you very much. the taxpayers have a seat at the table with the a.m.a. to decide $125 billion a year gets spent? the issue is -- the pot is roughly $125 billion. the issue is who is going to decide what you pay a urologist versus your surgeon versus your primary care doctor versus the oncologist. the doctors should have an input, but the decision who is on that panel shouldn't be made by the a.m.a. the people who get on the panel, the way you get a seat, is what percentage joins the a.m.a.

motion specialty's societies, say the oncologists, they don't like having to play this game. but they have to have a certain percentage of their members to get a seat at the table. it's very politicized. it should not be run by a private trade organization. it's not the a.m.a.'s fault. they have done it for years. god bless them. the idea these meetings are not open to the public, not transparent. the idea the federal government should delegate effectively the price setting of $125 billion of physician payments is insane. it's not the a.m.a.'s fault. they were asked by the government to do this many year ago, but it's a functional mess. jim mckerr mott -- mcdermott is a start guy on the panel. congressman brady, the ranking member of the republicans. some other people. nobody wants to make the a.m.a. mad or their doctors mad. no congressman does. as a matter of public polcy, most people, would be outraged to find any trade association is

fixing $125 billion a year prices and having that delegated to them largely by the federal government. questions are asked questions, but they don't have enough dogs. they don't have the personnel. the a.m.a. has a big staff of people that does this. that function should be picked up and put in the federal government. that's not -- i'm a conservative republican. i'm not big on having the government take things over. it's a wacky idea to have a private group -- to have that control over $125 billion a year is nuts. nobody is aware of it. i'm glad it's coming out in the open. host: jim mcdermott was our guest on the "washington journal" last week, he talked a little bit about his efforts at the end of our interview. if you are interested go to c-span.org and go to our video library. katherine is next in tuscaloosa, alabama.

indgo ahead. caller: i would like for him to really express that medicare and medicaid are totally different programs because the medicare recipient pays into, i think someone previously stated this, the medicare recipient pays into the medicare fund. the medicaid recipient oftentimes does not. the medicare recipient is not always eligible for medicaid. it's very difficult for them to get assistance from medicaid if they are a medicare recipient. i would like to make -- ask a couple of questions. what happened with the money that was taken from the -- you said there are no -- there is not a trust fund for medicare, but what about the money that was taken from the trust fund previously, been several years ago, was it ever placed back? guest: i don't want to scare people. there is a medicare trust fund

and social security trust fund and the taxes come and go in the trust funds. the point is when you pay your social security taxes and they go into the trust fund, or your h.i. taxes for medicare and they go into a trust fund, the second they get there, we have a $1 trillion deficit. the federal government is spending $3.6 trillion and raising $2.7 trillion. the way they finance that outside of borrowing money from the chinese and other people around the world, is they borrow money from the trust funds. all that money that comes in goes out the door to finance general spending the next day. in the real world there is money in those trust funds. they are just giant i.o.u.'s from taxpayers. there is not a trust fund sitting there. it's a functional game. i don't want to scare people. there are medicare trust funds. you put your money over the years, equity government pitt check in there and you have money in the trust fund. the reality is the trust funds are a budgetary fiction. they don't exist. i think it's unfortunate everybody thinks that we can rely on those things. the money has already been spent. we lent it to ourselves. the money that's been used in

the trust fund, the trust funds are solid. you've got medicare's paid for roughly about 40% of the costs to medicare. i believe that's right. comes from health insurance taxes. so in your paycheck, if you are not retired yet, you pay a 1.45% payroll tax. and now there is a new supplemental tax for people. that funds about 40% of the medicare program. about 32% of the medicare program is funded by part b premiums. so the government figures out what you are going to spend on the doctor payments every year and every senior pays 25% of the cost of that, the taxpayers pay the other 75%. there is other fees and co-payments that come in. the program is funded, the money is there. nothing is taken. the program is structurally fine. in the long run the reality is it's not like there is a big bank sitting with money waiting for medicare. in the long run we have a lot more seniors aging and a lot fewer taxpayers and the numbers aren't going to work.

it's unfortunate people think we have this great trust fund. there is no such thing. who james next, d.c., democratic caller. hi, james. you are on the air. caller: yes. mr. scully, i like some of the things you are saying, but you sound like most people i talk to , especially these curves on the gerrymander districts where they only hear the people in their area. they don't live in the real world. how can you always complain about running out of money and against a wage increase. you vote against everything, even immigration, but many of the people be paying into the system, yet you want to keep the number of people down that's paying, or kicked out of the country, and complain about the huge deficit. host: james, i just want to jump in. i just want to clarify do you think tom scully is a member of congress? it sounds like you do. caller: i don't.

i'm just saying he's addressing a problem, but not about solutions. to me a commonsense solution is that you got people that can and will pay. you got folks that can help the economy. at that. ks all they look at is how do we cut, cut, cut. take jobs in. cut, cut, cut. don't put anything in the pot but complain how the pot is getting emptied. guest: thank god for you-all i don't run for anything. don't plan to ever. i'm not a member congress. i'm a certifiable moderate. the reality is, there aren't the votes to do big tax increases if you want to do it. there aren't votes to do big viment cuts. congress is split, administration is split. in my lifetime it's been like that most of the time. i'm add an vow cat, mark warner a. democrat from virginia, i consider a friend, and senator corker from tennessee and guys

like that that are working to find middle grounds, you have to slow the growth of entitlements. you may have to raise taxes at some point. i'm not for that necessarily. i'm conservative. i think you should reduce spending. life on st of my low-income programs, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, social security. i think the government exists to help low-income people. i don't think they exist to subsidize rich people. i would have mean tested medicare more. i personally, my fundamental prom with president obama's plan i don't think you should subsidize 62% of american's health care. president obama's plan subsidizes people for health care over 400% of poverty. that's $95,000 for a family of four. not a lot of money in new york city or washington or l.a. but a lot in other parts of the country. you can't be in a situation where you subsidize 62% of american's health care. the economy doesn't work. i think my views are moderate. if you are going to help -- federal government is going to help low-income people, some point you have to be reasonable

who you define as needing helping. i think president obama's plan went way too far. i'm all for making sure these programs work well. another example where i think you should cut the disability rolls have trippedled. was in charge in a loft those programs. 10 years ago we covered a lot of people. for whatever reason those numbers have tripled. at some point you got to make some tough calls who gets federal benefits. it's just a fact of life. there has to be a mix of reasonable management and not cuts, but managing these programs rationally. along with whatever revenues you need. i'm an advocate of middle ground. i think the more moderates you can find to come up with results the better you are. host: the 40th anniversary of the medicare program. this from the keyser family foundation. the characteristics of the medicare population. 50% have an income below $22,000. 50% have savings below $77,000.

40% with three chronic conditions. host: speaking of affordable care act, tom scully. a tweet from radical, how much did obama take out of medicare to pay i.r.s. for enforcement of obamacare? guest: there are different pots of money. the i.r.s. is funded from an appropriations account. part of the way the president funded the a.c.a., try to call it obamacare, some of my democratic friends get offended by that, there was -- part of the money that came from it was reducing the growth rate of medicare. about half of the funding to pay for president obama's plan came from higher taxes.

the h.i. tax went up. the medicare tax, payroll tax went up a little. a mixture of half taxes, half medicare cuts. the medicare cuts were truckses in the rate of growth and hit a lot of providers. it was a mix of tax and spending. mon went drktly to the i.r.s., it's one big federal treshry. ers irgs spending went up significantly because a big bees of president obama's plan is trying to figure out who the people are that are 40% of poverty -- 400% of poverty and below, and the way the system will work on january 1, if you come in to an insurance company, blue cross plan, and say my income is 200% of poverty, i to apply for plan, the i.r.s. has to determine what your income is. let's say it cost $14,000 a year. the federal government may pay $7,000 or $8,000 or $10,000. the i.r.s. has germed what your income and how much the government will play blue cross versus what you pay. the i.r.s. has an integral role, huge role, in figuring out how

the subsidy system will work. personally i think that tsh- host: mr. scully, i was going to ask you if you agree with the house republican strategy to defund the affordable care, specifically up for a vote on friday is a bill by representative tom price, republican of georgia, that would prohibit the i.r.s. from implementing or enforcing any aspect of the 2010 health care law. guest: i like tom price. i know him pretty well. i personally would not have voted for president obama's plan because i think it's too big and too much. i think the medicaid expansions were massive. the exchanges were massive. i think it's unfortunate it wasn't bipartisan. i spent a couple years of my life designing and getting compared part d passed. my opinion the smartest thing we did right off the bet whether we like it or not, we spent a lot of time with senator kennedy, den, and balk cuss -- bachus

-- baucus. we passed it in a bipartisan fashion. it's held up and been popular. it was a big mistake for president obama to pass the going to policy is be noncontroversial if it was a party-line vote. as a result of making it all democratic votes, they made it bigger and spent more money. i think that was a mistake. i personally would vote for repeal because i think we should make it smaller. but the reality is it's not going to be repealed. there aren't going to be the votes to be repealed, probably ever. the reality in my view is that both parties have to start thinking about some point lowering the political rhetoric and trying to make this thing more workable. i would phase it in and see how it works. we are going to start january 1 of 24 year -- >> all of this in our video library at c-span.org. the u.s. house is gaveling momentarily. we are expecting them in briefly

for general speeches. they'll gavel out and return at 3:00 p.m. eastern to begin work on the 2014 spending bill for transportation and housing. the senate also working on their version of transportation and housing spending 2014. the senate gavels in in 15 minutes. the house coming in now live here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by

our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o goad, for giving us another -- o god, for giving us another di. bless now the men and women of the people's house. call forth leaders from their number who understand the courage, exercise and fulfillment of their legislative responsibilities might cost them popularity now but reap them praise in the future from our american descendants. may they take solace knowing it has always been this way with great leaders. we thank you for their hard work, give them the consolation of knowing and finding difficult t necessary solutions to america's challenges, they will have done their best work for all of our nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and tpwhrorry, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from alifornia, mr. takano. mr. takano: ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the people's house. will you join the members in saying the pledge to our nation's flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, in north carolina, small businesses are a primary driver of the economy. these businesses like many across the country are harmed by excessive regulation. over the past four years, our nation's cumulative regulatory cost burden has increased by $520 billion. what's worse is this administration has failed to disclose as required by law the effects of new regulation in a timely manner. mr. holding: the administration is required to submit a regulatory agenda twice a year but they have consistently failed to do so. small businesses are not given enough notice of how new regulations will affect their tough decisions, whether to cut a worker's hours or ages -- or wages or adjust their business plan otherwise. that's why i introduced, madam speaker, the alert act, the all economic regulations are transparent act, to ensure that the administration publishes its regulatory agenda in timely

manner. madam speaker, the least this administration can do for small businesses is follow the law and provide notice as to what regulations are coming down the pipeline. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to commemorate an important accomplishment for our nation as it was 48 years ago today that president johnson law, thus are into cementing a promise to our nation's seniors. mr. takano: before medicare, nearly 30% of seniors lived below the poverty line and american life expectancy was 70 years old. since then the poverty rate has plummeted to 7.5% and life expectancy has risen to 78 1/2 years. mr. speaker, medicare is a sake -- madam speaker, medicare is a sacred promise that we made and

it is a sacred promise we must keep, despite the house republicans' addiction to slash and burn policies. if the house republicans got their way, they would replace medicare with a voucher system, removing the certainty of what seniors will receive. these are benefits that have been earned and paid for but turning medicare into a voucher system will result in reduced benefits and increased health care costs. the democratic party believes working families shouldn't lose their life savings in their golden years and should not suffer without treatment due to an inability to pay for medical services. the democratic party seniors deserve the certainty of medicare. i pledge to uphold the promise we made to seniors and never turn my back orphan on working families. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. 13r0eu7 the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i'd like to dedicate my time to one of america's greatest warriors colonel george e. "bud" day, who passed away this weekend. he was a p.o.w. at the hanoi hilton and a medal of honor recipient, colonel day set the standard for service to country. mr. miller: a patriot in the truest sense of the word, he never stopped looking out for his brothers in arms. after the war he spent 40 years as an advocate for veterans. he was a father, a grandfather, and someone i was 4u78abled to represent here this congress. we will miss him and his legacy will endure for years to come. i ask that we keep him and the entire day family in our prayers -- prayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> i rise to celebrate the 48th anniversary of medicare and medicaid and the security that they provide for seniors and personals with disabilities. ms. schakowsky: half of whom live on less than $20,000 total a year and half of all seniors before medicare had no insurance at all. listen to my constituent, nan anderson from evanston, quote, it was a tremendous relief to become eligible for medicare. basically i'm a well person but have had some costly procedures all of which have been covered now. currently i'm recovering from a spinal fusion. if it weren't for medicare i never would have reached this point. without this surgery i would likely been reduced to a dependent person. now i know i'll be able to walk

normally and unaided for several years, unquote. we made improvements in medicare and obamacare, lowered costs and improved quality and medicaid pays for 40% of all long-term care costs. today, i voice my support for medicare and medicaid and my vigorous opposition to benefit cuts that will harm those who depend on them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: madam speaker, the president says the country is being distracted by phony scandals. a more accurate statement would be the president is using phony distractions to cover up the administration's scandals. here are two of them, fast and furious. the a.t.f. with justice department knowledge smuggles 2,000 automatic weapons to a mexican drug cartel.

