tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 14, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EDT
as the main reaction it depends on whether it is the mainstream media. you aree are wonder why lecturing us on iraq. >> they need to read the weekly standard article. it is not about lecturing about about saying why are we where we are today? as we sit here, there is completely agreement or as a much asked is -- as is when 2009,agreement when barack obama took over, iraq was stable. and joe bidenama said iraq was in good shape and it was the rich -- the withdrawal of american troops which the administration is trying to blame it george bush and dick cheney for which we know is not the case. we walked a ways and we are seeing the rise of the most dangerous threat to our security
since before 9/11. situation where we are facing a grave, strategic threat. the president has said he will follow the same course in afghanistan he followed in iraq despite the fact would've seen what has happened. i do inc. it is very important to go back and look at what happened in iraq and why and remember what did the situation was before the united states and our allies liberated the country. and again, there is a sense it is almost like the pink gentlemen, wanted to shout people down and that is not what this country supposed to be about. everybody has a right to speak. we have to go back to what the facts were. you can say to the president, withdrawing the forces or not, you can debate
that. now you have to look at the facts and they are because of the united states is not in there and we walked away and did so without regard, you now have the richest in the world which controls more territory and in a position to be a real threat to this nation. if you think about where we go from here, you cannot be responsible for the future if you do not understand the past. >> president bush is rarely seen, almost never heard unless talking about a bicycle. you are out for w have become very visible. -- you are out. -- you have a book, very visible. >> liz has touched on it. president made the decision he would not criticize his successor. a precedent set by his father. i am not bound by those scriptures. [laughter] [applause]
some people do not like that. i feel very strongly about what is going on just like i did when we made the decision to go into iraq in 2003. it was absolutely the right thing to do. what we are faced with today is anything that is if bigger than any challenge we faced before 9/11. guys came1 and 19 here and killed 3000 americans and took down the world trade center and blew a hole in the pentagon. the problem in the aftermath was a there will be a follow-up attack and next time they will be the guys armed with something far deadlier than airline tickets. >> let me stop you there. you made the statement about box cutters the other day. you said armed with something much worse, what do you fear
next?e >> something i said back in april of 1991 before 9/11 and i was asked in "the new york magazine," what i feared most and it was the idea of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. chemicals, biological. now i look at the situation have a rapid spread of terrorism. a reportout and there's been a 58 percent increase of al qaeda type groups in a four-year period. it ranges from west africa to mali through the middle east all around indonesia. the same study estimates it has been a doubling of the number of so-called jihadists, equivalent to al qaeda.
we looked at what happened today with respect to isis taking over eastern syria and a big part of iraq, establishing and trying to, they are very well off financially. they are attracting thousands of followers from all over the world, flooded into syria to join in the jihad. from our perspective, as we look about the itself looks serious. wait a minute. let me finish. the other dimension i am worried about is mass destruction. if you look today, we are faced with a proliferation of capabilities and nuclear technology especially in that part of the world. iraq, we mayinto sure saddam was not developed anymore. when we took him down five days surrendered his
materials for some -- surrender his material. then we took down the supplier. we had syria with a nuclear reactor all courtesy of the north koreans. would've already have the testimony that the pakistanis sold technology to the north koreans. it is a cauldron out to their a potential developments. add iran. if iran gets nuclear weapons, you can bet there are others will get it. we are creating a situation partly because of our own determination of to get out of the area. would have a hell of a lot of terrorists, including in pakistan. airportattack on an that killed 30 people. a lot of terrorists attacks. is it rebound very much
will be an entity that controls territory and also one that has access were the ability to get hands on the deadliest weapons on the face of the earth. our response appears to be dramatically dismantle our military and withdraw from the area. i feel very strongly about it. i do not like what i see happening and we are setting ourselves up for terrible problems down the road, worse than anything. of that cauldron is president obama's fault? >> you cannot blame him for the entire problem. he is guilty think of is he never admitted there is a problem. he may have only recently said a few words. he loves to run around saying al qaeda is dead.
theas dramatically reduced military. we have a 40 brigades in the u.s. army. we are cutting now in the last few days and delivery pink slips to officers and united states army. that is an absolute outrage. it is a reflection of a policy that is unwise. the world is not getting safer, is getting far more dangerous and we are rapidly withdrawing from that portion of the world. is hisicy i think responsibility. not to say there would not be developments from al qaeda and jihadists, there may well have been foci he has created a situation where our friends and the region are scared and they do not think they can trust us. ofthere's been a lot reporting about administration makers,cause of weapons there's a clear and present danger to u.s. air travel.
do we need to have tougher restrictions of people who travel on u.s. airplanes? >> we have pretty strong restrictions. >> you are not worried about planes? >> i fly on them all of the time. yesterday, though one coming from wyoming, i had a good chat with the air marshal. he introduced himself. thatless concerned about then the notion we can start -- with a sort of wish away the product -- problem. barack obama can go out and say the war is over and he can bring home troops. the very first step of getting a policy in place to let us deal with the threat is to recognize there is a threat. right now, a lot of people do not want to hear it.
people are "tired of war." wantve people who do not to be bothered. it has been a long time since 9/11. moreottom line is a realistically, take a look of youies like the rand study, cannot conclude anything but there is a growing threat. in terms of trying to deal with that, we are the only ones that will lead the effort. of secretary kerry's work? >> it depends on what he has done the last couple of days. arab and israeli, did not
theyr who you talk to, were all renew their hands after their instability to trust the united states of america. folks traditionally relied on us and we had their back. when there was a public in israel for example. they no longer believe that. they are convinced that this president does not understand or chooses not to recognize the nature of the threat emerging out there. they all joined together, they are much closer. we no longer have the ability to influence events even among our friends because they do not trust us. >> will do a rapid around here. whose judgment do you respect more -- bill or hillary? [laughter] boy, well -- i did not vote
for bill and i do not expect to vote for hillary either. chris a liz, how would you answer? answer?z, how would you , itaken it in its totality would have to go with hillary. >> over bill clinton? >> i am not sure there is a difference. >> all right, number two. condi rice or general powell? more?udgment do you trust interesting question, mike. i never thought in those terms. i have during the course of my career had good working relationships with both and in places where we fundamentally disagree. i am beyond that.
>> rick perry or rand paul? [laughter] >> i do not plan to endorse any candidates. liz,liz you can answer -- you can answer. has something to be desire with the security policy. i think when you look at without endorsing anybody, i think i have some big concerns about senator policy we can be safe war come home and build forces. i should've asked why you trust hillary more than bill. >> i said all areas of life. i will leave it there. last one, mr. vice president, obamas or kerry?
>> probably kerry. and, obviously, i disagree in major ways and campaigned hard against the john kerry. umm, we are not close by any means. i think he has a worldview that is more consistent with what i think of as a republican/democratic consensus. the united states has the two lead and maintained by both parties on till now. i really do not think obama has in his mind the same world view that most of our presidents have had for the past 70 years. biden? for fun, obama or >> joe's got my airplane. [laughter] thati am going to pass on one.
