i would like to talk a little bit about how verification strategies have improved. what are the methods now used? >> i want to come back to the pmd's for a moment. in 2011 one of the papers obtained a list of 10 areas where iran had allegedly investigated aspects of developing nuclear weapons. they included design work, high explosives for triggering, fusing, and now the director general has traveled to tehran a week ago and has come back with an agreement that will allow the iaea to enter into this activity

and reach a conclusion -- i think it is 90 days after the implementation of the security council resolutions -- none of us knows what is in this agreement. to my mind there are questions of if you are given an explanation that this was peaceful activity it does not mean that the activity was also carried out for other purposes. how the director general will formulate his report will be a question of artistry and diplomacy as far as i'm concerned. so what about these activities? if you assume that these accuracy -- activities were carried out and were successful it means that i run has --iran

has more knowledge. it would mean that the time between if there were to be a breakout would be shorter than it would otherwise be. that is an important consideration. but it is already factored into the fact that the agency will be doing inspections and gathering information on critical things on a daily basis, essentially in real time. it does not really affect what could he do other than that? that is one aspect that i am ok with. the other aspect is supposing it finds something down stream that is going on. how can it determine that this is something new versus something that predated the report that will be coming in december? that will be a thorny issue along the way. as far as the technology, it all depends on what kind of facility you are looking at.

what the materials are, and so on. the iaea today has over 100 different verification systems that are approved for use in the field. to get there is now a much more demanding process. you go through a specification evaluation of prototypes until you ultimately get to equipment that can be relied upon. and the reliability and efficacy -- it is still some of these old seals that are in place. compared to digital ones that have fiber-optic receptors that can be reviewed automatically. the surveillance cameras of old where the movie cameras that were used and engineered so they would start and stop and stretch

it out so that you could get a time of surveillance that would be maybe three months. now you have large-scale digital storage. the equipment is nothing like what it was. the reliability is phenomenal and the performance and the information given and the fact that it incorporates protective features, so that you simply cannot fiddle with it and expect you can defeat this equipment. you can heated up, you can put the wrong voltage into it, but that would be a separate matter. it very much depends on an enrichment plant and the equipment that is appropriate. an isotope production reactor is very different. it is all designed according to those looking in the field. obviously you are more concerned

with eyeballs. an intelligent inspector who is trained and knows what to look for is worth any number of items of equipment. >> we are going to open it up to your questions now. say if your question is directed to one or the other of the panel. wait for the mike. >> this is a question for tom. the iranians in the past have demonstrated great sensitivity to the nationality of the inspectors. i wonder if you can tell us how much of a concern that is for the future, both in maintaining the integrity of the inspections of iran, but also the precedents set for other countries around the world vetoing inspectors.

>> inspectors can come from any one of 176 countries. any country can say yes or no to any individual inspector that is proposed. iran does not except american inspectors today. whether it will in the future, i am hopeful that it will prove a circumstance in which iran will change his attitude in this regard. that would be a very helpful thing. i think there is a need for more americans on the staff. at the present time, the iaea budget -- one quarter of it is paid for by the united states. the iaea has kept the full

support of the united states government at 25%. it also donates about $50 million a year and extra budgetary contributions that allow the agency to do think that it otherwise could not do. in affected entitles the united states to have one out of every four staff being an american. a few years later -- a few years ago the united states gave up about 5%. the last time i checked the numbers were running about 12% for americans. part of the problem that we face is that we don't send enough people -- good people over there. this is due to the fact that the experts would come from national laboratories, the federal government, from academia, and

from the industry. and we don't have a mechanism which makes it in the u.s. interest for people to go. i am hopeful that part of this legislative review will be to address what things could be done to assist in this regard. >> are they any other nationalists -- nationalities that are barred? >> i just don't know the answer to that. >> i know a lot of the inspectors have been from scandinavia, latin america, and italy. >> i have some experience in

dealing with iraq. the criticism has already been made that the verification has too many steps. we have seen with iraq how easy is it is -- how easy it is to play cat and mouse. how would you answer the criticism that there is so much time lag built into this, giving iran numerous opportunities to barricade? that the purpose of the inspection could be mitigated by that? >> you're right that this is a criticism that is being led the. i think it is one of the reasons why we have talked about the agreement. the fact is that under the additional protocol, the iaea

can request access to a site and under normal circumstances they can get access within two hours. no authorization. there is an inspector in the country, they are properly equipped, and they are able to go in a short amount of time. they have an opportunity to say will the satisfy you? if the agency says no, and the state then says what you can get in, immediately the red flag goes up. there is no cat and mouse. everybody is going to be

watching this one piece of desert, right? in the agreement there is a process that no more than 24 days can pass. within less than four weeks the iaea gets in, or they are in violation of the agreement. if we see anything going out the back door, iran is in violation of the agreement. let's talk specifics. what are we worried about? are we worried they are going to build an underground facility? if they are, you cannot get rid of it in 24 days. radiation and nuclear materials last a long time. or if we go when and we notice

materials, you cannot say it is a baby milk factory. again, it is for us to decide are they in compliance or not. there is no scenario that i can envision where iran would say we are going to take the chance. i don't want to be reassuring because when i tell me -- when a nuclear engineer tells me a nuclear facility is perfectly safe, i get nervous. there are things that can go wrong. but if they tried, we will catch them. -- but if they try it, we will catch them. the agreement that george w bush negotiated with the north koreans in 2005, which contain no verification provisions at

all, was five pages long. the treaty of moscow, which was between george bush and vladimir putin, was three pages long. it got 71 votes in the senate. this is over 100 pages long. it is like no other nonproliferation agreement that has been negotiated. the details are here. as jim says, we have done our homework. we are very open to understanding and constructive criticism. we are giving a defense to a -- to what we believe is a very effective agreement. we are assuming they are going to try to cheat, and we know that we can catch them. >> right there in the middle. >> while we're on the subject of

criticism of the deal, i think that everything that has been said in terms of the strength of the agreement in the nuclear space is accurate, is a good deal, is a win-win in terms of diplomacy. the criticism that i worry about over the next 60 days, within the body politic, is you are giving iran over time all this money with which to conduct the activities in the region that we put them on the state-sponsored terrorism list year after year. i would be appreciative of your comment about that space. >> i would like to talk about

that for a second. i am confused by this argument. i am deeply confused for a couple of reasons. it seems to me if you don't like iran, they are terrorists, then you don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. what is worse then iran involved in terrorism? it is ironic involved in terrorism with -- it is iran involved in terrorism with a nuclear weapon. what is that mean, then? what that means is those people are saying we cannot have any nuclear agreement. they are imagining that there is going to be a nuclear agreement where iran does everything we want them to do on the nuclear and they get zero in return. they don't get any relief. i am not aware of any agreement

in the history of humankind that would work like that. if you are saying we cannot give any sanctions relief because they will use it for terrorism you are essentially saying no agreements relief restraints. >> i think people are brought to be concerned about iran's behavior. they threaten our neighbors and americans. they're holding american citizens. they are engaged in activities in countries that lead to real regional instability and insecurity. we are not blind to that. ever started with a question about is this turning a page. we are assuming that iran will not change. we don't want them to have access to a nuclear weapon or get there quickly.