americans are killed. 200 mexican nationals killed. including two police chiefs and a beauty queen. no one is held accountable. nobody goes to jail. lower level operatives blamed. eric withholder, held in contempt for withholding evidence from congress. the administration wants us to forget their fiasco. benghazi, libya, four americans killed by terrorists. the united states refuses to send help in the fire fight. four americans left behind. no killer is ever captured. the administration misleads the american public and blames the attack on a video. not the terrorists. no one goes to jail, no accountability, lower level operatives blamed, the administration wants taos forget their fiasco. are these distractions and phony scandals the president is talking about? tell that to the families of the murdered americans and mexican nationals and the -- a navy seal put it best, phony scandals

don't come home in body bags. that's joust the way it is, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: i'm introducing the wounded warrior service dog act of 013. this important bill aims to address a demonstrated need among our veteran population. with so many veterans returning from war bearing both physical and emotional scars, we must do all we can to provide treatment that works. on a recent -- recent visit to needs, located in princeton, massachusetts, i heard amazing stories about how service dogs are helping to treat veterans with physical disabilities as well as those suffering from post-traumatic stress. this nonprofit organization has keck maryland deserves veterans with service dogs the last few years with incredible results. in recent years the demand for service dogs has grown

significantly and organizations like needs are having trouble meeting like levels of nand. to address this shortage, the wounded warrior service dog act of 2013 would create a competitive grant program for nonprofits to train service dogs for use by veterans. it is my sincere hope that through this program we can better connect our veterans with service dogs in an effort to ease their trnsigs into civilian life. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. it's not surprising that many americans think the federal government is out of touch. washington is filled with unelected regulators who have never owned a small business or created a job. these regulators are disconnected from the cost their rules impose on small businesses which amount to roughly $8,000 per employee each year. regulators fail to see that each

unnecessarily -- unnecessary, duplicative, or contradictory rule they impose forces american entrepreneurs to west time and money satisfying government instead of hiring new employees or investing in their families. the american people are asking, where are the jobs? and they are asking for a government that makes sense. no one is asking for more red tape. house republicans don't just talk about jobs, we defend them and we take action to make it easier for job creators to grow and hire. cutting back washington's red tape is part of that work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of the save the climate caucus, i want to applaud president obama's demitment to address global climate change.

as a concentration of carbon in the atmosphere climbed past 400 parking lots per million this past spring a level not seen since before the dawn of humans, when sea levels were 75 feet higher than they are today, we're facing the p ten rble for irreversible climatic consequences that could trigger mass extinctions and endanger the future of humanity. it would be irresponsible for the president not to address this clear and present danger. the powers the president had been granted under under existing laws, he's taken steps to limit carbon emissions at major sources like coal-fired power plants, preventing development on public lands, squeezing greater efficiencies ut of household and commercial appliances and vehicles and working with other nations on a global strategy to address climate change. i do hope that the that the republican majority will take a

more responsible role in helping taos preserve the future of a more livable world. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. burgess: many of us were surprised on july 2 when the administration unilaterally suspended the employer mandate in the affordable care act and days later we were surprised when they suspended, said there would be no reporting requirements under the employer mandate, how would people be judged to be eligible under the affordable care act. we would take their word for it. and then last thursday, again, people were surprised that the department of health and human services inspector general's office is going to lose 20% of

its staff between now an 2015. wait a minute. we're going to a system of self-reporting -- reporting, self-attestation, but cutting the staff of the office that's going to see that the funds are properly spent. oh, by the way, all the while, we're going to be increasing funding for the so-called navigators, people who are going to sign people up for the affordable care act under their own self-attestation. it seems like we're fwoning toe wrong direction here. we need to keep an eye on these funds. we owe it to the taxpayer to be more vigilant. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? . the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. .delbeney: i rise today to

speak on the college affordability. this is personal for me. growing up my parents struggled financially, but with student loans and financial aid, i was able to go to college and get a great education. i would not be standing in this chamber today otherwise. i am pleased we'll be voting on a bipartisan bill this week that will reverse the doubling of student loan rates that took place on july 1. the bill is a compromise, so it's not perfect. it doesn't include all the protections that i believe our students need, like lower interest rate caps that keep costs down over the long term, but it does reduce interest rates for over seven million undergraduates taking out a loan this year, and it will save a college student with stafford loans, $3,300 compared to today's rates. this bill is a start, but it isn't enough. i call on my colleagues to continue working together on ways to bring down the cost of college for working families, doing so will expand opportunity for all. spur long-term economic growth, and strengthen our middle class. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the gentlewoman from california s recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in celebration of the birthday of medicaid.nd 48 years ago today president johnson solidified our historic promise to all americans. this is what he said, no longer will older americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. no longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. no longer will young families see their incomes and their own hopes eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents and to their uncles and their aunts. and no longer will this nation refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and

neighbor to the progress of this progressive country. madam speaker, let us honor this promise to our parents, to our neighbors, and to our children by protecting medicare and medicaid, making sure the care it offers is there when it's needed the most. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. 118 million americans, seniors, low income families, the disabled, americans all rely on medicare and medicaid services in one way or another. these services guarantee benefits, give our nation's most vulnerable peace of mind and increased quality of life.

today we proudly acknowledge almost five decades of better care in medicaid services. st service providers are honest and law-abiding it's recently come to my attention there are few that have effect apocketted the delivery and integrity of servicings to the people who rely on these programs. congress has the power to change that. today on the 48th anniversary of medicare and medicaid being signed into law, congress must recommit itself to safeguarding and strengthening america's medicare and medicaid service systems. the promise of medicare, the morality of medicaid must never be compromised no matter how hard the political battles are. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today marks the 48th anniversary of the medicare program. it's had a tremendous impact on the american public and the quality of life of our seniors and our kids. on july 30 of 1965, a fellow texan, president lyndon b. johnson, signed medicare into law, a program at the time was considered incredibly controversial. and at the time about half of our nation's seniors didn't have health coverage. today in texas more than three million seniors, including our parents and grandparents, rely on this program for concurrent resolution medical care. it has allowed our seniors to live with the peace of mind that health coverage will be available to them in their golden years. now it's just as libel to the

long-term health and security of americans as it was in 1965. we need to continue to demonstrate our commitment to those who have built this country and strengthen medicare for future generations. i'm very glad that we have done things like to start to close the medicare doughnut hole, that seniors are starting to save money on their prescriptions. in the first six months of 2013, more than a million seniors with medicare have received at least one free preventive service. our seniors have earned this through a lifetime of work. thank you so much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to sclause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in lee sess -- recess

the bills that fund the government? >> if 24 to one passes it will be the first the appropriations process is going on but they're marking time. until they figure out a solution, they're going to need a stopgap measure or continuing resolution in september and that's going to be tricky but you know, i heard a story last week which suggests that if you hear all this talk about a

possible government shutdown at the end of of september, maybe ot, maybe view that talk skeptcally so far. >> what spending levels is each chamber using and how far apart are they? guest: as i was saying, the senate is using an oval cap, we're talking about discretionary spending. this is what congress passes each year to do sort of operating budgets. medicare, social security, a whole different box. they have chosen a spending level of $1.058 trillion, i believe. and the house is using a spending level of $91 or $92 billion less. inside that $91 billion or $92 billion, they're taking money from demest exprograms to -- domestic programs to help the pentagon out. vastly tic programs are

different depending on which chamber it's in host: how the tant is this -- is obama administration -- how involved is the obama administration in this planning? guest: not very, they're expecting in the fall a catalyst to get the broader budget negotiation going. the republicans think the need to raise the debt limit will provide that spark but the president is say, look, two years ago, which parenthetically he was getting ready to run for re-election, he accepted these spending cuts as a condition for increasing the borrowing cap. if you don't increase the borrowing cap, pretty soon you can't pay off your bondholders or social security recipients, it's an economic catastrophe he said he's not going to be held hostage to that catastrophe.

we have a conflict between the republicans that control the house and the obama administration and everybody is kind of hoping that as the fall goes on they find a way to massage that and get a negotiation going that gets this budget agreement, some kind of budget agreement worked out so you can, you know, remediate some sequestration cuts and do some real budgeting for some of these agencies. host: reporter an true taylor of the associated press, thank you for joining us today. guest: sure. the house will return in about half an hour, 3:00 p.m. eastern. sraeli and palestinian officials met to try to reach a peace deal.

others john kerry and who spoke at about noon today. >> i'm delighted to stand here, i think it's still morning, with nister lmbing indy and the senator who i've known for a period of time and enjoyed working with for all of that. it's take an lot of work and a lot of time to reach this new moment of possibility in the pursuit of an end to the israeli-pal tin stan -- palestinian conflict. it's taken the leadership of president obama who set this process in motion with his historic visit to the region this spring and then he spoke powerfully about the necessity and possibility of peace, not only to the leaders, but also to citizens who overwhelmingly hope for a better future for their

children and for their countries. for their peoples. the president's support for our efforts including his personal engagement with the parties this orning, has been essential and i thank him for that. we had a very positive meeting with the president and the vice president earlier this morning at the white house. i want to also emphasize that prime minister net an yahoo and president abbas have both demonstrated courageous leadership to bring us here. and i commend them for the tough choices that they made in terms at home.litics i know the path is difficult there is no shortage of passionate skeptics, but with capable, respected negotiators dr. sy ister lidney and

barricutt standing side-by-side here today and last night sharing a meal with all of us, with their efforts, their expertise, i'm convinced we can get there. we're here today because the israeli people and the palestinian people both have leaders willing to heed the call of history. leaders who will stand strong in the face of criticism and are right now for what they know is in their people's best interests. their commitment to make tough choices, frankly, should give all of us hope that these negotiations actually have a chance to accomplish something. i'm pleased to report that in the conversations we've had last night and again today, we've had constructive and positive meetings, both meet wgs the united states president and also meetings with the parties by themselves. the parties have agreed to main engaged in sustained,

continuous, and substantive fworkses on the core issues and they will meet within the next two weeks in either israel or the palestinian territories, in order to begin the process of formal negotiation. the parties have agreed hoar today that all of the final status issues, all of the core issues, and all other issues are all on the table for negotiation. and they are on the table with one simple goal -- a view to ending the conflict ending the claims. our objective will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months. the parties also agreed that the two sides will keep the content of the negotiations

confidential. the only announcement you will hear about meetings is the one i just made. and i will be the only one, by agreement, authorized to comment publicly on the talks, in consultation, obviously work the parties. that means that no one should consider any reports, articles, or other -- or even rumors reliable unless they come directly from me and i garen see you they won't. the united states will work continuously with both parties as a facilitator every step of the way. we all understand the goal we're working toward. two states living side-by-side in peace and security. two states, because two proud peoples each deserve a country to call their own. two states because the children of both peoples deserve the opportunity to realize their legitimate aspirations in security and in freedom and two

states because the time has come for a lasting peace. we all appreciate, believe me, we appreciate, the challenges ahead. but even as we look down the difficult road that is before us and consider the complicated choices we face, we cannot lose sight of something that is often forgotten in the mideast. we wish everybody success. we need to change the way we think about compromise in order to reach success. compromise doesn't just mean giving something up or giving something away. reasonable compromise means everybody stands to gain. each side has a stake in the other's success and everyone can benefit from the dividends of peace. we wouldn't be standing here if abbas ands, president

prime minister netanyahu and their designated negotiators and all of us together didn't believe we could get there. we could envision a day when palestinians can finally realize their aspirations for a flourishing state of their own. and the ground breaking economic initiative that we've been working on with the quartet with tony blair and others, with the help of the private sector, can help transform the palestinian economy and build up unprecedented markets and unblocked -- unblock waves of foreign investment and we shouldn't forget that the new jobs, the new homes, the new industries that can grow in a new palestinian state will also benefit israelis next door, where a vibrant economy will find new partners. we can also envision a day when livelis actually can truly