>> julia dreyfus. president, byron york has been no opponent said with the worsening in iraq, the architects and advocates of the iraq policy and he said cheney is the highest ranking member of the group that bears responsibility. is that fair? role in id a major thought it was the right thing to do at the time and i still do. >> your former friends have had a tough things to say. when i covered you, i remember there was one newspaper banned from air force 2. >> it was temporary. one person exciting you are back in the news. saideadline was -- she
asked if he was in moral or -- immoral or amoral. aide to colin powell -- >> that was a joke. >> immorality can be checked and balanced and amorality is a different -- >> i am going to answer. one of the things you learn as a historian is there is an easy way out and a tough away out when you are writing a book. what you want is testimony. you want to what people said about jens madsen at the time. what i quickly learned is you have to evaluate who that person was and what their interests for and why they had a side or against him. that is important for journalists, too, mike.
to pick a quote from someone, whoever it might be, and suggest it is objective truth in it does not work very well. you have to consider that person's past history and total record and then you understand is it a really good one. if you were asking a question or making a comment that peter baker said i would pay attention but not general wilkerson. colonel --- -- >> oh, my god. up?r did you hold my book >> i did. i did. [laughter] [applause] peter baker who wrote "days of
fire" and recently a front-page .tory of cheney is back peter is here and may have a question. we can hear you. >> good to see you here. questions. on the speaker of the house is talking about suing the president for any of you abusing executive authority. you are strong opponents of executive power. are there things you think president obama has done that you were not done? not in terms of choices but things you went beyond of what the presidency can do. congratulations on your book. a lot of talk about impeachment.
if you can talk about what james madison would have thought about that and what he viewed as impeachment's role. and good to see you, too. you spent a lot of time riding on the backseat of a car through wyoming. i wonder if you could tell us what the records you brought from your experience as a person out in front as a candidate. well, obviously, i disagree with a lot of policies, procedurally. the effort to buy president obama to ignore major parts, for parts of thealter obamacare proposition is deferred and acting searching key parts. i think the bill was so bad i
think it should've been repealed or amended. there should've been a substitute to deal with all the problems that has surfaced over the past year or two and it shows up by himself, certain parts and provisions on side, i think he has exceeded his constitutional authority. >> i totally agree. also unwillingness to enforce some loss he does not believe in. not just a one off thing. there's a whole school of thought in our law school and president obama was a law professor. the constitution means whatever we think it should mean. sndeed when president obama' recent appointee has written about the power of the presidential shape the constitution by exactly these things. not enforcing laws and changing laws.
it will point out to us that the constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the laws bank. not to repeal them. irs and whatd the is becoming clearer every day, every time you see some new e-mail. lois lernerne from suggesting people should not use e-mail to communicate back and forth in terms of what they are doing. there is very little question there is an attempt to subvert. and in the use of the irs to go after political enemies is a real threat to the constitution and a threat to our freedom. in terms of your other questions, peter, it is really newspapers ande the, very cynical. it is really easy for people outside washington to watch the
battles that go on here and you throw your hands up and say, my gosh, are they going to get anything done? one of the things i feel very blessed about the was having been able as a child seeing this process. mobility -- nobility of this nation and living in a republic and a place where we can make a difference. in a situational, we have an obligation to speak up. experience, not just hearing politics is such a dirty business and it certainly can be. it is to serve a much higher purpose of being a full citizen in our republic. and i feel very blessed i had that opportunity. toas very proud and honored
have a chance to show my kids some of the same things. and i am going to tell one story from the campaign trail. my mother tells me not to tell the story. we are with close enough friends today. were at the wyoming state fair. >> oh, no. had all of the kids with us. we decide our youngest 2, they were seven and nine-year-old little boys. we had a convertible and this candy there were going to throw as we went down the parade route. we said we needed to have a briefing with the kids on how it was going to work. we gather them around and said ok, who know some of the rules about it being in a parade is going candy? my older son raised his hand and said, do not throw the candy at anybody's head.
does anybody else have any rules they think is important to know? ittlehat of my cousins' l girls said do not throw it too hard at people. does anybody else want to contribute any behavior for being in a parade and throwing candy? and my youngest son who was in my father's namesake races hand. he said no far tend -- farting. that is a good one. a good life lesson. the truth is, i felt very honored to be in that and something i feel very strongly about in terms of a very important part of our process. damage, thel relation with your sister that played out, you are against gay marriage. we invited mary to
attend today and she responded, thank you for the e-mail and invitation and sounds like a great event. i will not be in d.c. would did a full rundown from my mom. >> i love mary very much and heather and the kids. disagreen issue we about. i have nothing new to add. >> tell me why you were right about the position, you are against gay marriage and why your father is wrong. >> i am not going to add to the issue. go back to foxth news and talk about that a little bit. the notion fox news, of because of fox news criticize us, i keep thinking i tell you
all the time fox is not always right. you need to understand that. >> does it bother you that a political issue created such a rift in your family? >> i would like to go back to fox news, too. the underlying assumption of your question is if you ask the tough questions of a public figure, that must mean you're being critical. i think it is your job. it is amazing kelly -- megan kelly's job. what a poor thing journalism would be if we do not ask hard questions. and anybody who happens to be. >> last question on this very public split, do you regret that? >> are you talking to me? >> doesn't this worry you? >> i think the best thing about
being a mom is having terrific children which i do and a grandchildren which i do. if i were those grandchildren or children, the last thing i want is my mother in a public forum commenting on personal issues in the family and that is it. [applause] what doice president, you think the chances that mitt romney will run? >> i was a big supporter of mitt. one of the first things i did after i had my heart transplant was we held a big fundraiser. i have not signed on with anybody with respect to 2016. i hope we'll have a wide field of candidates. i am going to restrain myself from saying anything that might be viewed as being supportive or opposing any candidate. >> we are not going to be support for against above very
clinical. >> let me add one other thought. you mentioned the reliance for a strong america. one of my concerns is that we have gotten to the point where within our own party, we have an isolation or strain developing. i wanted to make certain whenever i can and that is the purpose of the alliance that liz that national security questions are front and center in the campaign. when it is time for policy and candidates actively involved, we get concerned that are legitimate and major differences with the obama administration. i want to do everything i can in the organization is set up to be a part of it to make certain the issues of national security and the threats we are facing in the middle east today and so far are front and center with the dialogue going forward between now and this year's election.
that is part of what we are doing. >> would rand paul be dangerous? >> i said i did not want to get into endorsing or criticizing. i did express the view i think isolationism is crazy. anybody who went through 9/11 and things we can retreat and ,ill be safe is -- i am sorry out to lunch. we saw on that today, the worst attack on the united states since pearl harbor. when you lose 3000 people and the world trade center and a big it on the pentagon, and would've been the white house if not for the currents of passengers, that is an act of war on the united states. 19 men who were trained in afghanistan.
with today'say technology and capabilities and dangers and threats out there in the world, we can afford the notion we can stay home and not get involved overseas and not have a presence militarily. from a relationship standpoint with those key parts of the world >> just to redirect the conversation for a minute, as republican theory, the ounders such as jefferson and madison were deeply steeped in republican theory, how you make one succeed. to both of them and madison in particular, the idea of a threat to my was a liberty. it might be turned against the people.