we intend to increase our capability to challenge iran throughout the region, because we do expect that some of this money will enhance their activity. >> i would point out that iran is under the most crippling sanctions system that have ever been imposed. it is not a shortage of money that is preventing them from terrorism. they are doing that anyway. is there an incremental risk? are we going to be taking steps for allies to match that? you bet. there is also a very interesting set of steps that is coming out. by how much does saudi arabia outspend iran? this is not just purely a money

scheme. it is a capabilities scheme. it is a sharing scheme. it is what we have leaders here for the camp david summit. we are expecting the neighborhood is going to be bad because the neighborhood is bad. but it gets worse if they have a nuclear program. >> way for the microphone. -- wait for the microphone. >> of all the joys and jubilation that we are getting clips of, it is all young people out there patiently waiting for the sanctions to be lifted. with all these measures that have been put into this agreement to stop iran are making a nuclear bomb, it seems

to me that this regime will be on a suicide mission if they do not comply with this agreement. they have a lot of answering to do to their own domestic population and also to the world . i need your input on this, thank you. >> people say it is the regime and the regime makes all the decisions and public opinion has nothing to do with it. public opinion does have something to do with the policies undertaken by the government. they do a lot of things in the region that most iranians do not support. they would like to see their money spent at home. but in 2009, there was an earthquake call the green revolution. the government stolen election to reelect a leader.

millions of people came out on the street and said where's my vote. even though the regime crushed the protest, it shook them to the core. so they made sure that in 2013 when there was another election, there was a reasonable choice of candidates. the new team has been able to negotiate this agreement. this is their second time around. they have succeeded. they are well aware of popular sentiment. they know what sanctions have done. unemployment is extremely high. the new leader gives hope and economic development tops. some of the money that iran will

receive lines up and has -- lines up with hezbollah, yes of course it will. but i will argue that if this government wants to retain legitimacy -- and remember what the supreme leader here is doing , he is making a pact with the great satan, and everyone knows this -- if the system wants to continue, it will have to meet some of the aspirations of its people, i would argue. wait for the microphone, please. >> thank you for a fascinating panel. a few questions. first of all, in parallel to the inspection regime that will be led by the iaea, is there any

provision unilaterally for the administration to collect the best minds? to alleviate a lot of this inherent suspicion? on another issue, the president gave an interview about one month ago to israeli tv, where he conceded that the breakout time could be reduced to nearly zero? i would love to hear from your experts. how can that be ameliorated and reinforced? >> if i understand your first

question, how are we going to make sure that the best people are working on this problem and that the iaea and government have what they need? that is why we are here. the iaea received a tremendous amount of support from the united states. they get great to hickey's from the national laboratories. we help train their people. in terms of the technical capabilities and leadership, the iaea already has that. we are working closely with them to determine what more they need. there is a thermostat that you can set.

they will send an alarm out and tell us when they have gone above the enrichment level. we will expect that there will be more recesses -- resources. our military and intelligent -- intelligence capabilities will change over time. we are constantly evaluating those things. there are still some decisions that have to be made. just as we learned lessons from the north korean agreements, we are learning lessons. in terms of the breakout timeline, what we have been able to achieve in the jcp aoa is predictability. some of the documents are laid

out very clearly in the jcp 08. there is a strict path on those enrichment levels. more importantly the amount of enrichment material they may have. beyond that, there is a research and development plan that iran must provide that provides predictability and is consistent with their energy needs and development. it's in the year 14 -- right now we have a plan through year 13. they will have to continually update that based on their development. if the plan says we are going to have 5000 that appears inconsistent with their obligations, we will still have

the right to say, that appears inconsistent with us. we can work to impose sanctions. we can work to get our allies equally as concerned. the predictability is what we have been able to achieve, and the iaea will get access to that plan. dr. ernest moniz has been working out these provisions. we don't -- the agreement does not provide for the exponential increase in enrichment capacity or a drop off. >> can i follow up on that for a second? i offer several ideas.

assessment is not about imagining all the bad things that can go wrong and listing them. assessment is you try to put parameters and measure the risks involved and calculate trade-offs. how do you do that? you compare one thing to another . we have talked about this being a stronger agreement compared to -- the most robust nonproliferation agreement in history. a second evaluation criterion is how does it compare to the alternatives? a lot of folks are saying 15 years is not long enough. a part of me has to fight hard and resist going down the road of i heard this song before.

prime minister netanyahu said we need at least a few weeks or months notice the four iran does something. -- a few weeks or months. john kerry said we are going to have six months. then he was told six months is not enough. then they come back with an agreement that says one year. then we hear actually we need two years. i don't know if there is any number that we could choose that would satisfy people. it seems to me that 15 years is a long time. less compared with the alternatives. let's say we use military force to decimate the program. after doing that, iran would be

able to recent constitute -- reconstitute his program and roughly four years. what we do? we wipe it out again, i guess? we are talking about an agreement that is going to go for 15 years, compared to the four years they would take to reconstitute their program. all of these debates are important, but how you judge things is compare them to other things. you compare them to other agreements and your alternatives. >> we have the iaea being involved which is an international organization that grew out of president eisenhower's proposal of 1953. it is responsible to its member and one of its obligations is to respect the sovereignty of each of these states. it cannot act in an impromptu

or whiplash effect. it has to proceed with due caution so as to avoid false allegations on the one hand. while being mindful that if there is something going on, that it must act in sufficient time to allow an adequate response. and that will be a problem if depending on what goes forward. and so these questions of the 24 days, etc., to my mind, that's sort of a period during which the degree of certainty would continue to build up. not maybe it's denied or not yet permitted to go to a particular location. but there are a lot of other things that will be going on in a circumstance like that. so my own perception is maybe clouded by the fact that i'm an optimist. and i want this to succeed. but i think that this is a new era. and that i'm hopeful that iran will seize upon this as a chance to demonstrate its

commitment to the obligations that it's entering into. because if it doesn't we're going to know about it. and the things that interference with activities or just the color of how much cooperation is there is it something which is demonstrated on a daily basis by providing assistance that the inspectors can actually do their work. or are there things that get in the way? so that will be known soon. >> and i think we know the iranians have abided by the interim agreement that was reached back in 2013. quite faithfully. for the last couple of years. and that's a good precedent. ok. wait for the microphone. >> my name is mike sonder but everybody here agrees that the agreement is a good agreement. my curiosity is since there's no longer any state secrets, when you use the word "tough

negotiations," what didn't they agree to? because at this particular point, only what they didn't want to do is relevant. what did the united states want that iraq -- iran did not want? there should be no secrets on this. i was once the director of oin vegases at the office of naval research. we know what was going on. if somebody asked us a question, we either said i don't want to tell you, or i'm going to tell you. tell us what they didn't agree to. >> no. [laughter] i'm not going to tell you. we will have lots of discussions over the next several months about well, iranians won. or they got all these things they wanted. >> that wasn't my question. >> i understand. >> the question was what did you want that they did not agree to? >> -- >> you can say i don't want to

tell you. but tell me, we'll find out. >> i'm not sure i understand the second part of the question. but i'm happy to talk about the ver of indication and why we think the deal is a good one. >> that wasn't my question. >> and it's his prerogative not to answer. >> inaudible] >> i can't provide you with an answer to that question. >> we have run out of time. those who have more questions, please if our folks here have time, they will be happy to answer them. and check out the report of tom shay and it should be available on our website and on the search for common ground website in a couple of days. thank you so much for coming. >> c-span has partnered with new hampshire's union leader newspaper to host the republican presidential candidates forum on august 3 in manchester new hampshire. the likely g.o.p. candidates have been invited to participate. we talked to the publisher of the union leader for more details about the event.