in peace, not just the absence of conflict, but a full and lasting peace with arab and muslim nations and end once and for all the per in addition attacks on israel's legitimacy. israel and israelis and palestinians both have legitimate security concerns. our commitment to israel's security is why president our -- obama's administration has done more than any before it to strengthen our unshakeable bond and why general john allen is on the ground working to ensure israel's security needs will be met. and i emphasize, we have worked very closely with our palestinian friends to help develop palestinian security capacity and we cannot forget that the security of israel will also benefit palestinians next door. the israeli government has recognized this, which is why it will be taking in the next tais and weeks a number of steps in

order to improve conditions in the west bank and in gaza. and the palestinian security forces have recognized this which is why we have seen such a dramatic improvement in law and order and such a dramatic decrease in terror attacks originating from the west bank. the israeli and palestinian people understand their common interests and that's why they continue to take positive steps on the ground to improve relations between themselves. i also want to point out that the arab league understands this too, which is why it has reaffirmed the arab peace initiative and prvided vital statements of support to this process. finally i say, everywhere i go, leaders from around the world understand that they share a stake in this endeavor's success. they vall a role to play which is why they have continued to contribute to this effort, to

advise, to make commitments of support, and to push and advocate and encourage parties every step of the way. president obama and i join in thanking all of them for their concern and initiative. many things are already happening. when somebody tells you that israelis and palestinians cannot find common ground or address the issues that divide them, don't believe them. just look at the things they are doing together and trying to do together. there are many reasons why we need to solve this conflict. but none more important than the security and the dignity of the next generations of israelis and palestinians, jews, muslims, and christians, and the generations who will follow them and benefit from these fworkses, hopefully. i think everyone involved here believes that we cannot pass along to another generation the responsibility of ending a conflict that is in our power to

resolve in our time. they should not be expected to bear that burden and we should not leave it to them. they should not be expected to bear the pain of continued conflict or perpetual war system of while i understand the skepticism, i don't share it. and i don't think we have time for it. i firmly believe the leaders, the negotiators, and citizens invested in this effort can make peace for one simple reason -- because they must. a viable two-state solution is the only way this conflict can end, and there is not much time to achieve it, and there is no other alternative. we all need to be strong in our belief in the possibility of peace, courageous enough to follow through on our faith in it, and audacious enough to achieve what these two peoples have so long aspired to and

deserve. >> thank you, mr. speaker. -- we f of president would like to extend our deepest appreciation to president barack obama and to you, secretary kerry, for your commitment to achieve a just, comprehensive, lasting peace between israelis and palestinians. palestinians have suffered enough. and no one benefits more from the success of this endeavor more than palestinians. i'm delighted that all final status issues are on the table and will be resolved without any exceptions and it's time for the palestinian people to have an independent, sovereign state of

their own. it's time for the palestinians to live in peace, freedom, and dignity within their own independent sovereign state. thank you, mr. speaker. -- thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you secretary kerry. on behalf of prime minister netanyahu, and the state of israeli, for your determination, for not giving up, because you need to know that i think it was our first meeting during this process that you said to me that failure is not an option. and you proved today that ilure is not an option and this is the man, secretary kerry, who showed everyone that nothing can stop true believers. thank you for that. i also want to thank president

o-- obama for his personal commitment to peace and to israel's security. the powerful impression left by the president's last visit to israel still remanes in the hearts of the israeli people. e came here today, the special envoy of prime minister netanyahu and myself, after years of ferment, we came here today from a troubled and changing region. we are hopeful but we cannot be naive. we cannot afford it in our region. we owe it to our people to do everything we can for their security and for the hope of peace for future generations. but you know it took more than just the plane tickets to be here today. a courageous act of leadership

by prime minister netanyahu that was approved by the israeli government made this visit here in the beginning of the negotiation possible. we all know that it's not going to be easy. it's going to be hard with ups and downs. ut i can assure you that these negotiations -- in these negotiations it's not our intention to argue about the past. but to create solutions and make ecisions for the future. we all spent some time in the negotiations room, we didn't complete our mission in the past and this is something e ned to do now in these negotiations we launch today.

a new opportunity has been created for us, for all of us, and we cannot afford to waste it. now, i hope that our meeting today and the negotiations that we have relaunched today will cause, i hep, a spark of hope, even if small, to emerge out ofsencism and pessimism that is so often heard. it is our task to work together so that we can transform that spark of hope into something real and lasting. and finally, i believe that history is not made by cynics. it is made by realists who are not afraid to dream. let us be these people. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the negotiators also met with president ouh -- obama this morning prior to his departure to chat knew ga, tennessee. he has since spoken in chat knew ga, we'll show you that late -- in chattanooga, we'll show you that later. the senate and house both in session today. the senate is working on the 2014 spending bill for transportation and housing as is the house when they gavel back in at 3:00 p.m. eastern. we'll have live house coverage

here on c-span. also in washington a couple of congressional leaders from the senate and house participated in on the sion today prospects of immigration flegs congress. republican senator john mccain a member of the gang of eight which helps craft that bipartisan senate bill and the chairman of the house democratic caucus, chairman javier becerra, said they were hopeful a final version of immigration legislation would pass the house and senate this year and would include a path to citizenship for undocumented imgrants. here's a portion of their comments, beginning with senator mccain. >> i think the month of august is a very important month. the members of congress, both house and senate, but in this , e because the focus is now the house of representatives is back in their districts and they're spending time consulting with and meeting with various groups they represent, ranging

from organized labor to the chamber to others, a lot depending on the makeup of their districts. ic it's -- i think it's very important that we, as is our constitutional right, to petition members of congress and their elected representatives, that's in the constitution, should be seeking meetings with and communications with our members of congress. i intend in arizona to travel throughout the state meeting with various interest groups, ranging from evangelicals to the chamber to various hispanic organizations throughout and town hall meetings to convince my fellow citizens of arizona of the importance of acting on this legislation. i think this -- could i just finally say, i think this fall is very important. it's very important because we

get into 2014, we're back into an election cycle. i think the issue really has ripened to the point where enough americans are aware of it that we're either going to act or not act and i would point out that every poll i have seen, and i have seen a hundred of them, indicate that well over 70% of the american people support a path to citizenship, provided give - and i'm going to you some straight talk this morning, provided that they pay back taxes, pay a fine, learn english and get in line behind ose who came to this country legally. that is an important aspect of gaining the support of the vast majority of american people. finally, the reason why the vast majority of american people support it is because they realize and they've grown more to realize since i -- since ted kennedy and i fought this battle and lost, that this is an issue

of 11 million people who are living in the shadows. that are deprived of the rights of our citizens. who can't live normal lives and they aren't going back to where they came from. amnesty, those who complaint that this is amnesty, this bill we're trying to get done, there's already de facto amnesty because they're not leaving. and when people live in the united states of america without the protections of citizenship, some of them, and maybe many of them are exploited and mistreating in a broad variety to have ways. that's not what america is supposed to be all about. >> the senate -- the bill the senate passed a few weeks back were to be place thond efloor for a vote, it would pass, bipartisanly, today. e may end up working on a bill

that's a house-derived version of immigration reform but i do believe it will include the path to citizenship for the reason that senator mccain just said. my sense is that in the house, what we have to do is figure out a way to navigate from today until the day of that vote so that ke we can bring together he bipartisan majority that we need. i think right now the republicans necessary in the house to give us that bipartisan majority and as many people, senator mccain and i, others, are working with our colleagues on the republican side in the house, to get to that point, what we're trying to do is give speaker boehner the opportunity to open that door. and it's been tough on occasion to get there because of some other voices that have been out there. but at the end of the day, i

think in the house, we see what the senate saw a chance to really fix the broken immigration system in all its aspect -- aspects but for the reasons senator mccain said, i don't think the country is ready to go back to, not the 20th century but the 19th century, when we talk about having a second class of citizens. i don't think you'll clear the decks of those who live in the shadows if the only thing you promise is a temporary status, that when that status expires they either have to leave their families and what they have or become undocumented again you may as well stay undocumented, stay as long as you can before they catch you and then go about your life again and see if you can come back into this can'try under the shadows. the only way to clear the decks of those in the shadows is to give folks a chance to believe this is what we're going to do to give folks a path to citizenship. by the way, once you were able to clear the decks of those in

the shadows, the only folks who will stay in the shadows are those that we want to go after. and so we won't have any fear now of trying to descend on folks who choose to stay in the shadows because they're the folks who want to sell our kids drugs, they're the ones that are trying to game the system and violate our laws and they're perhaps the ones we have to fear the most because they may be potential terrorists because they have no choice but to live in the shadows. i want to -- we want to make sure that if anyone stays in the shadows, we are able to descend on them with every tool law enforcement has so we know what we have done is protect our country as best as possible. >> and all of that event from the afl-cio and the economic policy institute later in our program schedule. at c-span.org as well in our video lie brear. outside of washington today in fort meade, the news that u.s. army private first plass bradley manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy for giving secrets to

wikileaks. he was convicted in 19 charges in all. army colonel denise lyn acquitted private first class manning today on the most serious charge, however, he could face up to 136 years in prison after being convicted on the other charges. the house is gaveling in in just 10ur7bd minutes at 3:00 eastern. they'll take up the transportation and housing spending bill for fiscal year 2014. up until then, a conversation on congressional campaign fundraising from this morning's washington journal. host: let's begin with the rules currently in place for a member of congress wanting to fundraise. guest: there aren't many rules about how members of congress

can go about this. some host events, some use direct mail but the base exrules are for contributions an individual can give $2,600 per election, $2,600 for the primary, $2,600 into the general election. members of congress can help raise money for the parties which can take up to $30,000 om an individual an can work with super p.a.c.s because outside oorgnyizations as long as the member doesn't ask for more than he could raise for, say, a political action committee system of they can ask for $5,000 to go to a super p.a.c. they're in the supposed to coordinate their spending with the super p.a.c.'s but they cab coordinate fundraising. one of the big ethics rules that came in after 2007 when the democrats came in and took over the house and the senate was a change in what lobis are allowed to do for members of congress. one of the things they couldn't do was host lunch events. there's a glaring exception for

that. they can do it for fundraisers and you have all sorts of different rules, one of our favorites is the toothpick rule, as long as the food can fit on a toothpick, it's fine for a lobbyist to pay for it. we have pictures of events where there's kobe steak and expensive seafood on the ends of toothpicks. that's one way to get around ethics rules but generally speak, members are able to fundraise any way they want and they don't have to disclose very much about how they go about raising money which is one reason we started the party time site. host: explain that. guest: it's politicalpartytime.org. we have sources around town, it started -- went online in 2008 but i first started doing it in 2006 when a friend of mine worked for a firm here and was complaining about how his fax machine was overwhelmed by invitations to congressional fundraisers and i heroically volunteered to take them off his hands and that's how party time

got started and now we have 18,000 invi takes to events all over washington, d.c. the bulk of them are in washington, most of our sources are here and we would love it, if we could get more people to contribute fundraisers. these events happen all over the country. if we could get more from around the country we'd be grateful. host: we're sthoge view thers ewebsite there. you can see that you can send them an invitation and upload it onto their website. are people doing this voluntarily? does this help a member of congress in any way raise -- get more money in their confer coffers? guest: there are people who send them in, mostly fundraising consultants who email us and volunteer what their clients are doing, what fundraisers they're doing. a lot of people who give these to us are frustrated washington people who are tiered of getting hit up by fundraising, some are public spirited and public minded. some members do want the word to

go out that they're raising money. the vast majority of them aren't that crazy about it, there's not a lot of disclosure around them, this is one of sunlight's attempts to make congress transpatient whether they want to be or not. >> one party that's happening this week on monday night there it is, the invitation for a fundraiser for senator tim kaine. is this invitation -- who is this coming from and who will be at this type of event? it's beyonce's concert here in washington. >> it comes from the campaign of senator tim kaine, sometimes they come from a leadership p.a.c., but in this case it's his campaign. they have a list they send it to. each campaign has its own email list, sometimes they share it with us, it will go out to heads of trade associations here in washington, lob dwhrirks washington offices of, you know, big companies like boeing or the

big contractors that are in town. the big law firms in town. and washington is one of the hubs for raising money. so -- those are the kinds of folks that will be there. generally speaking it will be people who oftentimes will have an issue before a committee that nator warner sits on, or they'll list the committees they're on for helpful reference for people getting the invitation, this the chance for these folks to mingle with a member of congress at a beyonce concert. host: and you have a blog going about the party invites and who is attending. for this beyonce concert, how many people, members of congress, are holding fundraisers around this nevpbt washington? it wasn't just democratic senator tim kaine. ghost: there are three members hosting events around this concert. we see this a lot. concerts a big draw, also a lot of sporting events, nationals games, if there's an out of town team, say chicago cubs coming to

town, joul a chicago dell fwation hosting a night or members from the chicago delegation hosting an event at nationals park. we also see it for, you know, hockey, basketball -- so this has been kind of a, you know, any time you get lobbyist into a sky box that seems to be something members of congress like to do. host: we want to show our viers an invitation that went out for senator rand paul and other senators, beer, bourbon and barbecue, a fundraiser for senator paul. explain a little about this one. guest: one of the most interesting things is, a lot of times -- and there's been a yale political science study, sometimes it's the members who host fundraisers for somebody else are the ones who end up with the political chips. they'll have -- they'll have, we'll see john boehner or eric cantor or nancy pelosi raising

money for other members because they helped somebody with less prominence raise money, a lot of times you have people voting the way of the member who hosts it. in many ways this is a kip tall -- typical event. it's amazing the number of these we see that involve some type of alcohol, we've seen martinis, martinis, martinis. one of my favorites, there was a block party on c street, five republican members had margaritas with this person and martinis with that person. each different member had a different drink in their house. so you know, this is the kind of thing we see an awful lot. in all seriousness, though, let's remember who is showing up t these, to have these drinks. it's washington insiders, lobbyists, special interests. host: let's get our viewers involved. on twitter -- what we need to do s outlaw lobbying.