and so was the navy. the adams when he pushed idea of building six frigates so ugh the congress, he did in madison's -- to madison's opposition. -- he believed that republic was this wonderful and nice thing and didn't need need navies.dn't as you quoted through the book he learned to learn. after the burning f washington, he understood that no nation can exist in a weakness. that invites attack you and need a strong military to turn back such an notion of attack. i worry that we've not learned history and we aren't teaching it to our children. along the line young people who are responding to young paul's message,
people who -- like the idea we would never go to war again learned lessons of the past. we need to do a better job of them about world war two, for example. >> you and senator paul have a history. youtube was posted a speech that enator paul gave in 2009 peaking to republicans at western kentucky university. he said dick cheney goes to work forral burton and makes hundreds dollars and next thing you know back into government and good idea to go iraq. that's remarkable by senator paul. remember the allegation that i was making money because
head of halliburton and somehow getting financial became vice i president. lay was the charge that pat me made on the senate one day what before i suggested he might do. t was totally tpa hraeurb should yous. worked for halliburton's company and had a good doing it but we didn't go to quote go to war in iraq to halliburton to make money. lie. s a >> what you think of bob? >> i like bob. of times we've crossed things, but icific haven't read all his books, but remember cooperating with him on 1 or 2 of them. think he adds a lot to the journalistic profession. why do you ask?
two days after your former boss president ford, you had been his white house chief of died, two days after he bob woodward published an embargoed interview with president ford. president ford said he was very much opposed to the decision to iraq.to did that give you pause? >> no. why not? >> because died, him.oodward i disagreed with >> has there ever been a time ask the this way. given what's happening in high rack now. there is anything that you could vice president that would have foreclosed that or put us in a better place? listen, what has happened in raq now is a direct result remembering with the surge in to a d '08 we got iraq good point by the time we left office.
the advance i think -- the ecent advance were from two primary sources. ais was a failure to maintain oalition government and having purged the military of some of the best leaders who happened to sunni. but the other problem has been the obama administration, president obama who did not fall hrough with the stay behind agreement. there was never any expectation e would go to zero presence in iraq. i think we've got 40 agreements around the world. them. it's something we've done all over the world. that needed to be negotiated and implemented and i don't think obama had any intention of leaving anybody behind and he perfectly happy to have the talks breakdown and rejected the military in terms of the numbers that needed to be left behind. you had to have a compliment ilitary capability and
logistics and air support that crucial for making it possible for iraq to maintain integrity. al-qaida in iraq and they were gone by the time we inished our tour of office and i think between the failures we our hands mess on today. >> you're advising the next president. now? do they do >> recognize you have a problem. wo, rebuild the united states military. what's being done at the pentagon is outrageous. bad way a symbol of the to treat people. the cuts that are being made today and the cuts that are will restrict the ability of future presidents 10, road to do n the what needs to be. absolutely, turn around the with respect to the military.ates that should be top priority. our number one responsibility
is support the constitution of and nited states devastating the united states ilitary and announce you won't pull all forces out of afghanistan. policies he wanted to implement in iraq exturn it down.e reaffirm the egyptians and sraelis and saudis, all our friends that we're with them. we recognize they're on the on terror n the war and we'll do whatever we can to support them. there's four. look at saudi arabia are ordan which government you most worried about following. >> i don't think it would be a me to make a statement about a particular government. allve known and worked with of them over the years, and i think they all live in very area, an area that is the rise of on
oing efforts by this administration with respect to the iranian nuclear program. very, very concerned is, not just the israelis but verybody else who lives in the region. current negotiations are a sham together to put a baband-aid on the problem. won't get any meaningful by iran that will block the threat. it's a huge problem. think we need a radical change in direction obviously. >> you're the only person in the who has the titles of staff, use chief of congressman and secretary of defense. as former secretary of defense on charley rose the former cia director said that are a aougably the most
dangerous place in the world today is the south china sea. do you agree? it's certainly ait's the most. would aside pakistan what you say is the most dangerous place. >> put aside pakistan. uhm, you got to remember in the middle east national boundaries increasingly don't mean that i especially given the threat off the rising isis. you have to look at it. dangerous threat is what is now developing as i would describe it in the middle east. slops over into north africa. really -- i believe in akistan and in developments in korea's prior involvement. they provided a nuclear reactor
to syria. the israelis took it out in '07 took down sad gaddafi gave up his stuff. that's the part of the world nexus between with a m and somebody weapon. the whole notion that's governed relationships in that area since the end of world war ii mutually assured destruction and major tates being responsible with respect to their acquisition of technology that all goes out th. the whole notion that's governed you're dealingen with north korea and pakistan and iran and normer libya and that is the place from which emerge dangerous place. i don't know if terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon and for us.a huge problem anybody thinks we can ignore smoking something. >> four years ago you believed dying.e
you wrote a book called "heart" of said by the beginning june 2010, i was approaching yod stage heart failure. increasingly difficult to carry out tasks my nd the house and losing appetite and i wasn't fearful or situation.out my i had lived a wonderful life and now it was ending. do you feel now? >> wrong again. no, it was -- i wrote that very serious. it was a very serious moment. t was a question that that obviously comes up from time to time. i did believe i had reached the end of the line. it was not frightening. at peace. it was more difficult for my family to consider than it was me to consider. through the miracles of modern medicine they worked on me nine night, 20 units of
a pump, thattalled kept my heart working for 20 the s and then i got transplant thanks to a donor. every day when i wake up i've smile on my face, thankful for a day i never thought i'd see again. it really affects your sense of what's important and what isn't. lot of the things that we deal with in our daily lives aren't really very important when youly over against that kind of experience. what made it possible for me to get through all that not only donor and modern medicine but also my family. i can't say enough about what lynn mary did for me that helped me through some very, very difficult time. everything there was to learn about being a nurse --h respect to >> cardiologist.