>> at unionleader.com this is the headline. outfoxed. voters forum to be the first for the g.o.p. and joining us from manchester is the publisher of the new hampshire union leader joe mcquaid. thank you very much for being with us. >> steve, thanks for having me and thanks for c-span playing a part in this. >> we are pleased to be a partner. so let's talk about this forum. how and why did it come about? >> it came about because of -- we were seven months or 6 1/2 months from the first voters getting a chance to winwinnow the field as if it were iowa, new hampshire and south carolina. and fox got the first official debate from the iron c and fox said only 10 candidates based on a compilation of national polling done in august were going to determine the 10 seats for the debate.

and as you know, steve, there are a lot more credible serious candidates than that. and we thought it unfair that only 10 got to be on the fox stage. so we said about a month ago, that we were going to do our own event. this was also prompted in part by a letter that more than 50 new hampshire republicans, including a couple of former governors, wrote to fox protesting this format. and asking that they instead break the top polling candidates into two groups. and have two back-to-back debates. but fox didn't want to do that. >> your co-sponsors including the post courier and charleston south carolina, and the cedar rapids iowa, gazette. so what is the format and what's the objective? >> a couple of things. i'm really tickled about those two newspapers. because we are -- know them.

because we're all in a group called the independent newspaper group. which by its name is independently owned newspapers in the country. and there aren't a lot of those anymore. and it happens there's one in south carolina. and one or two in iowa. the format is pretty simple and straightforward. all the candidates will be introduced in short bio lines. read by an announcer. one at a time the candidates will be called up on stage to sit with the moderator who is a gentleman named jack heath who runs a radio show in new hampshire. and is quite well respected among candidates. he doesn't ask gotcha questions. he asks tough questions. the questions are going to come in part from the survey that we're going to put on unionleader.com. asking readers to pick five out of 25 or 26 topics that they would like to see discussed. and jack heath will be

formulating the questions based on that. and will put them one at a time to their candidates. we haven't gotten as far as to mixing up how many questions there will be and who gets what question. but i know that we're not going to announce the order of the candidates until that night. because i don't want the first one skipping out after. and the laugh one not coming in until it's his or her turn. and we expect we're going to have upward of 15 candidates. which would be great. and which is what iowa and new hampshire and south carolina are all about. looking at all the candidates before making a decision. and looking at them comparing what they say at the same time in the same place. which is what fox is currently unable to accomplish. >> the forum will be live here on c-span radio. and c-span television on monday, august 3, beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. you have already been in touch with a number. candidates and their campaign

staffs. what are they telling you about this approach that you and others are putting forward? >> well, they've -- like it. especially the ones who are not the best known candidates. donald trump isn't going to have any trouble getting on the fox stage based on his polling numbers. but a lot of the other candidates have trouble with the fact that donald trump gets on. and they may not. and as senator lindsay graham has said brad pitt could get on that stage based on national polling and candidates like graham, like governor john kasich who is not officially in the race but is going to be in the race, are outside looking in. and that -- that troubles them. senator graham is actually having a press conference in new hampshire later today to continue to protest the way this is going down with fox. but we've now had eight

candidates accept our invitation without reservation. they really haven't asked much. we send them an invite to outlines the format. and they're happy to do it. i think especially because they appreciate the early primary and caucus states. >> and finally joe mcquaid as the publisher of the union leader in new hampshire you have seen a lot of campaigns and a lot of candidates, 15 official republicans in this race. soon to be 17. have you ever seen such a crowded field? >> no. there have been a lot of names on our ballot. because it used to not cost much to get on. but credible candidates i think the democrats had eight once. there was a woman and seven guys and i think we called them snow white and the seven dwarfs. and republicans back in 1980 with ronald reagan had quite a few. but not this number, steve. >> full details available

online at unionleader.com. joe mcquaid publisher of the manchester union leader joining us from manchester. we look forward to covering the forum on august 3. >> you're welcome, steve. to c-span once again. >> tonight on c-span, the house debates highway and transit funding. president obama talks about the nuclear agreement with iran, at a white house news briefing. and then more on the iran deal from britain's foreign secretary and the atlantic council looks at how the international community will enforce the restrictions on iran's nuclear program. tomorrow on c-span3 a house hearing on the federal air marshall service readiness and their work in guarding commercial aviation. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. and at 2:30 fed chair janet yellen and a hearing of the senate banking committee talking about the u.s. economy and traits. -- interest rates. watch that on c -- on c-span3

and c-span.org. >> when francis fulsom married president grover cleveland she became a first lady with many firsts. the first and only first played to be married at the white house and at age 21 the youngest woman to serve at first lady. when she died on october 29, 1947, she lived an additional 51 years after leaving the white house. longer than any other first lady. francis cleveland. this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span's original series. "first ladies. influence and image." examining the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on american history tv. on c-span3. >> it's summer. and time for another debate on highway funding. we're joined by laura barron-lopez who covers congress for huffington post. this time the house taking up a

five-month extension. what's the deadline they're facing and why just five months of funding? >> they're facing a july 31 deadline. this -- the reason that they're only going five months is because the highway trust fund has been struggling for years. since 2009 to be exact. the congress has passed a number of short-term patches since 2009. because they've been having trouble finding the money to pay for an overhaul of the fund. because states are struggling to make up the difference in money to pay for roads bridges, and highways that are in disrepair. so congressman ryan and the ways and means committee put forward a five-month extension to get the highway trust fund and the transportation department to the end of the year. december 18. and then they'll need to do this all offer again. and try to find hopefully a long-term fix. >> and to be clear they're facing an end of july deadline.

but as these things go, getting an earlier start than usual, still a short-term extension. if they don't pass something by the end of july, what happens? does money get shut off going to states for highway projects? >> well, yes. so transportation secretary anthony fox sent a letter to state officials yesterday saying that if there is not a short-term patch then the federal highway administration will have to close down its doors. and have to further the number of its employees and there won't be personnel to do their job, to help aid states with processing approvals. for different projects. or assisting with highway projects. and definitely have an impact. and the states are already feeling it. a number of state officials are tennessee and from arkansas have told me that they've had to pull millions of dollars worth of projects due to the uncertainty surrounding the highway trust fund. >> and you're tweeting about

the administration sort of begrudgingly accepting this short-term or five-month patch being proposed by the house. your tweet saying the white house unhappily accepts house bill extending highway trust fund for five months. won't veto it. the obama administration supports passage of m.r. 3038 to give house and senate necessary time to complete work on a long-term bill. and an ideal world for the white house, what's a long-term bill look like? >> a six-year bill would be what the white house would prefer. like to see. in order to get to the six-year bill, though, congress has to come up with roughly $100 billion that would span over that -- those six years. to make up for the gap in the highway trust fund right now. and that's not going to be easy. so far, in the senate, and in the house, there's been little discussion about what that would be for a long-term bill. >> and let's look at the senate. you're writing about it. on huffingtonpost.com. and the headline says senate

g.o.p. keeps eye on long-term highway bill. and the clock winds down. you say there's bicameral support in the senate for multi-year highway bill. is that a bit of a surprise? >> it probably is a bit of a surprise. democrats have been pushing this for a long time. saying even slightly threatening that they might block a short-term extension. but yesterday, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said that he is in favor of a long-term bill. that he's not going to be pursuing just a shortstop gap measure. he wants to see something bigger coming out of the senate. and so he's keeping the pressure on. but again, yesterday, while he was talking to his republican conference a little came out of the meeting as to what they would use to pay for such a long-term bill. so there could be the option of maybe in the senate pushing something that goes to the end of the fiscal year which would technically be at the end of september. and then after that, making

sure that a long-term bill is passed. >> laura barron-lopez reporting on the highway bill @lbarronlopez and at huffingtonpost.com. >> the house passed the temporary highway and transit bill in a 312-119 vote. the house returns at 9:00 a.m. eastern time to consider a bill to provide drought relief to california. watch our live coverage here on c-span. now house debate on the highway bill. the temporary extension funds highway projects through mid december. this hour-long debate begins with transportation and infrastructure committee chair bill shuster. and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3038. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution rule 362, i call up the bill h.r. 3038, to provide an extension of federal aid highway highway safety, motor

carrier safety transit and for other purposes funded in the highway trust fund and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 338, a bill to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 362, the bill is considered as read. the bill will be debatable for one hour controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. shuster, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 15 minutes.