moderated only by the public. to our first caller, michael. michael, you're on the aero. one last try for michael, bhite plains, new york. caller: i'm here. i'm sorry, i hear you. host: ok. what's your comment. caller: my opinion is that they should have the president have a single year term, a single term, blic funding for all federal powerful a strong, election, and all have strict limits on what the party can give. guest: there are a must remember of -- number of folks who say the same things. is not one sident

i've heard a lot. obviously if you do away with private fundraising by member of congress, you'd see these fundraisers disappear.

guest: just a quick point. bbyists, if i do the math, there is 3,000 of our government members -- that would be the house, the senate, the white house and all of their staff members, a rough number, you have a 5:1 ratio.

all of the lobbying should be done in the government offices or at the place of business who is lobbying them. host: ok. bill. guest: we would love to see disclosure as a first step towards that. there are -- there are some encies, the federal verve, treasury department and others with dodd-frank law being started put their meetings on the line. we saw this around the recovery that the obama administration did. we would love to see members of congress to disclose that kind of information. i think you sigh a lot of -- you do see a lot of meetings outside of the official challenges, you know, when the white house releases its visitors' logs showing who comes into the white house and who visits and what staffers in the white house were doing to avoid that kind of disclosure is meeting with their

registered lobbyists at the cariboo cafe a few blocks from it's good to e -- have those kinds of disclosures -- >> all of this available online at c-span.org. we'll leave here and take you to the house as they debate on the 2014 transportation and housing spending bill. jection. pursuant to house resolution 312 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2610. the chair appoints the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2610

which the clerk will report by title. caller: a bill making appropriations for -- the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and or other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is read for the first time. the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: today i present h.r. 4610 presenting fiscal year 2014 appropriations for the housing of urban development and related agencies. he t-h.u.d. bill conforms with

the allocation of $4 .4 billion in budget authority and is in line with the house budget of $967 billion. under such an allocation, we prioritize programs and spending and are able to achieve three very important funding goals. first, meet the optimum funding levels for the authorization bill, the highway authorization bill. keep the commercial air space running smoothly. and preserve and renew housing options for all h.u.d. assisted families under lease in fiscal year 2014. mr. chairman, i imagine today we're going to hear a lot about he budget and the sequester and i tell you, i agree. we need a deal. we need a deal that resolves the irresponsible meat ax approach to the sequester and provides a top line budget number that addresses concerns about taxes and spending. but the budget control act is the law and no matter what

number we'd like to write this to to, the law gives us $967 billion to fund the government you get there either by across-the-board cuts or by prioritizing the funds available. i think we all agree that continuing across the board cuts is not the answer. we've seen examples why. earlier this year, across the board cuts caused air traffic controllers to be furloughed, consumer convenience to be sacrificed, and air safety engaged. tissue endangered. the house voted 361-41 in april to tap unspent f.a.a. funds and put these air traffic controllers back to work. mr. speaker, we know that across the board cutting is no way to run a government. considering there still isn't an agreement on the sequester or a top line budget number, it's imperative that we realign the funds we have available to ensure d.o.t. and h.u.d. have

the resources they need to care for the population and infrastructure of this nation. this is a chance to make sure the must-do priorities are addressed. i assume we're going to hear a lot about infrastructure investment and i will tell you we fund the authorized programs at the authorized program levels. i assume we'll hear a lot about housing needs and i'll tell you we retain housing options for h.u.d. families receiving assistance, protecting the most vulnerable. we're operating under an open rule and i hope we can keep the debate and amendment process moving along today. we will be taking points of order against amendments that would increase our allocations or authorize on appropriation act. let me re-emphasize to people who are going to be offering amendments that we will enforce points of order. i'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from arizona, and the t-h.u.d. ranking member mr.

pastor for his comity and willingness to discuss what would be possible under a $44.1 billion allocation. i'd also like to thank chairman rodgers and ranking member loy plus the members of the subcommittee and the committee and especially the subcommittee for their hard work and commitment to this bill. and speaking of subcommittee members, i'd like to give a special word of congratulations to a new and valued member of the appropriations committee, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jamie herrera beutler and her husband daniel who recently welcomed their first child a beautiful by by girl, into their family this sweet fwifrl is a miracle. and a testament to the faith and hope that her parents have carried other recent months. we offer our continued prayers for their strength and the wisdom of their doctors and the joy of this new family. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from keas is recognized. mr. pastor: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. pastor: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the devastating impacts of the ryan budget are in full display that the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies bill. my good friend chairman latham was given an impossible allocation of $44.1 billion. this is $4.4 billion below the fiscal year 2013 sequestration level and $10 billion below the level included in the senate bill. as a result, the f.y.-2014 bill makes deep cuts to a number of critical transportation and housing programs. within the department of transportation, the bill cuts the programs and activities of the federal aviation

administration by $756 million below the f.y. 2013 c.r. level. while the bill provides enough funds to avoid additional furloughs, it is unclear whether f.a.a. will be able to completely lift the hiring freeze that has been in place during this fiscal year. the f.a.a.'s next gen program will also be impacted by the -- by delaying the important developmental work on many of the program's emerging technologies. am track's capital program is cut by more than $350 million which will jeopardize long distance service and some short haul routes. at these funding levels, amtrak will have to suspend mechanical overhauls on equipment which will result in slow orders and

furloughs of hundreds of mechanical employees. and engineers. the department of housing and urban development sustained even deeper cuts. the bill reduces funding for cdbg, community development block grant, program, to $1.6 billion which is the lowest level since the program was created in 1985. -- in 1975. the home program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since the program began in 1992. the bill funds public housing capital fund at its lowest level since 1987, adding more than $1 billion in deferred capital maintenance to an existing $26 billion maintenance back log. want to , i do comment, i do want to commend the chairman, tom latham, for

funding the critical safetying mies of the department of transportation and for honoring obligation limitations in the surface and aviation bills. the chairman has also included sufficient funding to move 10,000 more homeless veterans off the street and into housing. despite the chairman's efforts, i have great concern with the bill as it is currently written. i remain hopeful that we can achieve a more realistic allocation as the appropriation process moves forward this year. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: mr. chairman, i would like to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, a great member of the committee, for as much time as he may consume, mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, my friend, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support f the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing, and urban development propings act. i want to commend my good friend, chairman latham, for making some tough choices, making those choices in a manner that was fair, that was transparent and that was rational. i also want to thank my good friend, mr. pastor, the ranking member, on the other side of the aye. he's always a pleasure to work with, a delightful member an frankly always contributes. i know while this bill may not be everything he would like, he certainly added a great deal in the course of our deliberations. . the allocation this subcommittee was given is meager. the bill provides $44.1 billion inties cregsary spending, a reduction -- discretionary spention, a reduction --

spending, a reduction in 2013 levels. that reduction is due to the budget control act and the mechanism of sequestration, not the ryan budget, which simply recognizes the realities that have been agreed upon and passed into law. the president of the united states recommended the sequester, which we're trying to enacted in this budget. at the psalm time, even with these -- at the same time, even with these cuts, we have money for the f.a.a. contract tower program, a program that's important to maintaining safe national airspace. and it has continued assistance to all families anticipated to hold section 8 and public housing vouchers at the beginning of fiscal year 2014. and i know that was a tough mark to make, mr. chairman, and one that i appreciate you did make because you put people first. additionally, this bill fully funds the president's request for veterans' housing vouchers at $75 million. a point my friend, mr. pastor,

made. mr. chairman, i know that every member of this committee would like to spend more money on infrastructure. but because of our $17 trillion crushing debt and because of unrestrained growth in entitlement spending, this is where e are, and this is we will be until we confront out-of-control entitlement spending. many of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to reject this hard reality. some believe we will never have to balance our budget. some believe that trillions of dollars in additional tax increases are the solution. and some think that we don't need to make any changes in our entitlement programs. that approach, in my view, simply won't work. the deficit we have is far too high, but it is less than half of what it was when republicans retook the house in 2010. that's progress. but more progress will need to be made until america actually balances its books, and that, i

believe, will set the stage for faster, more robust economic growth. i certainly pledge to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle to find a compromise that will allow us to make vitally important investments while still lowering the deficit. but that compromise must involve entitlement reform. until then, we frequently will continue to see important programs, such as the ones in this bill, starve for investments that they need. so we need to get onto that bigger deal that my friend, mr. latham, talked about and i think the product of that deal will be much more robust appropriations for this particular subcommittee. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i'd yield five minutes to my colleague, mr. price, congressman price, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. speaker, i thank

my colleague for yielding. i want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member on their hard work on this bill. but i nonetheless am rising in strong opposition to this bill. it's just impossible. thud it t-hud or the bill. well, the bill makes the same sound as it's spelled, thud. we don't care if the wheels fall off. it says of our housing and development commitments, we don't care if the roof caves in. thud. i appreciate the hard work of the members of this subcommittee, the hard work of the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. but the funding levels included in this bill are just unacceptable. they're impossible. the 302-b allocation received by this subcommittee is 15% lower than it was last year. that was already low. it's 19% below the budget

control act. it's nearly $10 billion below the level that the senate is considering in the same bill. this funding level reflects the reckless discretionary spending caps adopted by the house majority in the ryan budget resolution, which not only locked in sequestration, it doubled down on sequestration n order to shelter defense and homeland security bill from the cuts. this made allocations for our domestic investments even worse. usual zone nd the of political disagreement. the transportation and housing bill we're considering today is a prime example of this impossible tradeoff. on the transportation side, the bill makes deep cuts to the capital programs of the federal aviation administration, amtrak and the federal transit administration's programs. it zeros out programming for the tigra program which has been enormously successful at advancing critical surface

transportation projects in communities across the country, and yet has left thousands of unfunded. proposals once again, the bill includes no funding, none, for the development of high-speed rail. funding for our housing needs is even worse. the bill reduces funding for the community development block grant program, a program that over the years has been known for its bipartisan support. it reduces that to $1.6 billion. that's the lowest level since this program was created in 1975. the home program is funded at $700 million, the lowest level since that program began in 1992. and the bill resentence funding for the choice neighborhood program, the successor program of hope 6, and that means it lacks funding for revitalization programs

whatsoever. during the appropriations markup of this bill, we submitted amendments to help meet our critical housing and infrastructure needs. all of those amendments were rejected on party line votes. mr. chairman, perhaps the most tragic and disappointing fact about this bill is that the cuts it imposes could have been avoided. if the republican leadership would only appoint budget conferees to go negotiate with their senate counterparts to negotiate a long-term deficit reduction deal that would lift sequestration and preserve vital investments in our future. alternative tifly, republican leaders could consider their refusal to talk to the president. they should work with him to ddress the real drivers of the deficit. tax expenditures, entitlements.