there's one ph.d. on this stage. >> thank you, that's right. out as an d undergraduate. it's absolutely something that you can't go through without wondrous support had in my family and i'm back doing all those things i ever do.ed to spent a lot of time with diesel a ford 350 hauling my 14-year-old daughter around to rodeos because she's a racer and i had the great never years that i expected to see. at the same time these are important points i don't want by diminish what's happening out this and to some of freedomel a sense
telling people what i really ever did it.that i but it's more urgent because of the problems that are developing. >> your transplant was two years and some months ago -- 2012.ch 24, >> how long did they say you had? how much is the transplant good for you? >> they tell me my heart is good for 30 more years but they don't know about the rest of me. cook rapid round, mr. president. the bergdahl trade, how dangerous was that? of the senior e leadership back to the taliban. that a fewganization weeks ago launched an attack and people.4 terrible, terrible idea. > the question from felix 'doeds, what should the epublican party do about
climate change. >> live. >> nothing. -- look, i think that what's happening now with espect to this president and this epa and using something excuseimate change as an to kill the coal industry nationwide and that's exactly and even re doing admit that the emotions from aren't causing any heating of the planet but this is an opportunity to kill coal. wyoming is the leading coal producing state in the nation from u don't have to be wyoming to understand that your electricity will be directly affected by that. is bad policy and bad science it's e we're seeing that increasingly bad science and a much greater threat to us is massive expansion and growth of the bureaucratic state here in washington. epa, the use of things like he clean air act and the clean
water act to go directly at private property rights is a threat. >> do you worry about the partycs of the republican not doing anything on climate immigration? >> no, i'm of the school lynn mentioned earlier. it's necessarily a bad year when congress doesn't anything. given the role of the government, i'm much more in madison's camp. there need to be limits. we got a great temptation to a problem n't solve without federal legislation to end up imposing more and more regulation and red has a disastrous effect and moving us to
something closer to socialism. there is more than one way to destroy the republic and you've alked about the most violent ways and that needs to be in the foremost parts of our mind. you also destroy a republic when you do away with the idea of on titutional limitation government and when you walk down the path of government of limited ity rights but to do things for us leaders decide we need to have done for us. that is so much opposed to what founders thought that it is another way to destroy the republic. >> last question and just to way, mr. the other president. crease its t not base like it's not going to win the presidency. without a new message for young and for gays and for minorities, how does the
party win a national election. >> i'm not sure i buy the premises to your question, mike. you made a lot of assumptions a time not remember long ago when i was part of a and george bush got 44% of the hispanic vote. it's premature for you to call out what the results are be. g to >> you're not worried about where the republican parties are? >> i'm one of the people who believes that the party ought to for ors wide open everybody. i see a lot of folks in the that those munity are people that ought to be conservative, religious and are here in many cases because they hard to get here because they care about those things, opportunities that america can provide. terms of education, but jobs and opportunity. think we need to sort of
reaffirm our basic fundamental commitment to those principals reagan and others have developed so successfully over the years. i just don't buy into the premise of your question. i don't think that's necessarily to be the direction we head in. >> i want to say something about that too, mike. the democrats do is have a different message. the country divide up. they like to say, you're a woman let me talk to you about how matters to you or you're hispanic or gay. and that's not how republicans operate. it's one about freedom and fundamentally the rights of ndividuals in terms of their ability to be free of government interference in their lives. opportunity and it's the idea that you're going to say to a woman, let me talk to some women's issues and you must feel way about this issue or that way because you're a woman i find really offensive and i think pattern alice tick.
the way that you have opportunity in this country is the size of the federal government and limiting the scope of the federal and not what the doing like the federal governmentment has a handout for you crayed total grave. not america and that's not successful for us as a party that. ry to emulate >> mr. vice president, you believe in a doors wide open party. party es a republican need to do to send out a signal 2016?ters in >> i think that we've got to nominate a good candidate. any problemn't have ith wide open primary situation. try to wrap it up so you can get election. general optimistic in the good
sense with respect to all the criticisms you can hey out that barack obama has been it's i.r.s. whether or the failures overseas, aamacare, they have a hell of record to defend and i'd much ather run a campaign on principals and not on their failures. >> you think a republican will in 2016?d >> i think we'll take the senate in 2014. e'll gain seats in the house and we'll win the white house in prediction. >> how many senate seats? [applause] >> enough. >> how many house seats? > i remember when i first
became vice president we had an evenly dwighted senate 50/50. because i got the tiebreaking vote we got to chair all the months es for about six and then the democrats bribed ne of the republicans and convinced him to switch and it upside down. i think we'll take control of the senate and i think it's important in terms of trying to a halt to the policies that obama is pursuing that i think down a very bad road both internationally. > as we say good-bye here you were telling me you've been out five days on the snake river? > so far this summer on the snake and the green. trout dream in the west. tip?hat's a fly fishing >> i'll tell was a fly fishing tip is.
don't talk. they can't talk. >> what else? when e sure you get home you tell your wife you're going to be there. [laughter] let you go earlier you said that you drive? mean i drive. why do you find that surprising? how do you think i get around? >> so you're talking about granddaughter. you actually pull a horse trailer, right? if you have a horse you got have to a horse trailer. if you have a horse trailer you truck to haul a horse trailer. owner of a ford 350 diesel to pull -- i can't brand name on the trailer but it's a nice three horse trailer. i's a three horse trailer and we started with one horse and i'm going to end up with two more have the spacewe for it. >> i want to thank you everybody in live stream land and bank of
on the next "washington journal" congressman jeff tkeupb imon the influx of minors on the u.s. and jim mcgovern of massachusetts talks about his remove u.s. troops from iraq at the end of the year boehner's lawsuit against president obama. discussesteracy group -- literacy with teenagers. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. federal reserve chair janet tuesday morning on the policy report. you can see it live coverage of starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3.
now you can keep in tkoufp with nation'svents from the capital using any phone any time on audio now.dio congressional coverage and today's "washington journal" program and every to the recap on washington today. hear audio on the programs beginning on sundays at noon eastern. c-span on audio now. phone charges r apply. >> the highway and transportation funding billion extends the law 2015.gh may 31, they discussed and approved the rules for debate. this is an hour.