the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3038 the highway and transportation funding act of 2015, part 2. this bill extends the federal surface transportation programs through december 18 of 2015. h.r. 3038 is a clean extension and funds the programs that authorizes levels for fiscal year 2014. the bill also ensures the solvency of the highway trust fund. we have an immediate critical need to address the solvency of the trust fund and extend the current surface transportation law. if congress fails to act, the states will not be able to be reimbursed for past expenses, projects and jobs across the country will be at risk, over 4,000 u.s. department of transportation employees will be furloughed. i appreciate chairman ryan's attention to this pressing issue as well as his commitment to addressing the solvency of

the trust fund. a long-term surface transportation re-authorization bill remains a top priority for this committee and it should be for this congress. i am committed to continuing to work with chairman ryan, ranking member defazio and others on achieving a long-term re-authorization bill. i believe this extension gives us our best shot, so i strongly urge all members to support 3038, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i ronically it was exactly one year ago today -- ironically it was exactly one year ago today that the chairman of the ways and means committee said they needed time to come together for funding a six-year surface transportation bill investing in our transportation system. one year ago today. there was an extension till

may. there was the extension until the end of the year. there was an extension to may. i think 34 temporary extensions we've seen now. and now we're talking about another temporary extension with the hope that maybe they can find some money under the couch cushions or pass tax reform and cut taxes on rich people and use dynamic scoring and put it in the trust fund. i don't know what their solution is. we've had a user-fee funded transportation system in this country since dwight david eisenhower was president. followed by ronald reagan who doubled the tax and ronald reagan also put transit into the highway trust fund, saying we should not ignore our population centers and are actually centers of economic growth. and then in 1993, granted it, democratic president,

democratic congress, but we didn't quite have the votes to increase the gas tax and bud shuster, our republican chair of the transportation committee back then, actual relation to the current chairman, he brought us quite a number of republicans to vote with the democrats to go with 18.3 cents a gallon and there it stood since 1993. we're hearing now you can't increase the gas tax, so i've offered alternatives. let's eliminate the gas tax and put a tax on a barrel of oil a fraction that goes into taxable transportation uses, which economists say wall street might eat part of that because they're speculating so much. exxonmobil might eat part of that. opec, hey, we might get saudi arabia to pay for a little bit of our infrastructure. i'm told, no, they can't do that. proposed just indexing the existing gas tax and bonding. pay it back over time with that increment. now, if we double index the gas

tax it might go up 1.7 cents next year, and there's apparently a fear in this place that if gas went up 1.7 cents a gallon unlike exxonmobil jacking it up 20 cents in may because memorial day is coming, but filling the potholes fixing the bridges, raising 1.7 cents, oh, my god, people will lose their elections. we've seen six republican states raise their gas tax and those same states said to us in testimony, it's not enough we're raising the gas tax. we need more federal investment. the system's falling apart. 140,000 bridges, 140,000 need replacement. 70% of the national highway system needs to be dug up and rebuilt. and our transit systems, $84 billion backlog to bring them up to a state of good repair. it's so bad in washington

d.c., they're killing people. they're killing people on the transit system because it is so outmoded. now if we made those investments and we made them in a more robust level than we're doing now, we could put hundreds of thousands of americans to work not just construction workers, you're talking manufacturing, you're talking small business, you're talking minority business enterprises, you're talking engineering, you're talking technical. the buy america requirements are the strongest in the whole government. it would have an incredible stimulus effect on the economy in addition of putting people back to work and we could climb back toward we were. dwight david eisenhower gave us a system that was the envy of the world. we were number one in infrastructure. we're now 16th. we're dropping like a rock. pretty soon we'll be down there with, you know, third-world countries in terms of state of our infrastructure in this country. it's embarrassing. it's pathetic. it's not necessary, and today we should be considering a long-term bill. we've introduced a viable

long-term bill. we proposed a way to pay for the first two years saying benedict arnold can't buy a pharmacy overseas but we're enjoying all the protections of our citizens, military but we don't want to pay for it and our infrastructure. but there are ways forward. there seems to be an incredible reluctance on our side saying, here we are again saying let's do a patch until december 18. meanwhile, the senate over there is spinning in who knows what kind of circles. they're proposing to get most of the money by reducing retirement for federal employees. now, that is a tremendous relationship to infrastructure and user fees. let's not get too far away from the idea of user pays. with that i retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is

recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to make note that the highway program funding mechanism expires at the end of this month. it expires. it means it runs out of funding. voting against this bill causes the program to shut down, causes a decline, a dropoff in investment in our nation's infrastructure. right now we're seeing growth, we're seeing increasing demand. as the gentleman from oregon just noted we're seeing underinvestment in our infrastructure system. we've got to increase the investment. we've got to work hard to address the outdated funding mechanism that funds our current highway system. as was noted, we have lost value in the current funding mechanism. having a user fee is absolutely critical, but a user fee that ensures the level of investment that we truly need. this extension gives us time to re-create that. we have been using the same user fee for decades. a user fee with static figures since 1993 as was just mentioned, and a user fee that

has conflicting federal policies that reduces the value of the income of this trust fund as a result of the corporate average fuel economy, cafe standards, that require greater fuel standards out of vehicles. so we've got to take a fresh look at this. we've got to take this time and use it wisely to ensure that we can ensure the level of funding that we need to invest in our nation's infrastructure. we need a fundamentally different approach and we need to do it without raising taxes. mr. speaker, back in our home state of louisiana we have some of the worst traffic in the nation for a reason of its size. we have an area that the interstate system, the only place in the nation where it literally drops down to one lane. the interstate. an incredible bottle neck in the same area where we're having a manufacturing renaissance, where we're seeing tens of billions of dollars in new economic development opportunities. yet, the infrastructure is struggling. the infrastructure is strangling that growth and strangling that investment. i urge all members to support

this. i urge all members to work together to ensure we develop a new funding stream that meets the demand of our crumbling infrastructure in this nation. i want to thank chairman shuster. i want to thank chairman ryan and ranking member defazio to ensure that this legislation moves forward. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, the ranking member of the surface transportation subcommittee -- the gentlewoman from washington, ranking member of the surface transportation subcommittee, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the majority has turned virtually its only congressional policy, tax savings on its head with useless short-term transportation bills and extensions. their short-term policy on the nation's highways, bridges and transit has simply transferred the transportation tax burden

to the state taxes of their constituents. 21 states and the district of columbia have raised their gas user fees six cents july 1. iowa new hampshire, pennsylvania rhode island, virginia, vermont, the district of columbia, south dakota, idaho, georgia, nebraska vermont. states going in that direction, michigan, north carolina, utah and washington state. states also considering user fee increases are kentucky missouri new jersey, south carolina. that makes almost half the states that congress has driven to state taxpayers alone. states that have nothing in common except the desire to keep their transportation infrastructure, the key to a

growing economy from completely disintegrating. meanwhile, their representatives in washington have continually failed to pay their part. on the average about 50% of the cost of state infrastructure with federal dollars. yet, the federal dollars are only a path through that goes right back to the states. for 22 years, we have allowed the federal user fee to remain fixed at 1993 levels, all though fuel efficiency long ago made that obsolete. . although american taxpayers have stepped up, they can't do their projects without a federal long-term bill. in the nation's capital, for example the iconic memorial bridge, gateway to arlington cemetery and the south and on the north, the national mall, is partially closed, leaving thousands of workers unable to

take metro bustos get to work. even brings like the h street bridge here which needs only repair is standing in the way of billions of dollars of nontransportation development here and nationwide system of whatever the congress does in the next authorization bill, two things must be done. we must put in pilots that instruct us, guide us, for new ways to fund transportation infrastructure in light of fuel efficiencies such as cars like my hybrid ford c-max. and most of all to be useful at all, we must have a six-year transportation bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