the real drivers of the deficit. thus lifting sequestration along with the drag it represents on our economy and the mockery it makes of the appropriations process. the bill before us is exhibit a of this travesty and i urge my colleagues to raise their voices and their votes against it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i reserve my time. mr. latham: mr. chairman, i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my distinguished friend from chicago, mr. quigley. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i became a member of the appropriations committee this congress to make the tough funding choices that determine our national priorities. but this year's budget allocations have taken those choices away from us. this bill is being touted as a

budgetary tradeoff, but there are no tradeoffs in this bill. there are only cuts. investments in our infrastructure are needed more than ever. yet, this bill makes some of the most significant cuts to vital transportation programs in decades. we all remember the recovery act. interesting fact about the recovery act, about 6% or 7% of that bill that was infrastructure. but that 6% or 7% of that bill created about 2/3 of the jobs that the act created. unfortunately in this bill, there's no funding for grants which fund infrastructure projects like the elgin-o'hare western access project in my district. no funding for core capacity grants to fund desperately needed improvements to transit systems like the chicago transit authority. instead of increasing safety and capacity in air travel, we're slashing funding to the f.a.a.'s air traffic control modernization program. instead of expanding rail

service, we're cutting amtrak's capital program by 37%. and the housing numbers are even worse. this bill cuts funding to housing programs that not only work but have a proven record of saving the taxpayer money. no funding for the choice neighborhood program, which helps communities revitalize distressed neighborhoods. significant cuts to the housing opportunities for persons with aids program which is used to house some of the most vulnerable among us and also another program which saves money. community development block grants used by communities across the country have been cut in half and are at their lowest levels since the ford administration. we're cutting investments in our future and essential services to those in need to pay for a bloated defense spending the pentagon says it doesn't need. in the final analysis, countries that succeed invest in research, education and

infrastructure. mr. speaker, we are cutting all three. i joined this committee to make smart funding choices that will propel our nation forward, but this bill does just the opposite. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona -- mr. pastor: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i want to inquire, does the gentleman have any more speakers? mr. pastor: mr. visclosky. mr. latham: i'll reserve then. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves. i recognize the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i'll yield as much time as he may consume to mr. visclosky from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for as much time as he shall consume. vizcaino -- r. visclosky: i appreciate the

chairman yielding, and mr. chairman, i first of all want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member and all of the members of the subcommittee for their very good work. given the allocation they had, they have done their very best. and i would follow-up on a number of remarks by my colleagues, including the chairman, and that is we need a deal. and my plea to the membership is we cannot continue to go on like this. this process no longer is on time. for fiscal year -- and our year starts october 1, 2007, we finished in february. in 2008 we finished in december. in 2009 we finished in march. in 2010 in december. in fiscal year 2011 we finished in april. in twelve we finished in december. -- in 2012 we finished in december. this year we finished march 26.

since 2007, we should have enacted 84 individual appropriation bills. we have enacted nine individually, about 10% of our work. and unfortunately the body has made the work of this subcommittee, the full committee and the other committees very difficult. for fiscal year 2013, our committee was given a target in the summer of 2011 under the budget control act. the target was changed under a resolution passed by the house for the budget in the spring of 2012. the target was changed again on january 1, 2013, and subsequently we had sequestration. my plea to the general membership is, please just give this exceptional committee one target and let us do our work.

i also am fearful, because we are operating, most agencies, including the department of transportation, department of housing and urban development, under a continuing resolution that for the vast majority of my colleagues makes no difference. you wouldn't run your house, you wouldn't run your business exactly the way you did last year. we made these agencies wait seven months to tell them they can keep doing the same thing for another five months, and on october 1 of this year we're going to do it again. some people say we're spending too much money. i agree, which is why i have actually brought a chart to the floor. we balanced the budget under president nixon in 1969 for one year. we balanced the budget for four years under president clinton. during those years, federal spending was about 18.9% of g.d.p. for fiscal year 2011, 2012,

2013, it was about 22.7%. the response of this body is we will do the budget control act and we will have mindless sequestration and treat all discretionary accounts the same. some people say we don't have enough revenue, and they're right. when the budget was balanced bfs revenue was 22% of g.d.p., today it's 16.%. we have a bill passed on january 1 that limited us as far as any future revenue. il8d oint out, 204 members of the body vote for that bill in a bipartisan fashion and 219 members of the body today vote for the budget control act even though most of them complained about sequestration. today we have the allocations

this great subcommittee is based with and we are pounding our discretionary accounts. the fact is, in 1963, other -- over 67% of what we spent as a national government was an investment in the future, in our children's future, fiscal year 2012, that was down to 26%. for those who want to continue this madness of going after discretionary spending and particularly domestic discretionary spend, department of transportation, housing and urban development, i would point out that last year, if we had eliminated the government of the united states, eliminated the congress and the presidency and every agency except the department of defense and the entitlement prals that did nothing on taxes, our deficit, our deficit last year was $472 billion. it is estimated this year, if

we got throifed department of transportation, which i think some people are tie troling -- trying to do with this allocation if we got rid of h.u.d. if we got rid of the government, except for defense, except for entitlement, did nothing on taxes this year's deficit would be $153 billion. the american society of civil engineer this is year gave our country, the united states of america, the greatest country on earth a d-plus for our infrastructure. i have a bridge that was blown up in my district that's not helping create jobsle they claim we're about $1.6 trillion short between now and 2020 investing in infrastructure. that's what this bill is about, investing in the future. we do need a deal and the chairman mentioned it, the ranking member mentioned it, we do have to talk about entitlements for the cake of our children. what about our children? when social security is insolvent in 023. what about our children, when

medicare isn't solvent in 2024? we need to address those issues and we need to address the make sure venue to we have enough to invest in those highways, in those classrooms, in those research institutes, so that we can have a full and vibrant economy going forward. for those who want to balance the budget, and are about this madness of sequestration and crushing domestic discretionary spending, hurting domestic, i'm sorry, defense discretionary spend, i would also point out that the congressional budget office indicated in october of 2011 that for fiscal year 2012rks a third of the deficit would have gone away if we were at full employment. so it is time to talk to each other. it is time to put everything on the table. it is time to invest in this country and i would hope we do that sooner rather than later.

i appreciate very much the gentleman for yielding me time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i inquire of the gentleman from arizona, do you have any more speakers? mr. pastor: we are waiting for the ranking member of the full committee, she's on her way, so i will fill in the best i can. i'll reserve. mr. latham: i reserve, recognize the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i want to recognize mr. visclosky for his excellent presentation and i join him in making that request to our leadership, both the majority and the minority, that we begin

the conversation, we only have a few days before september 30 rolls around and so i would hope that we take his comments and usly and get to work continue the process of the appropriations and lift sequestration and mr. chairman, at this time, i would yield to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, uch time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, what a difference a year makes. last year, chairman latham put forward a responsible bill that invested in our nation's frastructure and the housing

needs of our most vulnerable citizens. the bill we consider today, which is $7.7 billion below the $13.9 3 c.r. level and billion below the president's request, is a strark contrast. for example, last year's bill funded amtrak's capital program at the highest level ever. this year's bill funds amtrak the lowest level in a decade, which will likely cause furloughs of mechanical mployees and slower service. last year, the chairman spoke out against an amendment authored by mr. chaffetz to cut the cdbg program to $2.95 billion, still $1.3 billion higher than the level in this bill. member after member on the majority side spoke out against

the cut, noting how important cdbg was to economic development in cities and states across the country. in fact, 17 republican appropriators, including chairman rodgers and chairman -- chairman rogers and chairman latham helped to defeat this ongheaded cut by a vote of 157-257. what changed? have the programs become ineffective? have local infrastructure needs and homelessness disappeared? or do house republicans simply support raising local taxes to fund affordable housing and infrastructure investments? because that will be the result. unfortunately, what has changed is that the reckless republican ryan budget guts investments in

domestic priorities that increase american prosperity. in fact, this bill alone would an the loss of between 125,000 to 140,000 tenant-based rental vouchers. cause 146,000 people who are now housed to become homeless. and result in 7,110 fewer jobs created and $1.4 billion in ost economic output due to the 237 million rescissions to the tiger program. -- due to the $237 million rescission to the tiger program. instead of investing in affordable housing to help make transition from dependency to independence and investing in infrastructure to fix deficient transportation systems and create jobs, republicans would

rather defund the affordable care act, block grant medicaid, privatize medicare, while protecting subsidies for big oil and tax breaks to the very wealthiest americans. the senate is currently marking up bills at the level to which emocrats and republicans agree in the bipartisan budget control act. the senate t-h.u.d. bill provides a more responsible path that invests in job creation and assistance to families suffering in this economy. for example, the senate provides nearly $10 billion more than the bill we consider today for infrastructure investments that have received strong bipartisan support and ould create jobs including $1.45 billion to fund amtrak, more than $3 billion to the community development block grant program, $550 million for

the tiger grant program, and $1 billion to the home program. if we are to avert a developing crisis and make progress on long-term fiscal challenges, a partner crats need in the house majority to conference the budget. the american people, local governments, small business owners want this budget standoff to end. so that we can avoid shutting down the government in october. help them build stronger economy. when will republicans stop holding their livelihoods hostage to the ryan budget? house democrats are ready to work with our republican colleagues to responsibly address our fiscal challenges. however if they continue to move farther away from consensus by turning one

bipartisan -- once bipartisan bills like this one, t-h.u.d., into red meat messaging bills for their base, congress will have a difficult time reaching a balanced agreement before the c.r. expires in two months. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. pastor: before i yield back my time, i want to thank the -- and commend, as we start this amendment process, i want to commend the staff of the subcommittee. these are the individuals who work very hard to bring this bill forward and they worked many hours, put in a lot of time and effort so before we start the amendment process, i want to recognize their hard work, so i'd like to -- so i'd

ke to thank the minority staff kate and joe, from the majority staff dina, doug, carl, sheryl, and brian, because they spent countless hours in bringing this bill to i commend hairman, chairman latham for doing what he could with this bad allocation and i look forward to the amendment process. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i thank you, mr. chairman. i intend to yield back here but let me associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor, by commending staff, he named everyone, i just want to again associate myself with that and thank him for being such a

great partner through all this. it's been difficult but the product we have is, i think, as good as we can possibly have with our allocation this year. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord priority and recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record. those amendments will be considered read. the clerk will read. caller: be it enacted that the following sums for department of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for fiscal year 2014, namely, title 1, department of transportation, office of the secretary,

salaries and expenses, $102,481,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. mrs. lowey: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: today's bill is part of the house majority's irresponsible charade of a budget process. the sequester cuts affecting 2013 spending levels are having on american pact families and hurting our economy. 70,000 children losing access to head start, four million fewer meals on wheels delivered, $1.5 billion in cuts to the national institutes of health's life-saving medical research and jobs, degraded military readiness, furloughs and reduced paychecks for hundreds of thousands of

federal employees, and delayed safety modernization at airports. my friends on the other side of the aisle want it both ways. they adopted a budget resolution that endorses the sequester levels to next -- for next year, locking in a top line figure $92 billion below the senate and the president's they requests while pretend they fixed the sequester for defense. they cut more than required on the domestic side and did nothing to shield defense programs from legally mandated cuts under sequestration. if the house bills are enacted, defense will be cut $48 billion in january as a result of the sequester because the majority has not enacted legislation to

top it. $48 billion, when general dempsey has made it very clear to those of us who had recent talks with him that our readiness is at stake. the republicans allocated more adequate funding to the initial bills to fund military construction, veterans affairs, defense and homeland security. the remaining bills have quickly revealed the republicans' thoroughly inadequate investments to sustain job creation and invest in america's future prosperity. perhaps no other bills' programs mean as much to the communities in our district as the bill we are considering today. yet, it guts affordable housing and community developments, underfunds rail, air and road

transportation networks. the same majority wrote a very different bill last year that reflected an understanding of the impact these programs have on our economy and americans' liveslyhoods. compare the house bill to the -- livelihoods. compare the house bill to the senate version which is almost $10 billion higher. 73 senators, including 19 republicans, voted to proceed to floor debate. the house bill, on the other hand, was reported from committee on a straight party line vote. i would be hard pressed to find fiddling ample of while rome burns than the house majority's budget and the appropriations process this year.

they continue to trot out bills despite white house veto threats, despite even worse sequestration cuts right around the corner. i've asked our committee to suspend our markup until we conference the budget resolution with the senate so that we can negotiate a reasonable top line to the appropriations process. there is no house in the house proceeding alone with levels totally unacceptable to the white house and the senate. yet, we'll be here late into the evening again considering amendments to a bill that is going nowhere. when the house returns after the august recess, we will have only nine legislative days until the end of the fiscal year. nine days to negotiate a path forward. nine days to avert a government shutdown.