>> thank you for joining us today for a very important committee the rules where we'll meet to consider the ighway and transportation funding act of 2014. urrent estimates indicate the highway tpruft fund will run dry ome time this month allowing this happen would dramatically mpact our nation's federal highways program, severe our ability to fund construction projects necessary to ensure and our economy can continue to remain competitive need to worry e about getting the job done for economic and commerce
we stayace to make sure to have heir vibrantsy a good infrastructure. resources the necessary to keep it solvent 2015.h may 21, while i'm sure everyone would more permanent solution including the young shoester, this avoids a problem to where we overt each a deal and to an end of year crisis. so, what we believe we're going o have today is a more comprehensive solution. i want to thank dave kemp who is the chairman of the ways and here committee for being and chairman shuster who has done a lot of work on this effort. i know we are joined by other embers of the democrat party
ncluding our delegate from washington, d.c. who is the of the committee on highways and transient and government reform and also my dear friend who i see every ridden his e has bike in to the united states knowing that he still needs safe roads and bridges to accomplish that. member of the budget committee also. i want to thank each of you for i have re today and three quick announce manies. first of all, we have intern sessions.am we have two important college interns. first from es, southern methodist university, stevens and skwroulian quigley a graduate of amherst baby son nicholas
to see his dad do the rule's committee. i told him don't yawn on tv and blackberry darn or -- he want to thank everybody for being here. i want to yield to the person from massachusetts. i will forego an opening statement and go right to the testimony. >> i thank the gentleman. that is a strong and clear mission of what we want to get our work done. i will defer to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. at thechairman of the ways and means is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the end of this month states across the country will be forced to put construction projects on hold if congress cannot address the highway trust fund. at risk are hundreds of thousands of jobs in the
construction industry at a time when millions of americans are packing their bags to take a vacation or just traveling to work. we must ensure that the roads, bridges and highways they travel on are modernized and safe. the bill before us would provide enough funding to get us through may 31 -- 2015. this legislation is the only package with all provisions having a proven history of getting big bipartisan votes in both the house and the senate. and last week passed through the ways and means committee by a bipartisan voice vote. both pension smoothing and custom users fees are included in the senate finance committee bill and those have been voted on and approved by the senate already this year. the leaking underground storage tanks transfer is identical in the house and senate bills. over the past few weeks, we've been working with our counterparts on the senate finance committee to address this matter in a bipartisan, bicameral way, it's important to note that the senate proposal now also reflects the need for a ten-month fix. while there is also bipartisan bicameral agreement that we need a long-term solution to the
highway trust fund, it is my hope that ten months gets congress enough time to act. some of our -- that we need to go shorter to go longer. that is the bill should only get us through december 31 of this year. i think that's a mistake. as i noted the finance committee agrees. these are policies everyone is familiar with. they're policies that will provide the funding we need and they're the only policies that will pass both the house and the senate in time to fund our highways after the end of this month. i would urge everyone to keep an eye on that goal, finding an immediate fix to keep transportation projects going in the bill before us does just that. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate not only your feedback but your hard work on this effort, and to keep us as we've spoken about earlier, right on target getting work done as quickly as possible. like to next welcome the gentleman from pennsylvania, the young chairman of the transportation committee. i know mr. chairman you've been hard at work for a long time but you also come with a view of
having a father who has walked down this pathway with you, and i knew your dad. know your dad, bill, and i want you to know that i intend to tell him how proud we are of the job you're continuing to do for the people of this great nation, caring about their roads and bridges wherever they might be across the united states. the gentleman is recognized at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate those kind words, and i'll pass them along to bud. >> i intend to tell him myself. >> i appreciate that. it's probably better he'll tell me something i didn't do right in this bill probably. but that's okay. want to thank mr. chairman and the members of the committee. we have the opportunity to appear here today for hr-5021 the highway transportation funding act of 2014. the highway transportation funding act of 2014 extends federal service transportation programs and shares the solvency of the highway trust fund
through may as chairman camp pointed out. hr-5021 is a clean extension of the surface transportation programs and continues map 21 reforms. we have an immediate and critical need to address the solvency of the trust fund and extend the current surface transportation law. this bill does that in a responsible way and with policies that previously received strong bipartisan and bicameral support. if congress fails to act as the chairman once again mentioned, there will be thousands of projects across this country, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be in jeopardy if we don't do this. the legislation provides that much needed certainty and stability of the states. this bill in no way precludes congress from continuing to work on a long-term funding solution and reauthorization bill which remains a top priority. however this legislation is a responsible solution at this time and assures that we don't play politics with these programs. enables us to continue to making improvements to our system.
i appreciate chairman camp's attention to this pressing issue as well as his commitment to addressing the highway trust fund. due to the urgency of this legislation i request the committee on rules grant a closed rule that waives any necessary points of order against consideration of the bill. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. delighted that you're here and obviously as with all four of you, anything that you have in writing whether be entered for the record without ox and i thank you very much for your solid and quick statement. ms. holmes norton, welcome to the rules committee. i'm delighted you're here. i'm sure as you and mr. blumenauer know your presence at this committee is not only appreciated and respected but we count on you to come forth with your ideas. you remember not only an important part of this country, the district of columbia but you also represent your party the democratic party and your ideas and we're delighted that you're here. we'll tell you this committee is
intensely interested in the issue that hand and your ideas will work. >> thank you very much. very much appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, and i summarize my remarks and simply introduce them for the record. i'm very pleased to be before your committee this time with a truly bipartisan bill and i want to thank the chairman to my right for working to the to make sure that this bill the committee who works on this bill works in truly bipartisan fashion, and very much appreciate the way this was done in our own committee with mr. shuster and also mr. camp's committee. i am the ranking member of the surface transportation bill. mr. rayhall who is the ranking member of the full committee wouldn't be here and i'm placed to be here in his place and i am overjoyed that this bill is coming forward and i want to
thank you for bringing this bill forward. not at the last minute but providing some certainty, especially now that you cannot do a long-term bill because the congress isn't quite ready for that yet. rationing has already started and you can imagine that the states and localities when rationing which means that they're already not getting the full amounts because nobody knew what would happen in the congress, that this bill is very, very welcome. obviously, not only on mr. chairman, but all of us who are sitting at this table would have preferred a long-term bill with the certainty every single district, there's no member that is not affected by this bill. and i don't think that there are many bills that come before you that have the effect that this bill would have, the short-term extension does not allow them to big into the backlog, and that would not because it only enables them to keep going but it at least enables them to keep going and looking bankruptcy in
the face for the highway trust fund was so unacceptable that everyone has gotten together and done the right thing. i would just like to say a word the chairman had both asked for a closed bill. i'd like to reinforce that. look, on a sort-term, we authorization of this kind truly we can get a closed bill. if the chairman had asked for it, i noticed that there are two amendments that have been found and i just want to indicate to you, mr. chairman, that that would be unfair to the entire house. because, the notice was given -- there was no notice given that this bill was open for amendments. there's one bill that's technical, and the other is -- actually have findings. if beam had noticed that they could have come forwards with amendments we would have had others to do so. since there was no indication that amendments would be considered i ask you to do as the chairman has asked and to approve the bill that they have
requested. mr. chairman, this is not a bill we would have wanted. but it's the kind of bill that brings the house together on both sides. and i am deeply grateful for you for that. and for the chairmen who are with me and the ranking member, as well. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much for your not only support of the bill, but speaking and attributes that we all understand. and that is the importance of bringing this bill right now on time to the floor where we can get this done and work to the. mr. blumenauer welcome, we're delighted that you're here. a couple of members showed up as soon as we heard your name mentioned. so you're very popular here at the rules committee. >> and i appreciate your courtesy. i agree with the statement that you opened the hearing with. about how important it is, your preference for permanent solution.
and avert a year-end crisis. i'm going to offer a slightly different perspective on that. taking slight exception with my friends who i respect. and this is an area that i personally have been deeply involved with since i reluctantly left the transportation infrastructure where i had the honor and privilege of serving both with bill shuster and his father bud when he was chair. i made the transition to ways and means and volunteered to be on budget because i'm deeply concerned about infrastructure and finance. and the fact that we are in trouble. my concern with what's being offered today and the way we in the ways and means committee all the democrats supported an amendment i had which was as the chairman mentioned a moment ago, is to bring about long-term support by shortening the duration. because i'm afraid what you are considering, and what the
committee ill-advisedly advanced is going to make the chaos, the uncertainty, it's going to make it permanent, not just this congress and next congress, but as one of the stakeholders said walking out of our hearing last week, may 2015 might as well be may 2017. because, there's no pressure to finish the job. it's not going to be easier in may. it's going to be harder. we've known about this for months. that's why every member of the democrats on the house ways and means committee asked for a hearing at the beginning of the year on transportation and finance. i've been making poor chairman camp's life miserable kind of bothering him about this for months. in 79 days, this bill expires. and we've all known that. and we've known that there was
not enough money to get through even september 30th for months. and now we're walking in with a maybe a week or two, and as mr. norton pointed out, there have already been a summer slowdown. states are pulling back because of uncertainty because of what's going on. there's been no resolution of this fund in question which is exactly the same as we had in 2003. it was -- it's been tying us in knots since our last six-year reauthorization which i was pleased to play a small part as a committee member with chairman bud schuster, and ranking member where we went toe to toe with speaker gingrich you may recall and the clinton administration and were able to extract the 4.3 cent gas tax increase which was the last gas tax increase, but it was for deficit reduction.