>> i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. here we are, last minute to avoid an infrastructure disaster across the country. how did we get here? well when we knew that we needed a substantial amount of money, the other side of the aisle found out that there was a little bit of money left and we had asked the -- asked several months ago to consider going to the end of the year, when we're doing tax reform, and we could find sufficient money to fund a four to six-year bill. they said no. they had to spend the last dime in the cookie jar, take it out of the cookie jar and that's what put us in this situation. what that has done is, at least seven states have almost closed

down their infrastructure projects. states that -- my state isn't affected by some of the northern states are affected because they have a very short work period. they're missing that work period. and states don't operate like the federal government. they have to pay their bills. they can't be spending and producing and printing paper money without backing. so we've let them down. so here we are asking to go where we wanted to go before to december. so i urge my -- the members to go and pass this legislation. and it's kind of interesting sometimes i think that there's a lot of amnesia around here. maybe we -- mr. speaker, i don't know if we can go down to the health clinic and get a supply of gingko, but it would be good to give the members on the other side of the aisle gingko to

help their memory. three years ago, they controlled the house, the senate and the white house. they could have passed this legislation. we would have a bill in place now. the president came in, i was there, ray lahood came out, cut the knees out of mr. oberstar when he was chairman and said, they weren't going to move forward take weren't going to raise taxes. now they call for raising taxes. 21 states have raised it. they've done the responsible thing. they have to do it. it's better for home to do it because the overhead and carrying charge is so great in washington. so they have to do it. going to the well instead of raising gas taxes? didn't we recommend that to the other side and they ignored it? i think we need a double dose of gingko. i think now we step up to the plate, we help mr. shuster and mr. ryan, they'll get us to december. the leadership of the house is committed to a long-term bill

and we'll get that done. everybody working together and maybe a few people having another little dose of gingko might help around here. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i must say, it's one of the most bizarre and fanciful things i've ever heard. there was never a viable plan to go to year end. the republicans never proposed revenue they just recently found revenues under couch cushions to get us through december 18. and they have not meaningfully addressed long-term funding for despite having control for 4 1/2 years and they blame us. the chairman started a meet sayinging, no user fees. you have now ruled out the traditional way of paying for infrastructure so they have to come up with something else but that was totally bizarre.

with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member. for months, mr. speaker, republicans have actually squandered an opportunity to develop and pass a long-term authorization for highway spending. and it's pretty regrettable. since may 19, republicans simply brought up and passed another two month extension. we've already heard, sometimes we lose count, is it 33 or 34 extensions? unfortunately, here we are two months later and we're careening gentleman again to another crisis, another republican-made crisis more gridlock for the highway trust fund right in the middle of the critical construction season. hundreds of thousands of jobs, as has been said and vie sal construction projects across the country are hanging in the balance. here we just have a few days

left. what do we know? we know the republicans done have a plan and they don't have any ideas. we have some ideas. and those ideas are contained in the grow america act. i'm one of the original co-sponsors. it's a six-year $478 billion bill that would be a framework for our discussions. we could put that on the floor here today vote on it, and make sure that we get under way. but oh no, we're stuck yet again with another extension and frankly i'm not really sure whether, when we get to december that we won't be stuck with yet another extension. this goes on and on and on. the american people have had enough. we know that if we invest in our infrastructure, we create jobs and we know that our infrastructure is falling apart. this seems like a no brainer to most americans and to working people and i don't understand what the complication here is, mr. speaker. but enough is enough. it's time for republicans to be the adults at the table, to bring up a plan and a program to

the floor for long-term authorization and put america back to work, not six months at a time, not two months at a time but for a long time. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i would like to remind my colleagues, the house -- mr. shuster: i would like to remind my colleagues, the house was controlled by their party, the senate was controlled by their party until january, and the white house is controlled by their party. they were going to squander $800 billion. if they'd listened to the ranking member at the time they'd have put a lot more money into the investment of infrastructure instead of that $800 billion bill about $68 billion went to transportation system of everybody can point fingers at everybody but the reality is, here we are.

we need to extend this to give the ways and means committee and the finance committee in the senate to figure out the dollars in a responsible way, not to continue to raise the debt and the deficit but find a responsible funding level to get us to a six-year bill, which i'm committed to. i know chairman ryan has said many, many times he's committed to. our leadership in the house is committed to a long-term bill. so again, instead of pointing fingers at each other, let's figure out a way to move forward together and i believe we will. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield -- are you ready? i yield to the gentleman from minnesota one minute. could i inquire as to the time left? before we proceed.

the speaker pro tempore: you have four minutes. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, members of the house, the simple truth is, as has been articulated so well here today by my colleagues, that this nation desperately needs a long-term transportation funding bill to repair our nation's crumbling infrastructure, not another kick the can down the road short-term, temporary, convoluted fix. last week, congress appropriately honored the late chairman of the transportation committee jim oberstar, with the naming of his hometown post office in chisholm, minnesota. mr. nolan: what a wonderful

tribute it was to chairman oberstar. but here we are once again, kicking the can down the road on the issue that jim oberstar cared most about. as chairman, jim worked hard to ensure the committee drafted good strong, bipartisan legislation. that's what we need here today. the transportation committee -- if the transportation committee were allowed to do that, i have every confidence that we would indeed write a long-term transportation funding bill. mr. speaker, the fact is, the trains are running off the tracks, the bridges are falling down, the wastewater treatment facilities are overflowing, so let's do right by our good friend, the former congressman, jim oberstar. let's create a long-term fix to our national transportation and infrastructure. mr. speaker, i would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert an article recently into the record at this point.

thank you mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: may i inquire how much time each side has? the speaker pro tempore: seven minutes. mr. shuster: theavend other side? the speaker pro tempore: 3 1/2 minutes. mr. shuster: i recognize the gentleman, mr. graves. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. graves: thank you,, mr. -- thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that very much. i want to associate myself with the words of my colleagues who just spoke on the need to do this and the need far long-term transportation bill. i remember chairman oberstar working diligently to try to do that and the six or seven extensions we had but never did come up with a transportation bill. that's why we're working so hard to make sure we have a good, bipartisan bill. i do rise in support of h.r. 3038. it's going to extend the current

transportation law until december 18, until we can get that long-term bill in place. as chairman of the committee on highways and transit, i believe it's critical for -- critical for congress to come together on this bipartisan long-term, sur vas -- surface re-authorization. in my home state of missouri we have 10,000 bridges begging for our attention. last month i held a hearing on the transportation needs of rural america. our roads an bridges demonstrate why we need a strong federal program. it's critical to moving people and goods and to the overall health of this economy. i'm committed to working with chairman shuster and chairman ryan and others to get a re-authorization bill done. federal surface transportation programs are set to expire at the end of the month. chong has to act to ensure the programs continue the sol generalcy and the highway trust fund is addressed. state and local governments need to plan for projects with confidence. they need certainty, not just for the next five or six months

but for the next five or six years this bill enables us to continue our bipartisan efforts on a re-authorization bill which we hope to accomplish by the end of the year. we have a tremendous opportunity to secure that bill that's going to improve rebuild modernize our nation's transportation system. it's time we come together to do that. i want to thank both the chairmen on their work on h.r. 3038. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and could not agree with the chairman more. i personally think it's time to stop pointing fingers, there's enough bipartisan blame to go around. we didn't quite do the job when the economy was in free fall. i know a number of us would have written the recovery act differently.