nine days to do the jobs we were sent here to do, work together to invest in america and builds up our economy. i genuinely hope our majority will be prepared in the fall for the necessary compromise these negotiations require because this bill shows they are not prepared for responsible governance today. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, the port for this year's transportation-housing and urban development bill, the t-hud bill, as i -- the thud bill, as i said earlier, the nation is in desperate need for infrastructure and investment. well, i'm glad we can agree on

that. the bill before us hardly reflects that. it chooses to prioritize spending cuts over putting americans back to work. and it's part of a budget process that places anti-attacks ideology above all and refuses to address the main drivers of the deficit. instead simply doubling down on sequestration, making sequestration even worse with respect to the domestic bills so as to give some measure of protection. it's an atrocious process, and this bill is exhibit a for this travesty. now, we all know america's surface transportation networks is essential for moving goods and services as well as people in an efficient manner. unfortunately, that transportation system is becoming increasingly outdated, ineffective. the american society of civil engineers recently gave america's infrastructure a

cumulative grade of d. congestion, aging trains and roads, thousands of structurally deficient bridges, they're imposing real costs on the american people and on the american economy. it's estimated that americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. i can taff to sharing that experience -- i can testify to sharing that experience last sunday. poor condition of our roads costs motorists another $67 billion in repairs and operating expenses. the civil engineers stated that, quote, current spending amounts to only about half of the needed investment. instead, similar to the proposed ryan budget, the republican fiscal 2014 thud bill would underfund programs that would have alternatives providing $2 billion in total for transit program which is

bout a 17% cut from last year. the bill would completely eliminate funding for the overwhelmingly popular wildly successful tiger grant programs which invest in multimodal projects including roads, bridges, transit, high speed and inner city rail, bike trails, ports. this promises to achieve critical national objectives to make our communities more livable and more sustainable. the bill would resent funding for the fiscal 2013 tiger grant program that's already under way through the grant process. the bill also decreases funding for the federal transit administration's new starts and small starts program. the primary source of federal support for major transit capital projects that are locally planned and implemented and operated. they're critical for leveraging implement tment to

transit alternatives. and then yet for another year, the bill provides zero dollars for development of high-speed rail corridor development. i speak of a representative of a state where the high speed rail between raleigh and charlotte is under way, of great promise and yet this bill is denying further resources, denying that kind of support for other parts of the country. our nation has a gap in this area. these investments make sense. sometimes you have to spend some money to make some money, and high speed rail investments have an impact. they upgrade our rail infrastructure, they comboff the mobility of goods and people -- improve the mobility goods and people and they make jobs. amtrak, only $950 million total. of this only $600 million goes to the capital account.

that's a 37% reduction from last year. more than $1 billion less than this year's administration request for capital. well, you can figure out how this is going to work. you subtract from that amount. that's $200 million. safety critical work and nspections and maintenance mandated by federal law, that's another $200 million. new equipment expected to be delivered this year that will add capacity to improve returns on long-distance trains, that's $100 million. so you'll see where that money's going. leaves almost nothing for capital investment in the national system, including improving access ability for passengers with disability. and, you know, when you're cutting things this closely, it means the work you're going to do is going to be done less efficiently. amtrak will have problems to fix problems only as they occur. it will defer major work. that's bad policy. it's bad economics. if amtrak deteriorates, service will suffer. revenue will suffer. amtrak costs will go up and that will eventually be

reflected in higher appropriation knees in the future. mr. chairman -- needs in the future. mr. chairman, amtrak provides alternatives to conjeggetted -- congested roadways. it's clull penny-wise and pound foolish to shortchange these investments. i urge -- it's clearly penny-wise and pound foolish to shortchange these investments. i urge members to vote against this bill. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? ms. slaughter: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. slaughter: by cutting investments in transportation-housing, the majority's proposing to bring the nation backward at a time when we musting building the infrastructure needed to -- we must have to have the infrastructure needed. the slash for community development block grant program by almost half.

these cuts would be devastating to the working poor in communities like rochester, new york, which i represent where block grants provide housing assistance and investments in neighborhoods that are woefully underserved. furthermore, the majority's proposing to gut the investments in infrastructure projects and particularly passenger rail. they do so at a time when rail ridership continues to grow across the country. in rochester, the amtrak ridership has been increased by 89% since 2008. despite the fact that decades of underinvestment have resulted in aging rail, delayed trains, we have to side track to let the freight go by and a crumbling rail station. i want to say something about this train station. it was built over 45 years ago as a temporary train station. it is not in all these years been a.d.a. compliant. you cannot imagine what it is like to get somebody in a wheelchair from the station up onto the train or to watch a

mother with a stroller struggle to get up there because it's impossible to do. now, 144,000 people went through that railroad station last year and they deserve something more like the 21st century. i fought years to improve the train travel, and we are finally getting to build with a grant a new intermodal station in the heart of the city. like countless other cities and towns, our work has been supported by federal tiger grants which have provided vital support in modernizing the city's infrastructure. the funding is allowing rochester and countless other communities to build the roads, rails and runways we need to compete for the jobs of the future. but we cannot allow that to happen if we cut out the very means by which we fund them. ridership, as i said, on amtrak's high speed -- we only have one sort of high-speed trail in new york, continues to reach record height in states like california, illinois and

north carolina already building high-speed rail lines. it's important. as co-chair of the high-speed caucus, i will be joined by fellow members who realize the incredible value of amtrak and the nationwide passenger rail to our country. the truth is that our rail system reaches throughout our economy and supports tens of thousands of jobs. the bill before us today endangers those jobs, including the jobs of 20,000 amtrak employees and the private usinesses whose $1.2 billion worth of domestic goods and services sold last year. as my colleagues will tell you, endangering jobs is a recipe for failure. at a time when this infrastructure really needs to be upgraded -- as we rebuild places like afghanistan, it always makes me so angry. if they're going to be building high speed rail there i want to build it in new york, in america somewhere. and let me tell you this story, which i think will bring it

home to all of you. in 1893 the president of new york central railroad, for reasons i'm not really cleared, lived in upstate new york. he had to commute to new york city every day, on the weekend -- after the weekend at home. in 1893 they decided to have a race for steam engines and so they raced a few miles between buffalo and rochester to see which one of the engines was the fastest. mr. speaker, they set a world record by traveling at 112 1/2 miles an hour. between rochester and buffalo. now, today we're on the same track. it hasn't been improved any, but we can't go anywhere near that. there's no way we can get close to 80 miles an hour. mostly it's about 40 and it takes a lot longer to travel from rochester to buffalo than 1893. in but crumbling infrastructure like this is not only harmful to our economy but an embarrassment to a nation that's never been scared to dream big. and while it's true our nation

has faced challenges over the fast few years, we need big answers. the proposal fails our country now and into the future, and now is not the moment to stop investing in our country, nor is it the time to resign ourself to a future of diminished success. instead, it is a time to roll up our sleeves and put our country back to work. we can answer the call of the neration by investing in the future and build a better, more prosperous america one road, one runway, one rail line at a time. i urge my colleagues to reject the cynical and backwards-looking legislation that's before us and as soon as i ask for unanimous consent to put "the new york times" article about the 1893 race in the record, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: that request will be covered under general leave. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise?

>> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the f.y. 2014 transportation h.u.d. appropriations bill this bill is a perfect illustration of the majority's cruel and misguided priorities. we hear a lot from the other side about how we need to cut the budget, reduce the deficit and rein in spending but clearly that's just rhetoric. last week, the majority put a bill on the floor that increased spending substantially, including extra funding for programs the administration and mill didn't want and have no intention of using. mr. nadler: the majority is perfectly willing to increase spending for things they care about, like military contracts, but not for community development or transportation and infrastructure the bill before us today is so bad it's hard to imagine how it can be fixed. the house bill is fully $10 billion less than the senate

bill and it's virtually impossible to find offsets for the bill. but it's important for taos highlight the cuts. just a few years ago, congress passed the passenger rail investment and improvement act which authorized a toal of $9. billion for amtrak for fiscal years 2009 through 2013678 but the actual appropriations for amtrak in this time for $2.5 billion below that amount. there's no question we need to invest more in our railroads. a commission reported that the total capital cost estimate ofest tably bing a national intercity passenger rail network between now and 2050 would be about $357 billion or $ billion annually. we're nowhere near that. the bill before us today takes us in exactly the wrong direction this bill smashes amtrak's capital program by 37% and amtrak's operations by 25%

from last year's enacted level. these funding levels would have a drastic impact on amtrak's ability to maintain service. once you take into account their federally mandated safety work, amtrak would have only $100 million to cover the investment needs of the entire system. the northeast corridor alone requires about $780 million a year to address long-standing state of good repair needs an amtrak will have to delay maintenance which will increase costs in the long run. i know some people are amtrak haters no matter the fact bus here are a few more facts. commuter lines carry $235 -- carry 235 million passengers every year, business travelers who rely on amtrak's rail to get to work on muter rail systems and reliably and to

foster economic growth. if amtrak cannot maintain the rails adequately, all these commuter rail systems around our major cities will stop being efficient and stop being able to transportation their people. amtrak employs millions of people in 46 states. they paid millions in state and local taxes and did business with suppliers ecall to -- qual to about $1.3 billion last year cutting amtrak jepartizes all this activity and will cost taxpayers money in the long run. amtrak provides a vital service to commuters around the country. be investing in amtrak and developing intercity high speed rail this bill includes no funds whatsoever for the tiger grant policeman. it rescinds $237 billion in previous tiger funding. it provides no fundering for

the regional account that is now subject to general fund . propriations the new starts program will fund new prans it projects, there's only enough funding to maintain projects current hi in the pipeline. there are essentially no programs to fund any new construction of transportation projects. it's offered no solutions for how to invest in future economic growth, to facilitate interstate commerce and mane tain global competitiveness. i urge my colleagues to aintain these dast -- to oppose these cuts to a.m. trank and move us back toward effective policy. i urge a no vote on the f.y. 2014 transportation h.u.d. appropriations bill. later i'll discuss the equally disastrous cuts in community development block grants. it's another example of how this bill is dismantling the united states. thank you and i yield back.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to strike the requisite numb of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i've come to address the house, the congress of the united states, were the wealthiest country in the world. mr. fattah: we are the most powerful country in the world. we have one program that focuses on improving the life and life chances of people in our lower income communities across our country. it's called the community development block grant. it was created under a republican president, richard nixon new york 1974. since its inception, we have nsted about $132 billion in across s209 communities the -- in some 1,209 communities across the country.

we've invested about the same amount as it took to build the international space station. we spent approximately the same amount one year in afghanistan this year, we're spending $.3 billion on the community development block grant. s the lowest amount in the history of our nation. what the majority, my friends on the other side, are proposing in this appropriations bill is that rather than spend the least amount ever on this effort, at $3.3 billion, they want to slash toyota $1.6 billion. it's not because they are mean-spirited, it's because the allocation for this bill is fatally deficient. it's too low to meet the needs of the greatest country on earth in so many respects, we could be all day pointing out the deficiencies. but i want to focus in on this one program because it was created by a republican

president, it operates in the most, i think, approving way for those on the other team, that is to say, these are grants which all the decisions are made at the local level, by republican and democratic governors, by republican and democratic local officials, they decide what the priorities want to be to help uplift these communities. so it's unfortunate that they would seungle out this particular program. the only program that we have to help the neediest communities across our country. i've seen it, it's worked in local business districts, encouraging small business go i've seen it work helping seniors put in major systems repair and heating and windows or roofing so they can be protected in the winter. this is a great program, even though it was developed by a president of the other party, it operates through local

decision making, it's already at the lowest level ever, and if you added up what we've invested in it all these years, it wouldn't add up to what we spend on the international space station. if we added up all we spent for it all these years, it barely gets to the number we spent in one year in afghanistan, but we still think somehow we should cut it in half. it's a wrongheaded decision. i ask that we reconsider it. i know the allocation is tough but it's going to be a lot tougher on so many more americans who live in communities, reminded of what jay-z said, they have their shades on, just waiting on the sun to shine their way. i ask my colleagues to think about as -- to they think about that as we go forward, think about the wrongheadedness of this, how wrong it is for the to est country on earth

say to citizens who need our help that somehow we can spend in afghanistan, some faroff place, we can build a great international space station, which i support, but somehow we can't do anything about the challenges in these neighborhoods. i yield back the balance of my time. i ask that the entire house, that we live up to our responsibilities in a much different way than we're doing now. thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. caller: amendment offered by mr. griffin of arkansas, page 2, line 13ing after the first dollar amount, insert reduced by $500,000. page 5 , line 25, after the first dollar amount, insert increased by $500,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. griffith: on march 29, 2013, the exxonmobil pipeline in arkansas spilled thousands of gallons of oil to the homes

and properties surrounding the pipelines. i'm committed to making things right for the people of mayflower, ensuring that another spill like this doesn't occur again in arkansas. the u.s. department of transportation pipeline and hazardous material safety administration is responsible or regulating and secure movement of petroleum products through our interstate pipelines. inspection of the pegasus their was responsibility. terstate pipelines deliver over 11.3 billion barrels of petroleum each year the cost to transport a barrel of oil from to the new york harbor