and we were able to transfer that to the highway trust fund and get a fully funded six-year bill. and since then, we've been walking around in circles. the stake holders are united and unanimous that america's falling apart, and it's falling behind, and we need to stop abaiting our responsibilities to fess up. now there are different approaches. you may hear from one of my colleagues, who's interested in devolution. there's a republican bill that would cut the transportation funding down to i think 3.7 cents, and turn this back as an unfunded mandate to the states and let them do what they will. the republican budget is kind of a status quo slow decline. if enacted it would have no new transportation projects until october 1st, 2015.
and there would be a ten-year reduction of 30% of highway. and that's maybe what some people want. but that ought to be debated openly and honestly. others have ideas for raising revenue. i think we would be well served to be able to resolve this so that the transportation committee can come forward with a six-year bill. that they know what they got. is it 3.7 cents? is it the slow decline, the 30% reduction? is it maybe running with more revenue? but unless and until we answer that question, i don't know how the difficult job that the chairman of the tni committee has and the ranking member and the subcommittee how they're ever going to be able to do their job if they don't have the details. now, kicking this can down the road to may 31st is kind of interesting.
because the funding issue does not get less complex. it doesn't get cheaper. and the politics don't get any easier. i don't know which party is going to control the senate next time but it's going to be an evenly, narrowly divided senate. and half the senate will be running for president, if they haven't already. and to think that in the other body, that they're magically in a couple of months going to be able to solve the funding conundrum and be able to work to give the committees of jurisdiction -- and my heart goes out, i still feel like i'm a member of the alumni association. i follow the committee. i respect the work. i respect what's going on with ranking member bitter and barbara boxer but this is not going to get easier next year. what is very likely going to mean is that we will continue
the pattern. we, since 2003, we have had 21 short-term extensions. and not one six-year bill. mr. chairman, i respectfully request that we think about, that you consider allowing me to offer my amendment which would shorten the phase of the money until the end of the year. and that we actually roll up our sleeves and get to work. that we have hearings on ways and means about what the funding conundrum is and decide one way or not. that we not break for summer recess with this unresolved. i'm going to be talking about this from portland, maine to portland, oregon. i'm happy to stop by in washington, d.c. in august. i don't think we should break for reelections and leave communities with uncertainty that's going to last for years.
and it's within our power to do this. i have great respect for our chairman and our friend mr. shuster, and the chairman of the tni committee, the partnership that i serve with a number of our democratic colleagues on the committee. there is a vast array of people from the u.s. chamber of commerce to the afl-cio, local governments, governors, contractors, who are in accord. and by the way, they don't support kicking this into the next congress. the chamber of commerce, for example, had a statement before we voted saying they don't support sliding it on, they want an address now. i agree with the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio and a wide range of other stake holders we need to get down to business now, we should not
adjourn this congress without having resolved this long-term funding, and giving people the certainty of the federal partnership, or if some had their way, maybe there is no federal partnership. and if that's going to be the case they ought to find out sooner rather than later. mr. chairman i deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to appear. i have some additional views that i would like to submit on behalf of ranking member levin and myself. >> without objection we'll include that. >> thank you very much. >> mr. blumenauer thank you very much for your words. i would say to all four of you who are here, thank you not only for taking your time to be here today, i do recognize that there are people who offer a different viewpoint. i will tell you i agree with the mark that the committee has given us here. i want to agree with not only mr. camp for his hard work, ms. norton holmes, because -- and mr. shuster, because i
believe that what needs to happen is we need to get what we can get done when we can do it. it may or may not be easier for us to do it now or later. but we can achieve it here today. and i believe that it's important for washington, d.c. to have certainty as to what we're going to do. and it's great back home in dallas, texas. so i'm glad that we're doing this. i thank all four of you, except my expression of thanks and i defer. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate it. i'd like to take a very brief point of personal privilege and introduce a guest i have this evening. i have a teacher in congress, this is my ninth year of doing it, bring one or two teachers from my district for about ten days to washington to shadow me,
and learn more about how we do our business, and give that person an opportunity to do some individual research and my 2014 teacher in congress is here tonight. michael mccullough back there. he's a reacher at r.j. reynolds high school in win stan sigh lem and today is his first day here in the capitol. and i invited him to come over to see the rules committee in action. keep that in mind, guys. he's going to go back and talk with impressionable minds about what goes on in congress. thank you mr. chairman for allowing me -- >> yield for just one comment. michael you better put on your track shoes. she's tough to keep up with. >> and i don't have any questions either, and i thank our colleagues for being here this afternoon. to make the presentation, and i know this is -- these are very important issues, so thank you
all very much. >> ms. slaughter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to say welcome to our guests. we're happy to have you. this is known as the committee where legislation goes to die. so it's not a bad place for it to start because you won't see much while you're here. anyway, i would rather do what we're doing today, gentlemen. both of you know i've got great affection for you and the good work that you do. i haven't heard from anybody in my state without giving a few months to plant something in a state where they're just doing a survey on bridges. almost all of them are nearly dysfunctional, it's going to help. i think mr. blumenauer is exactly right. i remember the days when the most bipartisan bill in the house of representatives was transportation. and it really is, i think the fact that we can't seem to muster getting a transportation bill for us speaks very poorly of us.
but as i said, i'm not -- this is not even half a loaf, this is a camera and a page, and i guess that an important. i'm having a lot of platitudes today. but there you are. i'm not happy with this bill. and i doubt any of the four of you are, either. but thank you very much. >> the gentlewoman yields back here time. thank you very much. mr. bishop? >> thank you, first of all mr. mccullough, i was a high school teacher before i came to congress. we're 0 for 2. this is sad, sorry. thank you for what you're trying to do here. i appreciate what you've done here. one of the other things that i found was extrooply helpful when i was in state legislature is we had an ending date and the ending date forced us to make decisions which were never great decisions but we had to because in that search for the perfect solution, it ain't out there.