but the point is, we are here now with the challenge to fund it. and six republican states have increased the gas tax already this year. i've got a proposal that's ready to go, that could be passed in two weeks and the committee could have the resources to actually fund the bill. but it could be other options. i know the ranking member has a barrel tax, a proposal to index the gas tax and bond against it. i don't care what it is that we do i do care that we don't continue to stall. it was exactly a year ago today we were standing here on this moment saying, don't wait until the end of the year, we have to get on with it because we'll be right back here a year from now and we are. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: it's time to act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: does the gentleman

have additional speakers or -- no, ok. i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boyle: thank you and i want to thank my colleague. this is just embarrassing. it is embarrassing that we're here talking about the umpeenth patch for the umpteenth time. other countries are wondering if we're still interested in leading. let's forget the short-term patches, let's finally deal with the problem. the previous speaker, mr. blumenauer, is exactly right. before coming here as a state legislator in pennsylvania, we, democrats and republicans, banned together and cast a very politically tough vote. it was the right thing to do, both democrats and republicans did it, and now we're finally building bridges and repairing roads that we neglected for 20 years in our state. it's time for the u.s. federal

government to do exactly the same right thing. bite the bullet and let's show that an america -- that in america we can solve big problems and we can lead again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i believe i have 30 seconds left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. defazio: i would yield myself the balance of the time. you know, investing in infrastructure in america has always been extraordinarily bipartisan. over the entire time i've been here. recently we've kind of gone off the tracks. but it means we both have to cooperate on policy and on funding. and for the life of me, why the republican party has drawn a line in the sand in saying, we cannot have user fee-based investment in transportation, which benefits people who drive cars, pickup trucks, buses, everybody who moves goods in america, we can't do that anymore, we've got to come up

with some fanciful tax reform which may or may not happen, it's very sad. i proposed doing away with the retail gas tax, imposing a barrel tax. where some of the costs would be paid by exxonmobil, wall street speculators, opec, saudi arabia, and yeah, they'd probably pass a lot of it through at the pump, but that would be a fair way to move forward to make the massive investment we need to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and get america moving again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you mr. speaker. my colleague from oregon makes a good point. we are not spending the kind of dollars, at least we're not spending wisely the kind of dollars i would say, also add to that to fix our infrastructure problem. but we do face more difficult times today than we did when we set up the fund in the 1950's or even in the 1980's, as the economy grew, and then in the 1990's the economy grew. today we have an $18 trillion

debt. republicans want to make sure this is fiscally responsible. we want to make sure we're just not layering something else on top of the american people. but more importantly, i hope my colleagues join with me to continue to reduce the regulatory burden that we put out there to people that build the roads, who operate on the roads, the states that have to come up with the plan to building them, so again, there's a lot of work to be done. i feel confident that chairman ryan and his committee will be able to come up with the funding level, so that we can continue to work to get a six-year bill which i think is essential, to this nation, to give the certainty we need to help boost the economy but a vote against this bill is a vote in favor of shutting down these vital programs, putting transportation projects and jobs across the country at risk. and furloughing federal employees. mr. speaker, i urge all members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. at this time ways and means will debate 30 minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman

from michigan, mr. levin will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise to speak in favor of this. here's basically what we're trying to do. we want to get to a long-term highway solution. we believe that for the sake of jobs, the economy, certainty planning big projects in our states, we want to do a multiyear highway bill. typically a multiyear highway bill means a six-year bill and that's our aspiration and our goal. we know we're not going to write that bill in the next two weeks. we know we need at least two or three months to write that bill. unfortunately the highway trust fund has a fiscal shortfall in two weeks. so we're here to extend the highway trust fund through december 18, to give us the time we need to put together a

multiyear solution. that costs $8 billion just to do that. what we use are revenue-clines measures, to make it easier for -- revenue-compliance measures, to make it easier for people to file their taxes more easily. not a single fee increase, not a single tax increase is in this bill to finance the extension of the highway trust fund solvency to december 18. for example, tas fees, tas fees -- t.s.a. fees, t.s.a. fees are not being increased. they're staying exactly the same as they are, so nobody getting on an airplane will see anything different. the difference is, we keep those fees going to mandatory spending. we keep those fees going to where they are, instead of going into discretionary spending where they can be spent in addition to other spending, to buy -- walling off that money so congress can't go spend it somewhere else, we save money by doing that. things like this are what we do, savings for the taxpayer, tax compliance, easier to

comply with your taxes making sure that fees don't get spent in other areas, are some important fiscal savings that we have to make sure that we can extend the solvency of the highway trust fund. now, the other point i would simply make is, we believe that we have a chance of writing a big multiyear bill. that's why we're seeking this extension. if we didn't think that we had the chance and the opportunity on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, to do a six-year highway funding bill, then we would just two -- do a two-year bill like the other body is attempting to do. we think we can do a multi-year bill -- multiyear bill. we think there are ways of doing it, things that are important for the economy things that are important for our businesses we think that's an opportunity and that's something that we're exploring on a bipartisan basis. so for that reason and many others i urge adoption of this. i think it makes sense. the last thing we want to do, and where i come from in wisconsin, the way we say it is we have two seasons. road construction season and

winter. the last thing we want to do is see road construction stop at the beginning of august. we need to give our construction, our highways, our people who are filling these construction projects, a little certainty, at least getting to the winter, so they can finish the building season while we work out a long-term highway solution. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: well here we go again. a bill from the majority, they've been in power over four years, and the result is another patch. we need to do better. we know the state of highways and the infrastructure in this country our national infrastructure receives a d-plus grade, getting worse

every day. so it's said we need multiyear and that's so true. it is also being said that there needs to be a bipartisan bicameral bill. and i want to just talk to the chairman to talk to this entire house, to talk to the congress, having also met with the administration. there is no way to have a multiyear bill, five, six years, unless it is truly bipartisan involving democrats and republicans. democrats as well as republicans in both houses. we've come up with some ideas, we're suggesting today, for example, passage of the stop corporate inversion act, that many others and i introduced some time ago. so, we need to consider

everything. and i want to close this way. we will not have a multiyear bill if lines are drawn not in sand but in concrete. if the majority takes the position that some ideas cannot be considered it's likely to lead infrastructure to another dead end. we need to do much better, multiyear, bipartisan both houses with the administration. if we don't do that, the rest is talk. this delay has caused millions of jobs. everybody, including the majority, now talks about middle income stagnation. part of it is because we've been stagnant in terms of an

infrastructure bill on a long-term basis. that has to stop. we need to put a big red sign that says, stop in front of the majority of this house and the entire house in the congress and get busy on a bipartisan basis on a highway long-term bill. all infrastructure. i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i think the gentleman from michigan has more speakers than we do. so if it's all right by him, why don't a few of the speakers on your side of the aisle go. mr. levin: we'll be glad to do that. we're so full of vigor on this, we have lots of speakers. the next speaker i yield a minute and a half to, mr.

becerra, a member of our committee, who is also chair of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, in the greatest, most capacitated nation on earth, there is no excuse for so many crumbling roads and bridges, and for the ever-growing traffic gridlock and congestion that we see every day that we try to get to work. there's no reason why hundreds of thousands of men and women in the construction industry today should remain unemployed because this congress won't do its job of replenishing the highway trust fund. it's crazy. we know that when we repair a road or a bridge we put an american to work and we make it easier for all of us to get to work so we can be more efficient. here we are for the 34th time doing a patch to the highway trust fund. which doesn't help any city or

county in america, because you don't build a road or build a bridge or retrofit a bridge with two months of funding or five months of funding. you need six years to know how much money you can rely on. because that contractor doesn't buy cement or lumber for two months or six months. they buy for four or five years . because for them time is money. my god. we are costing the american tax -- people a ton of money by doing these -- people a ton of money by doing these constant patches. instead of just spectate, we should be coming up with the funds to have ose roa built and repaired, those bridges built and repairedto replace those aging buses a trains that stop us from being efficnt. mr. speaker, it's time tdo it the right way the long way, a long-term fix, not this short-term fix. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield to the chairman of the select revenue committee, mr. reichert, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of today's legislation that will ensure that our country's infrastructure needs are met. look, the bottom line is, we're all here we have agreement on a lot of the discussion that we' having today. we all want a multiyear highway bill. we all recognize that that's what our communities need. but that's why exactly why we need to pass this bill today. so that we can have that opportunity to discuss these issues over the next few months, to come u with a multiyear bill. .