is about $1. pipelines are indisputably the safest way to transport oil and i are emain supportive of the pipeline infrastructure but we've got to make sure these pipelines are safe. every year, pipelines transport more than 11 billion barrels of oil and last year, less than five 1046 thousands of 1% of it was lost to spills. we've go to do what we can to make sure that spills that did occur don't happen. though the amount of spills is a minimal fraction of what we safely transportation throughout the country, i know we can still make more certain the safety of our nation's pipelines. i continue to support the safe transportation of our -- transport of our nation's oil and petroleum products and introduced my amendment to increase the budget for their operational expenses by $500,000 to further ensure the safety of our nation's pipelines. this appropriation finances the operating a -- operational

support cost including agency-wide functions of administration, management, policy development, legal counsel, budget, civil rights, human resources, acquisition services, information technology and governmental and public affairs. i ask that the house support this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i rise in support of the amendment. i think it's well thought out. mr. latham: the committee position on this side would be to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts

rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from pennsylvania, mr. fattah, who talked abthe underfunding of so many important programs in this bill, but in particular the community development block grant program. when we talk about our national security, it means more than the number of missiles we possess and it means more than the number of military bases we have overseas. it means as well, and just as importantly, many of the priorities that are contained in the transportation and housing and urban development appropriations bill. and that is why it pains me to come to the floor today to lament about how woefully underfunded key transportation infrastructure and housing programs are in this bill. programs that revitalize our communities, help our neighbors secure affordable housing and

support smart economic development. the bill as it is before us today simply put is unfixable current allocation level. there are programs like the home program, which is at the lowest funding level in its history. just so my colleagues understand, the home program is a critical federal investment utilized by states and localities to provide affordable rental and home ownership opportunities for households as we recover from a damaging recession, these cuts in this program will put further strain on affordable housing opportunities. this bill also severely underfunds tenant based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance and the public housing capital fund. i continue to hear from housing advocates in massachusetts and their message is consistent and clear, we need more funding in ese accounts to ensure families have access to affordable, comfortable, and stable housing. the families we're talking

about aren't losing sleep wondering if they'll be attacked from countries overseas, they're losing sleep at night because they don't know whether they'll have shelter to protect their own families. they're worried about their own security in this country. and wret we are underfunding these programs so significantly. . i'm concerned about the proposed reduction in community development block grant funding. this bill cuts cdbg formula grants by nearly 50% and funds this program at its lowest level since its creation in the 1970's. now, in april i joined with 143 bipartisan members on a programatic request letter in support of $3.3 billion for this program. in july after the subcommittee's legislation was released, 101 bipartisan members wrote to the appropriations committee again expressing support for

effective funding levels. there is demonstrated bipartisan support for community development block grants, mr. speaker, because in dollars are working each of our communities in each of our districts. governor patrick of massachusetts announced that 38 communities in massachusetts will receive over $31 million in cdbg funding. fund housing will rehabilitation, childcare centers, cityscape improvement just to name a few. i also want to point out that every $1 in every community development block grants leverages $3.50 in funding to revitalize our communities. investing these dollars spurs redevelopment efforts and provides a high return on our investment. these funds also create and save jobs. funds y. 2005, these

are retained or created over 300,000 jobs. if my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about job creation, cdbg is not the place to cut. now, realizing the effective need for funding, the state -- the senate appropriations bill funds the program at $3.15 billion. so should this bill go to conference, mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject these cuts in the house bill and support robust funding for community development block grants, a program with proven record of supporting development efforts across our country. let's stop these reckless and harmful cuts to our communities. we ought to be on the floor today fixing sequestration. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be on the floor today appointing conferees on the budget so that we can negotiate more reasonable allocations on these appropriations bills. i would remind my colleagues that this is not some abstract debate that we are having here today on the floor. these cuts will hurt real people.

they will pave the way for more deterioration of our cities and town. they'll cost jobs. they will hurt our economy. enough is enough. we're supposed to be helping people, not hurting people. and it's time for congress to get its priorities straight. i urge my colleagues to support the cdbg program. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? -- texas? mr. hensarling: move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, mr. latham, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. mr. latham: i would be happy to enter into the colloquy with the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i know that you know that our nation continues to suffer from a debt crisis, which is spending driven, and the only real remedy is to quit spending money that we don't have, but regrettably, the president would not work with us to enact

meaningful targeted spending disciplines, so his sequester has been enacted. mr. chairman, we are the stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, and with the president's sequester in place, i believe it is now more critical than ever that our nation's transportation funding be spent wisely, including funding for the f.a.a.'s contract tower program. because, mr. chairman, in washington it's not always how much money you spend that counts, it's how you spend the money. i would simply ask the distinguished chairman to work with me and other members to ensure that this critical funding is allocated to the facilities that represent the greatest cost benefit to the taxpayer. mr. latham: i appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue. i look forward to working with him and the f.a.a. to ensure that our limited federal dollars go to towers that provide the greatest benefit to the taxpayers.

mr. hensarling: i thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cummings: i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 2610. this bill, which was crafted to conform to the strangling and senseless limits of the ryan budget, would cut the total discretionary funding for the transportation-h.u.d. appropriations measure below fiscal year 2013 appropriation. and by more than $4 billion below the level of funding provided after sequestration took effect. these cuts would devastate rograms like the community development block grant program and the home program which supports development in cities throughout our nation and to providing housing and other services to our most vulnerable citizens. this bill would also be devastating to our national

passenger rail service, amtrak, and that is the specific issue i will address today. the bill before us would cut the capital grant provided to amtrak by some $352 million and cut the operating grant by $119 million below the enacted fiscal year 2013 levels. such cuts would likely force amtrak to reduce its maintenance levels and furlough maintenance personnel. such cuts may even lead to reduced service on a new northeast corridor, the critical lincoln the eastern seaboard among washington, d.c., baltimore, philadelphia, new york and baltimore. in their views on the transportation-h.u.d. appropriations measure, the minority noted that the bill is out of touch with reality and that it is nowhere more evident than the funding level for amtrak. the house majority has

undertaken a relentless effort to destroy amtrak, the traveling public has made it clear they consider amtrak to be an essential part of our nation's transportation network. amtrak finished fiscal year 2012 having incurred 31 million passengers, the highest number of passengers in any year since amtrak was created. this total included more than 11 million passengers who traveled on the northeast corridor. together the long distance routes had their high passenger volumes in 19 years, and amtrak set 12 consecutive monthly ridership records during fiscal year 2012. to put this number in perspective, if amtrak were an airline, it would be the sixth largest in the country. americans have voted with their ticket purchases and they are choosing to ride amtrak in greater numbers. in fact, record ridership growth is continuing in fiscal year 2013. rather than seeking to destroy

a service critical to our nation's mobility, we should be investing in the system to ensure it can continue to meet increased passenger demand with increased speed and efficiency. significant infrastructure improvements are needed all along the northeast corridor. in maryland, for example, the b.m.t. tunnel, which covers every train traveling into washington, d.c. from all points of the city must be replaced. this tunnel has -- was opened n 1873, andent anti-kuwaited designs limits speeds to 30 miles per hour. we cannot think of relying on technology from the 1870's in other aspects of our lives. we wouldn't want medical technology or communications technology from the 1870's, and we should not rely on transportation infrastructure from the 1870's. the president has rightly threatened to veto this bill. rather than waste the house's time on legislation like this that theyens to degrade our

transportation networks and delay transportation commerce, we should be considering bills that will make long overdue nvestments to expand our mobility and economic growth. rather than cutting in amtrak, we should invest in truly high-speed rail on the northeast corridor and throughout the eastern united states. and before we consider this or any other appropriations measures, the house and senate should follow regular order by appointing conferees which can resolve a budget that can be and that both bodies can be then guide the development of appropriations measures for fiscal year 2014. i urge members to oppose this misguided legislation, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? dollar dollar -- ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: this grossly underfunds the fundamental priorities of american families. every time we see new appropriations bill come from this majority, the vital national needs that are meant to be covered in that legislation have been cut to the bone. in this case, this bill makes deep cuts in everything from the upkeep of air traffic control systems, to amtrak, block grants and home grants. this bill endangers our infrastructure, our public safety and our communities. it is yet another example of the problems created by the majority's obsessive fixation on slashing all nondefense spending programs. to the detriment of the priority, we were elected to uphold. let's step back for a moment, look at the big picture. the budget control act of 2011 placed strict limits on

appropriations. defense and nondefense, domestic programs, that are scheduled to remain in place through 2021. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimated that these caps will reduce spending by a total of $840 billion over 10 years, compared to the policies previously in place. now on top of these budget control caps, we also have the deep and indiscriminant across-the-board cuts caused by sequestration. despite the contrary by this majority, the effects of the sequester cuts are real. they're real and they are damaging. we are talking about children losing access to head start and the opportunities for their growth and development that early childhood education provides. low-income women will lose access to cancer screenings that could save their lives. seniors will be hungry because meals on wheels distribution has been pare d'back.

when the new school year starts in september, school districts already struggling to make ends meet will face additional across-the-board 5% cuts in aid. the national institutes of health will be supporting the smallest number of research project grants this year in more than a decade. these cuts will have profound and lasting consequences for families, for students, for the scientific research. despite, the majority thinks the problem with sequestration, at least when it comes to domestic spending, is that the cuts were too small. they have been assembling a series of bills for 2014 that cut the resources for nondefense programs by a total f almost $47 billion below the 2013 postsequester level. that is not the right direction for the country. that is not what we ought to be

doing. in total, the majority's 014 budget bills will bring -- 2014 budget bills will bring nondefense appropriations to the lowest level on record as a share of g.d.p. with records on this basis going back to 1976. in other words, the majority proposes to spend less relative to the economy on things like infrastructure, scientific research, education, environmental protection, the key investments that grow our economy than at anytime in nearly the last 40 years. within the total, some bills are targeted for larger cuts than others. sequester has already cut transportation, housing, infrastructure programs that are covered in today's bills by more than $3 billion. this legislation would slash another $4.4 billion. that's bad enough. but the largest cuts of all come in the labor-health and bills rvices-education

which they consider the lowest priority. it starts with this year's $7 billion in sequestration cuts and then cuts $28 billion more. think about it for a moment. for programs like education, medical research, job training, public health, the majority does not just want to double down on sequestration. they want to quadruple down. this is not about saving money or reducing the deficit. this is about ideology, pure and simple. the majority's approach is not required by the budget control act. on the contrary, in total, their bills are $47.7 billion below the budget control act cap on nondefense spending, and that is the cap with sequestration in place. because this bill is already far leaner than even the b.c.a. and the sequestration required, ere are no offsets to be had

to the deep and dangerous cuts to community development block grants, housing, amtrak, mass transit. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. delauro: the majority is trying to underfund the priorities in this legislation. they have put forward a budget that sets our government and our nation up to fail. this is not the right choice. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. thraur responsible budgeting means make -- ms. delauro: responsible budgeting means improving the quality of life. i yield back. . the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> i rise to join my colleague -- move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is ecognized.

ms. johnson: i rise in support of the community development block grants. the community development block grant is a vital tool that the department of housing and urban development uses to provide for new developments in affordable housing and local communities across the country. the fiscal year 2014 house transportation housing and urban development appropriations bill indiscriminately slashes the grants by almost half. a $1.6 billion less than the current $3.3 billion for fiscal year 2013. these cuts do not reflect the change in need or have any basis in reality and they how old not do -- they would do incredible harm to local communities across the entire

nation. the house version of this bill is simply unworkable in its current form. and it plainly ignores many of the benefits that the cdbg program provides for 1,209 state and local governments that receive these grants. since 1974. cdbg has invested over $135 billion in local economies. even further, every dollar that's been invested leverages noncdbg onal $.55 in fund chg can go forward improving existing infrastructure, new jobs and house regular pair, as well as home ownership assistance. by slashing these funds, the house majority will invariably ring them to countless low and -- bring to low and moderate income americans countless destruction. i'm not prepared to to that,

neither are many of us, even many republican colleagues. cuts from years prior have always had devastating consequences. the city of dallas, for example, is considering another round of cuts or eliminating certain programs entirely in light of pro-- of projected budget reductions. it would mean eliminating grants for affordable housing, decimating new home construction in areas targeted by the revitalization. the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing and urban development appropriations will bring considerable harm and we're considering it this week is just another example of the misguided policies of the current republican majority. as long as my current majority republicans refuse to work together with the house democrats to develop a sensible budget framework, the american

people will continue to suffer the consequences of draconian cuts to invaluable social programs. when we shut down everything, it does not help us economically. t shuts us down, it moves us backwards. there is a right way and a wrong way and we cannot continue to do it the way this current republican majority is pushing. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: i'm proud to joan my colleagues in advocating for critical investments to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. the bill we are considering this week makes devastating cuts that will have serious consequences on our ability to compete on our global economy and ensure the stability and well being of local communities.