but thank you for what you've done. i appreciate your efforts. yield back. >> mr. mcgovern. >> the chair -- policy on the bill. >> without objection. by the way, does he know what it says? >> yeah, it -- you want me to read it to you? >> well, no i just ask -- >> he's okay with it i think. so we're okay. >> it's all right. >> it's kind of hard to -- >> yeah, but he would prefer a long-term fix to this bill. i always want to associate myself with miss slaughter. you know, this -- this is kicking the can down the road and i'm not sure a deadline creates any more pressure. it just means we might do another short-term, another short-term, another short-term. i was on the transportation committee, mr. shuster, when your father was the chairman. i was there with mr. blumenauer, and i was really proud to support a truly bipartisan transportation bill. and part of the problem you guys are going to have is the people
that make up your conference. some of who have signed pledges to vote no new revenues. who just hate government in every form that exists. and don't understand that in order to fix our roads and our bridges and our aging infrastructure, you're going to have to find a funding mechanism. this is just a suggestion. but if you guys are still in the majority, after november, i pray that you're not, but in case you are, i hope that you will -- you might want to revisit this issue of earmarking. because i think one of the reasons why we were able to pass a transportation bill when your dad was the chairman overwhelmingly, and overrode a presidential veto was because every member had some skin in the game. they actually were able to see where this funding would go in their district and how it would make a difference. so i know that there's probably not fashionable to talk about at this particular point, but in thinking of ways to come to a long-term solution to get people
to buy in, i mean that may be something we might want to revisit. but this should be a long-term bill. it's not. it is what it is. and we look forward to seeing it on the floor. i yield back my time. >> gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> just a couple of quick points because i agree very much with what my colleague had to say although for somewhat different political reasons. i think your position is correct, earmarking would be helpful here. i remember the days because i know my district better frankly than people at the transportation -- we could literally take care of an overpass or put an overpass in where five people had died and we could relieve, and the inability to do that. it just, i think is a sad consequence of -- of you know, politicizing the earmark process that both parties tended to do. i do think thank the gentlemen for their good work. i know this has been a very difficult reach out. i know all of us would prefer a long-term solution. nobody more than the two of you.
and i remain confident at the appropriate time, mr. shuster, you'll get us there. unfortunately we're leaving you on the wrong side of the river, mr. chairman, as we discussed before. i always reminding moses didn't make it to the promised land, either. and dave camp isn't going to make it to the next congress and we're going to be poorer for that frankly. but appreciate your good work. look forward to supporting it, and urge you, as you both continue forward to continue that search for the elusive permanent solution. i agree with my good friend, mr. blumenauer, we need to find one where we can plan over multiyear period, and put the -- put the transportation infrastructure of the country on sounder footing. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. thank you very much. judge hastings, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i thank our presenters, especially. first mr. chairman would like to
call for an open rule on a matter of this magnitude. and i certainly believe that the very least that we should make the amendments of our members, republican and democrat, who come to the committee, in order in this instance, and specifically our support of mr. blumenauer's amendment which i really do believe deserves our ample discussion, and i hope that the committee does not shut us out from having an opportunity to discuss such an important matter for the future. of this country. in essence what you've done is, and i think we all know this, you allow for six months of spending to be paid for over a period of six years. over a period of ten years. and when all is said and done
the pension's smoothing and i think i'm the first person to mention it's been identified that way. i don't think it's going to go smoothly at all if all of the pension funds find themselves in a position where we have to use the pension guarantee to fund them, then we could wind up losing money if this became our only solution. understanding that there's a year, 2015. but i think it amounts to not the committee. i think you all do what you can. i heard mr. camp loud and clear regarding it being bicameral. i appreciate that. i appreciate his efforts also on trying to assure that we do what's necessary on tax reform. but obviously, this particular 113th congress isn't about that business at this point. one thing i know is this. americans don't want their roads in disrepair.
and i live here, in ms. holmes norton's area, and i can tell you, there are very few places that have as many needs when it comes to fixing just potholes alone, unless some of the roads i drive on in florida rival it on occasion. but people don't want their roads in disrepair. and they don't want their bridges falling down. and the 435-plus six of us ought to have the courage, and that's what it amounts to, to stand up and say what's needed. one of the things that's desperately needed, and i go on record now and have in my constituency, is a gas tax increase. and i believe that that is one way that we can address this problem. and i call it just pure, unadulterated cowardice on behalf of all of us in congress for not being able to stand up.
i yield back the balance. >> gentleman yields back his time. i appreciate the gentleman's recomments and respect his ideas. gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i happen to agree with mr. hastings. i think there's a better path forward. since we have chairman shuster here i'm not going to do any hand wringing about this temporary solution. i'm going to do hand wringing about that big five-year proposal you brought last time and i don't know why it's this time that folks don't have any courage and this time why kicking the can is down the road. it was last time when he brought a proposal with no earmarks. brought a proposal some folks thought spent too much and some folks thought spent too little. some folks thought it reformed too much and some folks thought it reformed too little. some folks thought it was too long and some thought it was too short. i don't know what path we're going to follow if we're not going to get together and pass something like that, chairman camp has tremendous courage bringing forward a fundamental tax reform bill that he knew would be met with the perfect,
being the enemy of the good, and you did that same thing on transportation and how quickly you forget when you took over at that committee you made every effort so we would never have to have a day like today, and you led, and the congress did not follow you. and that is on us. that is not on your committee and i'm grateful to you for your efforts in that way. i look forward to your having one more opportunity and i hope we're better followers next time around. that i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. polis last week we celebrated the birth of your baby. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was apprised of a warm reception the committee gave to little cora, and i hope to bring her by next week. so i very much look forward to that. it's my understanding we're meeting four times this week. so if one of those is a late night meeting you might, in fact see me -- >> i'll see what i can do about it. gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i thank the folks for the
testimony, and in my opinion, we need to do a longer-term fix. i think that the gas tax, which is a reasonable funding mechanism for transportation is effectively a user fee, is a reasonable way of doing it. there's other approaches to user fees that i've heard about, and i think the issue with many of them is they might be very elegant economically but people worry about their impact on people's privacy. and those are very legitimate concerns, as well. and while the gas tax isn't a perfect proxy, it seems to be one that the american people can live with as opposed to other proposals that would have impacts on their privacy, knowing where their cars are going, and taxing their miles. i know my constituents would certainly react very negatively to that. so this is a very short-term discussion here. as we go forward i would encourage everybody to look to the gas tax and see if we can find a way to more permanently ensure that we can have adequate
investment in infrastructure and i'm happy to yield back. >> thank you very much. gentleman from louisville, texas, dr. burgess is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll just take ownership as being part of the problem ten years ago. i bought a hybrid vehicle. i did that because i wanted the feeling of moral superiority that you have when you drive a hybrid. but the fact of the matter is, with 50 miles to a gallon i'm only contributing a half of what i used to contribute to building highways. now, i do think that some point we're going to have to address the flexibility that we give the states. and the fact that the state like texas, which desperately needs to be building infrastructure, there's a 20% diversion to rail. there's a 10% diversion to enhancements. maybe we need to look at those numbers again. but we do need to give the states the flexibility that they need to be able to deal with the problems that are at hand.
mr. cole referenced earmarks. i would just say that i think the states may be better arbitrators of what they need than us here at the federal level. but i do appreciate the work that everyone's put into this. i was part of the transportation committee that produced the last six-year bill. in spite of all the difficulty it did work okay. and we'll probably need to review that six-year bill again because of the certainty that people need when they're undertaking these very, very large projects that congress is not just funding from one month to the next. but i thank you for doing the work and for getting us this bill today, and look forward to supporting it on the floor. i yield back. >> thank you very much. chairman shuster i want to thank you. you've taken a lot of humorous jabs today. and some serious jabs. but, i believe that every single member, as you alluded to earlier, as well as ms. eleanor holmes norton stated that it's
in all of our best interests to get this work done. it's in all of our best interests to come to some agreement. as a texan, as a member of the donor state there are a lot of things we may or may not like about this. but i would remind us that we are americans, and that we try and work together and solve our problems through not only rule of law, but this opportunity to work together with members of congress from all across this country. so i am delighted that, in fact, you have succeeded in rounding us up and getting us to do that. i note that we've had one member that has just appeared, and i did not know if any member seeks additional time. i want to thank this panel. anything you have in writing if you'll leave for us we'll put that in the record. this panel is now -- gentleman does seek time. for one minute. >> 30 seconds. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute.