it continues funding for projects through the end of the year while giving us time to come up with solutions that fund a multiyear transportation bill. this is not just about the economy. it is about the economy, but not jus about the economy. it is about jobs and jobs connected with construction and jobs connected with moving our good across the country and in our communities. t it's also about the quality of life that our constituents are asking to deal with back home, stuck in traffic for an hour or two hours trying to get home, not having time with their families. thers a lot involved here with r discussion today and the benefits of a multiyear plan. of course when i go back home just like any other member, e drive on the highways. so we see the need, we experience the congestion, i want to go back and tell my constituents that we have listened to them.

that we realize and recogze that there is a proble but most of all, i want to go back and say we have a plan. and as democrats and repubcans that we're going to work together on a plan, on a multiyear plan that we can agree on to move this country forward. a plan thatncludes a multiyear highway bill that offers communities greater certainty, plans for the future and improves our roads and bridges, reduces congestion and eases the movement of goods. to get there, we must find a way, of course this is where the rub comes in, must find a way to pay for it. by the end of the year, i want to be able to say to my constituents that we've met this challenge, that we have found a solution and we can start by evaluating whether we can accomplish our goals through a solution that mornedizes our international tax system, supporting the competitiveness of our american companies and secures funding for a multiyear transportation bill and finally, finally, finding a permanent

solution a permanent funding solution for our infrastructure needs. mr. speaker i want to -- this last sentence, i want to ask pardon for a pun i'm about to use, the bill today can help drive us there and give us time to have these discussions. so today, let's pass this bill. send it to the senate, and let's get to work together mr. speaker, people want us to work together on a multiyear solution to our transportation infrastructure needs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. >> i yield two -- mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: i note the irony of his advocacy on behalf of a plan. i guess after 35 short-term

extensions we haven't been able to find the time to develop a plan. you need, years out, to develop a plan system of just weeks ago in this very chamber, our friends on the other side of the aisle made a full throttled argument about america remaining competitive in the world. that's why we needed the transpacific partnership. so let me think about this for a moment. we want america to be competitive in the world and we simultaneously allow america's infrastructure to crumble as we speak. you know what's going to get congress to move, sadly enough? that catastrophe that awaits us somewhere across this country. so european union has a highway system that in many instances is the enjoy of the world. the chinese are developing high

speed rail that is the envy of the world. and we're doing the 35th short-term extension on a highway bill? so let me relate to our friends on the other side, as you travel across the federal highway system, there's this great sign, everywhere, and it says, the dwight d. eisenhower federal highway system. because a republican president had the foresight and vision in the aftermath of world war ii to develop a first class federal highway system. but you know what else he had? he had two great allies in the congress. lyndon johnson, the majority leader in the senate and sam rayburn, the speaker of this house, who helped sponsor legislation that gave us a system that was the envy of the world and 35 times, we are

extending the highway bill because we don't have time to develop a plan. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another valued member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. mr. speaker i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the presentations i made one year ago today on this floor, on this same subject. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: i can actually read those speeches again, because we're exactly at the same spot. america is still falling apart and falling behind. and we're looking now to slide again past the deadline toward

the end of the year. the problem is, we're still pretending we can pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. and it isn't that hard. it doesn't take six months to come up with a funding scheme. i have legislation that is in the committee that can be acted on. we can follow the example of 20 states that have raised their user fee for transportation. we could get courage from the six republican states that have raised their gas tax already this year, just a few weeks ago few days ago, in the state of washington the republican-controlled state senate approved a 15 cent gas tax increase. we could follow the example of ronald reagan in 1982, when he urged this congress to bite the

bullet raise the gas tax, he proposed and congress followed through on a 125% increase in the gas tax. somehow, my republican friends are afraid to use the mechanism that is fast that is accepted that the people in the states, republicans in the states, have the courage to undertake. why is it this year, it's going to be any different than last year? why will my speech be any different? is it going to get cheaper? is it going to become less complex? are we going to have a little more back bone? it is time for us to step up. i would hope that our ways and means committee could take the next two weeks, follow regular order and provide funding so that we could give the transportation committee the two months they need to fund it and the job would be done.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another valued member of our committee mr. pascrell of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, what are we writing here a new magna carta? they've had four years, for crying out loud and we still don't have legislation in front of us. it's been two months since we were last here, and a lot of talk two months ago about how bad extensions are for transportation planning and policy. how the last extension was going to be the last extension. nothing has changed. and you keep on talking about the anxiety over tax reform and tax change. what about the anxiety that the american people have and the contractors and workers have of

getting our roads and highways and airports up to snuff? the bill before us today has the congress pay for our highways and transit systems with more gimmicks. tax compliance? these are the same provisions the house rejected last year. transportation security administrative fees? the airlines trade association rightfully criticized that this plan proposes the use -- to use tomorrow's dollars to pay for today's problems. the international tax can be part of a solution to bridge the gap but corporate america is turning on those revenues to lower their rates, not pay for highway spending. using an international tax scheme now will make it that much more difficult to get back to a user fee system. the people who use the system should pay for the system. that's what we should be agreeing on. the ways and means committee did hold two hearings on the trust fund and we come to this? so this is the new magna carta. i'm waiting to see the final results, six months from now.

it's been two years -- it's been 10 years since this congress passed a transportation bill. neither party as the courage to deal with it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: regular order. i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from kansas, a member of the ways and means committee, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. i rise today in support of h.r. 3038 with the prospect of the highway trust fund dollars and authority expiring in just over two weeks this is a critical step to give our states the certainty they need to continue work on important infrastructure projects back home this bill gives the house and senate time to work together toward a long-term highway package by the end of the year. it's also important to note that this bill includes provisions i pushed for to help many small

businesses by establishing a chronological set of due dates for them to pay their packses. the current law fails to do this which causes small business and their owners unnecessary grief, time and money. i worked during the past two congresses on legislation to fix this problem and i'm pleased that the house is acting today to take another burden off the shoulders of small business people. i urge support of h.r. 3038. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another valued member of our committee, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. davis: thank you mr. speaker. we all know that july 31 the highway trust fund will expire. but we didn't just learn this. not that we just found out last week. or last month.

we've always known it. now we come where we're backed up against the wall. we know we need a long-term fix but i'm going to vote for a short-term fix. i'm going to vote for it because i want the contractors in my state to keep working. i want the construction workers to keep laying concrete. i want the bridge builders to keep repairing bridges. we can't afford to have a short season. in illinois if you don't do construction now, you may not get a chance to do much. on the basis of the logic of keeping the construction industry moving i vote yes for the highway bill that we're considering today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin.

mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from craig. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: as a person who represents a state line who drives to o'hare and back and forth i want to add to my comment, they're in thed my of road construction right now on i-90. if we don't pass this bill, construction projects like that will stop. so we need, by the way, we need more construction in chicagoland area, just like we do around the rest of america that's why we have to pass this. let me yield myself another 30 seconds to say, i think the gentleman from illinois hit it right, which is yes we knew this was coming, but it takes a while to figure out how to do things like rewrite international tax laws, something we haven't done for decades. it takes a while to figure out how to come up with long-term financing something like a highway trust fund. and we know that we cannot come up with that answer within the next two weeks and we don't want to see these construction projects like the really important one on i-90 and i-94

going to o'hare and every else in america to stop in two weeks. that is why this is necessary. we don't like patches anymore than anybody else does but this patch is necessary to make sure those projects don't stop. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia a truly valued member of our committee in this congress, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to express my strong concern with yet another stopgap measure. nearly 60 years ago, a republican president, dwight eisenhower, led the charge to create the interstate highway system. he realized that good roads was not just about commerce and economic development, they are national security priority to

keep america safe. . i've said it before and i'll remind you again, fleece such thing as a republican road -- there's no such thing as a republican road or a democratic bring. today american -- bridge. today american roads and bridges are crumbling. this is a national embarrassment. we have already rolled the ball down the road more than 30 times and here we are doing it again. the time for talk has passed. in the words of dr. king, we have been bogged down in the paralysis of analysis for too long. delay for another day is not an option. american jobs are on the line. in a few short weeks transportation projects across our country will grind to a stop. we must act and we must act now. thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: you know, as i think back, we've been doing this so often, and our chairman said it takes a while, it's been a decade. and i just want to emphasize, if we're no longer going to take a while to do it right, it's going to have to be done on a truly bipartisan basis. there's a tendency, i think, to go off on a wild goose chase and that won't build highways. and it won't build if one party doesn't work with another, if the senate doesn't work with the house, and now we have the

senate seeming to go a different way on a short-term, thinking they can do a long-term. chaos doesn't build highways. so i really hope, however we vote on this bill, that there will be a new dedication to doing what is so long overdue. all the talk about middle class incomes essentially goes up in smoke when we fail to do what is so clearly in the interest of middle class jobs, and that is to build highways to repair bridges to take care of airports, to take care of our infrastructure. coming from michigan, i'm ashamed of the state of highways in michigan compared to when i was a kid and later on. disrepair has essentially been the hallmark of highway and

infrastructure in this country, because there's been a failure to step up to the plate and i just want to finish by saying don't put anything aside don't say anything can't be considered because that's a ticket, really another bridge to nowhere. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i will spare the cliches and just simply say, i think this is important that we get this done. both parties have patched this trust fund for, as the gentleman said, for 10 years. part of the problem we have right now mr. speaker, is the revenue source for highways is a revenue source that's no longer relevant, that doesn't work anymore. gas taxes don't work well. why? it's a good reason why. we get much better gas mileage. our engine technology is better.

some cars don't even use gas, they're electric. and therefore as a result we don't pay as much for the highways we use. and that's the problem. so we're trying to figure out what is a way we can bridge finance the highway trust fund so we can come up with a new revenue source for the long-term. that means we have to have a medium term, a six-year highway bill, to make sure that the construction that we need to get done gets done and that's going to take us some time to figure out that's why we need to have this patch, to give us that time. if we fail to pass this extension right now i can sure tell you what will come over from the other body will be a medium, you know about an 18-month extension and that will come through here and we will not get the bridge we need, we will not get the ability to give multiyear projects the ability to plan and get off the ground, and we will not have done our jobs. and so in order to give us the chance to do our jobs to get the long-term solution in place, to work on these big issues we need to get ourselves

a few more months time and that's why i think on a bipartisan basis members understand and appreciate this situation and therefore will help >> the house went on to pass a temporary building in a 312-219 vote. watch our live coverage on c-span. >> coming up, president obama talks about a nuclear agreement with iran at a white house news briefing. then more from britain's former secretary and the debate on transportation spending. >> on the next washington journal, chris stewart, a member of the intelligence committee will talk about congress's role

in reviewing the nuclear agreement with iran. and mark takano on updating the no child left behind education law. >> this sunday on q & a, molly crabapple on her use of drawings to tell stories around the world. >> it may be reading a book by a black panther, the reason for having at tattoo. pelican bay is not alone in this. around the country, you can land in solitary for your beliefs, your gender status. i go around with a sketchbook and draw. it is to build rapport with people. very often, when you have a camera, it puts distance between you and the person. you are taking images, they cannot see what you are taking.

it is almost vampiric. whereas when you draw, it is a vulnerable thing. it is more of an interchange. most people have not been drawn before. most people are delighted to be drawn. i draw people because i like to. >> on q & a sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings, and news conferences, events that shape public policy. every morning, washington journal is live with officials policymakers, and journalists with your comments. c-span. created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> now, details about an

agreement with iran over its nuclear programs have been released, president obama talked about the deal in a press conference, arguing it makes the world safer by preventing the development of nuclear weapons. is over hour. president obama: yesterday was a historic day. it represents a powerful display of american leadership and diplomacy. shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and visible -- visible.

when we unite to resolve problems peacefully. it is important for the american people and congress to get an opportunity to review this deal. that progress is underway. i reached out to leaders in congress on both sides of the aisle. the national security team has offered extensive briefings. i expect debate to be robust. that is how it should be. this is an important issue. our national policies are stronger and more effective and they are subject to scrutiny and transparency democracy demands. the details of the deal matter very much. that is why our team worked so hard for so long to get the details right. at the same time, as the debate unfolds, i hope we do not site of the larger picture.

without a deal, the pathways remain open. there will be no limit to a nuclear program and iran closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal, we gain unprecedented, around-the-clock monitoring of keith nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive verification regime ever negotiated. without a deal, those inspections go away. we lose the ability to monitor iran's program and detect any

nuclear weapons program. with this deal, if iran violates commitments, there will be real consequences. nuclear related sanctions will snap back into place. without a deal, the examination regime will unravel. with this deal, we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a threat to regional and international security. without a deal, we risk more war in the middle east. other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. as i said yesterday, even with the deal, we will continue to have profound references with iran. the support of terrorism that

destabilized parts of the middle east. the arms embargo will remain in place for an additional five years with restrictions on ballistic missile technology remaining for eight years. in addition, the u.s. will remain -- retain sanctions on the ballistic missile program. and we will continue our unprecedented security cooperation with israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with gulf states. the bottom line is this. this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious threat, iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems they may cause even worse. that is why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it is why the alternative, no

limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspections, the risk of regional nuclear arms race and a greater risk of war all that would endanger our security. that is the choice that we face. if we do not choose wisely, i believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting the moments slip away. no one suggests this deal resolves all the threats iran poses to its neighbors or the world. we realize the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and execution. but this deal is our best means of assuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. from the start, that has been my number one priority, our number one priority. we have a historic chance to

pursue safer and a more secure world. an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. as president and commander in chief, i am determined to seize the opportunity. with that, i will take some questions. let's see who i am starting off with. here you go. i got it. andrew beatty? >> thank you, mr. president. yesterday, you said the deal offered assurance a new direction in negotiations with iran. what steps will you take to ensure a more moderate iran? does this deal allow you to counter destabilizing actions in the region? thank you. president obama: if you do not

mind, i suspect there will be a common set of questions. i promise i will get to your question. i want to start off by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. i already did it in my opening statement, but i want to reiterate it. because i've already heard some of the objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. everything that we have done has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that is what the sanctions regime was about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community, including folks we

were not particular close to 20 bye-bye the sanctions that's how they came about we were able to gain local consistence that iran had a nuclear weapon and that would be a problem for everybody. that is the reason their accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for oil sales. that's the reason they have problems operating with respect to international commerce we built that international consensus around this issue the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon. that was not simply my party. if you look back at all of the debates that have taken place, this is been a democratic, republican, and prime minister netanyahu's priority.