the fact of the matter is, our infrastructure is crumbling. the american society of civil engineers graded the united tates with a d-plus on our infrastructure. in rhode island, the majority of our bridges are in need of repair. investing in bridges and airports and other infrastructure will produce jobs. in a rapidly changing global economy, the ability to quickly and safely transport goods, services and information is a real advantage. to compete successfully from energy companies and manufacturers to technology companies and farmers must have access to a world class connected transportation system but to maintain this edge virtually every expert has said we must continue to invest in rebuilding america. if you don't look at -- believe me, look at the strategic

made by competing nations. last week, china's ministry of rails announced plans to spend $33 billion to upgrade their rail system. president putin proposed investing billions to improve a highway in moscow and construct a brand new high speed rail line. while commy in a and russia are betting on their economic future, our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a bill that will unquestionably set us back. it guts investments in railroads, gutting investment for amtrak and eliminating all funding for high speed rail. it cuts intercity passenger rail despite recent reports showing that rail has been an area of growth. according to the brookings institute, last year, amtrak was our nation's fastest growing mode of transportation in 15 years. in providence, rhode island, we

have seen ridership increase by 157% and amtrak isn't just used by tourists. demand for intercity travel has grown exponentially and our competitors abroad have noticed, investing billions in their rail systems. here, some of my colleagues have decided to slash funding and put our rail system in danger. this doesn't only jeopardize the nation's rail system, it slashes funding for municipal and state governments, hoping to invest in critical and local projects. it cuts funning for the tiger program an rescinds $237 million of the $500 million appropriated for the current year. the tiger program invests in innovative, multimodal transportation projects, investing in bridges and other transportation infrastructure that are important to local economies. third, it encourages local

communities to plan for the future and think about infrastructure that will spur grolte and create jobs. this is how federal investments are supposed to work. unfortunately, this bill once again leaves our state and local partners without the resources needed to help strengthen local communities. sadly, it gets worse. this bill also jeopardizes the still fragile recovery of our housing market and communities at risk. it decimates funding for the community development block grant signed into law by a republican president who recognized the importance of assisting communities by providing flexibility to invest in everything from wastewater treatment to hughesing and economic development. this is a lifeline for families facing difficulties and provides critical resources to aid economic development and improve quality of life. today this bill cuts cdbg funding levels in half to the lowest level in funding since it began, a billion dollar less

than president ford requested for the program in 1975. this bill cuts our investments so drastically we've reduced projects to to less than 60% of what they were four decades ago this bill clearly does not reflect our values and priorities as a nation. i urge my colleagues to reject this reckless and shortsighted bill and work together on a plan to respond to our urgent transportation and infrastructure needs and a plan that dedicates resources to strengthening local communities. our ability to promote growth, create jobs, and compete in a global economy depends on it. i thank the gentleman and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? the gentlewoman is recognized or five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i am in strong opposition to the underlying bill as it makes damaging cuts

to community development block grants. a cut of $1.6 billion, a nearly 50% reduction from the previous year, is not smart policymaking. these draconian cuts will no doubt have lasting harmful effects on our communities throughout the country. ms. chu: since 1974, over 1,200 communs relied on cdbg funds to support development projects and make other important improvements. these funds are used in providing social services for the poor and senior citizens, improving dilapidated housing facilities, supporting local food banks and maintaining local parks. cdbg funds are critical investments made by the federal government to bring benefits to local communities. my district, for example, stands to lose almost $2.2 million next year if the cuts go into effect. that's nearly half of what they

got last year. and it's on top of hundreds of thousands of cities in my district that have already lost due to the poorly designed automatic cuts known as sequestration. the city of pasadena will see their funding drop from $1.7 billion to under $1 million. the city of alhambra will see funding drop from $800,000 to $430,000. these cuts are more than lines on a piece of paper. they will have real impacts on my neighbors and my community. take people for people a food ank run by the west side neighbor valley church council for 25 years. it provides homeless and needy families with clothes and bobbings of food. during the recession, they saw a 0% spike in the numbers of families who came to them for help. last year, they were able to to support hundreds of millions of

people -- the hundreds of millions that are suffering right now and hundreds of families stay afloat with local donations and a $27,000 grant through cdbg. but this year, because of federal government cuts, they ill receive 75% less, nearly $7,000. but people for people isn't the only program that will get hit. countless other nonprofit service organizations around the san gabriel valley will be forced to serve fewer low income residents at a time when they need it most. cdb fwmbings funds have helped fund tutoring, small business assistance, senior services, food assistance, and fair housing services. cities will have to cut back on home he rehabilitation programs that will improve blighted neighborhoods and facilities, improvements that make cities safer and more accessible and

few you are construction projects means fewer construction jobs, too. during this time of economic recovery, we cannot pull out the rug from programs that are vital to helping our constituents. our cities, our communities, and our constituents cannot afford these trastic cuts to cdbg funding. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this terrible bill. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the speaker. my colleagues, rye today because our transportation h.u.d. appropriations act is insufficient to maintain our national transportation infrastructure and invest properly in community development and safe, affordable housing.

mr. conyers: these transportation-h.u.d. appropriation act really guts investments, critical to to strong, sustainable communities. and in particular, it decimates the community development block grants program, slashing it in half to the lowest level the program began in 1975. this isn't just something that hurts democrats, it hurts republicans, it hurts everybody. it's across the board. and so for the community to work and rogram ensure access to decent, affordable housing, provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to reate jobs through the

expansion and retention of businesses, we've got to reject this proposal before us. ommunities across the country rely on the community development block grants to provide critical services for low-income people and their families as well as the economic development assistance, to small businesses and infrastructure improvements. till this day, the community development block grants remains the principled source of revenue for localities to use in devising flexible economic to prevent and social deterioration in low-income neighborhoods and communities throughout the nation. these grants are an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious

challenges facing their communities, making a difference in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the nation. ow, detroit is a long standing community block grantee receiving on average $33 funding while al wayne county, which detroit is in, receives an additional $5.3 million. yet, this proposal in the appropriations bill would drastically cut these funds. and the cdbg program in detroit in wayne county includes preserving low and moderate-income neighborhoods, offering a range of housing choices, constructing urban infrastructure, improving the

urban and rural communities, increasing the quality of neighborhood-based living and decreasing negative environmental impacts. and so for my conservative friends to continue to focus reducing the deficit and particularly doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable americans is unnecessary and not appreciated. although deficit reduction is congress nt task, can't balance the budgets on the backs of working families and reducing programs like the community development block going the ome is wrong direction. what i would say, this is the second major cut for the

community development block ants funding since the great recession. the cdbg coalition consisting of national organizations representing locally elected officials, state and local government practitioners, development organizations and nonprofit organizations all strongly oppose these cuts. these are individuals working daily in their communities with the most acute awareness of what their communities need and their constituents. so in support of them and their constituents, we must fund cdbg formula grants at no less than the $3.3 billion in f.y. 2014. so mr. speaker, once again i ask the congress to stop trying to balance the budget on the

backs of working families. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california ise? the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. during the appropriations process, over 100 members and i expressed concerns about the low-funding level for community development block grants. these grants are one of the most successful, cost-effective federal programs that encourage economic growth in our cities d communities across the country. mrs. negrete mcleod: for every $100 of cdbg leads to an additional $3.55 of investment from outside sources. in california's 35th congressional district, the cities of pamona, chino, fontana and rialto where people of all parties reside,

currently receive community development block grant funding. this funding is used to built affordable housing, invest in energy efficiency, water conservation, gang prevention and after-school programs. these programs maintain strong neighborhoods and promote a higher quality of life in the districts. with the proposed cuts in these bills, it's estimated they'll lose 50% of funding for next year. i strongly oppose these devastating cuts. i ask that other members consider their communities and oppose these cuts too. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the entleman from maryland rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me start with the fact that i choose to believe that mr. latham does not like this bill. mr. latham's not listening to

me. mr. chairman -- mr. chairman, i wanted to say i start my debate that i choose to believe that you do not like this bill. i know you. i've worked with you over a long period of time. this bill is insufficient to meet the obligations of this subcommittee. it is unworthy of the support of this house. mr. chairman, there are many things wrong with the 2014 transportation and housing and urban development bill, but perhaps nonmore egregious than the severely painful cuts to the community development block grants. now, let me start with this observation. this is fought about a poor people's program. it helps some poor people, but it helps communities -- rich, moderate and poor. this is not about the 47%.

this is about the 100%. the community development block grants program was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 1974 and signed into law by the president, gerald ford, former minority leader of this house, president of the united states. from its beginning, it's served as a model of how bipartisan compromise in congress can help tackle important challenges at the local level. for nearly 40 years these grants have been awarded on a formula basis to state and local governments for infrastructure development, the creation and maintenance of affordable housing units and anti-poverty initiatives. it makes communities better. it empowers members of congress to be able to help their local communities who elect them. these grants save lives in our largest cities and in our smallest towns. in alaska, in hawaii and in

maryland. the cuts in this bill would reduce community development block grants by more than half. america is not bankrupt. america need not claim defeat and retreat. america has the resources if it has the will to grow our economies, to grow our communities and to make them better. we appropriated around $3.8 billion for these grants in fiscal year 2012. while this bill would cut that figure by just $1.2 -- to $1.6 billion. to put this in perspective, in 001, we spent $4.7 billion under george bush ii on community development block grants. after years of windling away of these grants to help the most vulnerable have a chance at finding jobs and putting roofs over their heads, it would be

devastating to communities whose budgets are already pushed to the limit and rely on these grants to serve their residents, all of their residents. our friends on the other side of the aisle talk a great deal about fiscal responsibility. what about social responsibility? i am a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility, but fiscal responsibility is not coupled with social responsibility, it is not worthy of this house or this country. community development block grants are an instrument of our common citizenship and, yes, our common humanity. in this case, however, they are a poignant example of a republican strategy of disinvestment in america and communities our and their people. surely we're better than that, mr. chairman, when we considered veterans' affairs, military construction and

included robust funding, we knew those funds had to come from some where. here it comes. like our republican friends, we believe we must invest in a strong national defense. as chairwoman mikulski has been doing on the senate appropriations committee. but we do not share the republican majority's view that we ought to abandon our domestic priorities in the process. we're better than that. and none of us are surprised that their strategy to deal with the sequester is to ignore its consequences and impose cuts even deeper, even deeper, even deeper than the sequester calls for. in fact, i know of a number of our colleagues on the republican side who see the folly in such strategy but cannot or will not speak up for fear of the political consequences from the radical right. this bill is proof that such a

strategy is under way. it's not only -- it is a recipe for gridlock as democrats in the house and senate could never agree to it. reject this bill. we can and must do better. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia rise? ms. norton: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: mr. speaker, this is a slush-and-burn budget. i don't know why we bother. whether you're looking at the community block grant or the section i'm going to say a few ords about, the amtrak section . you know, we're supposed to re-authorize a highway bill this year, a railway bill this year. that certainly won't matter if the transportation and h.u.d.

appropriations bill simply ignores authorized infrastructure spending and building. the -- we have amtrak because the private sector insisted that we take it. they showed, they proved that you can't run a railroad without public subsidy. it is -- amtrak has done an amazing job considering how little public subsidy it has gotten. the private sector gave it to us because they couldn't handle the operating -- operating expenses and they couldn't handle the capital expenses. now, amtrak, by the ticket, is basically handling the operating expenses.

shame on us that we will not come forward to do our part with the capital expenses with a 37% cut in capital expenses. that is the way, mr. speaker, to run a railroad into the ground that otherwise is doing very well on its own dime. 35% difference between these two bills. republican bill is bipartisan. we're about to pass a bill here that nobody would consider in the senate and that the president would have to veto. why are we going through these appropriation exercises that amount to nothing? amtrak is more than sustaining itself. virtually each month this year it has had record ridership. amtrak actually recovers almost 80% of its operating costs out

of ticket revenue. that's amazing right there. seems to me amtrak ought to be rewarded rather than, as this bill does, punished. amtrak carries 31 million passengers every year. . 20,000 people need amtrak all over america. 47 states. yeah, we know about it here on the east. 46 states. one million daily commuters. this is our national railroad. nbelievable that we would be content to see every single