[ inaudible ] >> one sentence i hope people pay careful attention to. congress should work to pass long-term reauthorization bill well before the expiration date set forth in hr-5021. >> and i really concur with the gentleman, also, and that's what we're here to try and do today. ahead of time. wish i was an on-time delivery but not everybody can be u.p.s. thank you very much. this panel is excused. we now call the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, we're delighted that mr. garrett is here. evidently he's going to be recognized to speak on the amendment that may be from the gentleman from oklahoma, from langford. mr. garrett we're delighted not only that you join us but anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. and if the gentleman will make sure that microphone is on, and
i know you're trying to clean up, and the gentleman is recognized. >> so, i thank the chairman. i'll be brief. as i was sitting back there coming in late listen to some of the comments, as far as the problems that we see going forward and the underlying legislation, i don't know why the thought comes to mind the statement i think it was from dickinson from pennsylvania who said, mr. bishop knows the line, we are about to brave the storm in a skiff made of paper. in this case the storm is frying to fund transportation needs and the skiff as mr. hastings points out is a skiff made of debt, paper being paid for over a longer period of time than we're actually going to use the dollars. the numbers i won't go into them. you probably had it from the prior panel that we're spending more money on these programs
than is being generated through the federal fuels tax. to the tune of $350 billion since '08, and i don't come to you with any panacea on the federal angle of paying for this. but i do hearken the words of dr. burgess of saying that at some point in time we need to giving the states more flexibility. to the point that mr. cole raised with regard to, he sees firsthand experience apparently where states couldn't do things in a timely manner because of federal problems. so how do we do this? my understanding there might be another amendment, maybe already came here before, graves amendment or what have you to take a look at this issue. i would suggest that we have looked at this issue for some period of time. in fact we voted on this with a number of pieces of legislation repeatedly and that is to allow the states to have flexibility now, if they so want it, not
compel them to. for those states who do not want to have the flexibility, they can continue to have the federal government tell them exactly what to do. and so this is a joint effort by mr. langford and myself to provide that flexibility in two different mechanisms. and to give the u.s. department of transportation the options of limiting it to just the number of states that they deem as appropriate so it will not be a burden on the system. but that's in a short -- in a nutshell. i've raised this question every year that i served on the budget committee for the 12 years i've served on the budget committee when i've had the secretaries of transportation come before my committee, whether it's republican or democrat, i would often ask them, can you tell me what exactly is the needs on route 519 in sussex county? and they of course said where is 519 in sussex county. i said, see, well that's a major road to us. but here in washington no one knows exactly what it is. yet washington is telling us how to grade it, how to put up
guardrails, and how to do the rest. gosh, i think we have county engineers who are trained enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it, they liked enough that they would be able to handle this job without the government doing it. and if a state so opted to opt out of the system, we should be able to do so. so that's all the legislation does, it's been around for awhile. and i would ask that this committee give it the most serious consideration that i think it deserves. >> gentleman yields back his time. thank you very much. i could not agree more with what you said, the challenge will come to how we apply this. but i want to thank the gentleman. i have believed for a long period of time that states, and the closer we get decision making to people that those people should be empowered to make those decisions. and i have disagreed with mechanisms that we've done around here for quite some time,
where we did on and off ramps as opposed to highways. but such is our lot. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have no questions. >> no questions. is there anyone that seeks time on the democrat side? >> is there anyone on the republican -- gentleman from utah is recognized. >> it's the major need of the road curb and gutter. is the major need of the road curb and gutter. >> curb and gutter? >> yeah. never mind i'll talk to you about this later. i appreciate you bringing this up. >> he's been with the financial services committee. >> right. >> i'm not going anywhere. i'm done. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from oklahoma, chairman is recognized. >> just ask you quickly, self-defense for my friend mr. burgess the earmarks were requested by my state
transportation department. they couldn't get them from the federal government, they had to write them in to law. they then matched appropriately and that's how we got there. so your solution would be an elegant way around this and we could just let people, as you point out, locally know what they're doing actually take the money that they're paying here, remove the fee from the middle man, and actually go ahead and do it. and you could let people that want to spend a large portion of their transportation dollars for museums, or more bike trails or -- they could do that. but, the rest of us that would prefer to spend them on roads and highways could probably do that, too. so, i don't know that we'll be able to do it here. but i certainly like your idea. >> gentleman yields back his time. gentleman from louisville, texas, gentleman is not seeking time. gentleman from georgia. >> mr. chairman, i just wanted to say folks talk about this idea as being around for a long,
long time. i don't think this idea this idea has been around for a long, long time. i don't think this idea has been around a long, long time. i take a look at what mr. garrett has brought as a pilot project. i think this is very, very different. i don't think if i looked -- you can tell me if i'm wrong, mr. garrett. i don't think you have interest, belief that the right system forward for america as it relates to funding transportation is to have some short term pilot projects for a few states. i think you know exactly what the long-term solution is for america and this is a huge departure from let's do and put it in statute and make it happen, to let's just try it a little bit and prove the concept. am i mistaken about that? >> no. when i came here 12 years ago, i was given firm assurances from the leadership at the time of the chairmen of the committee they would work with me on the broader idea you suggested. 12 years later, leadership has changed and some people have changed but i'm getting the same assurances, so i thought i would take a pilot program, being that
is the more reasonable common sense middle of the road team player sort of way to do it. we'll see what the results are. >> that is a big deal. i would ask my democratic colleagues, if you sense that is the same big deal that i do. mr. blumenauer knows what he'd want to do with that state flexibility and something very different than what i'd want to do with that state flexibility. we're worried about whether the federal highway system is maintained, whether or not our major arteries, do they move commerce around? but to have someone of mr. garrett's conservative credentials come forward and say, you know what, maybe folks aren't ready to go all the way. let's just try it, and let's just try it in they places that want to try it and oregon is going to try it differently than oregon is going to try it. i view that as a huge olive bank and path forward we didn't have when mr. shuster brought his
five-year proposal last time. can i ask my friends, do you think i'm making something out of nothing, or do you view that as the same pretty big deal in terms of a new and different way forward? >> i think you're a little bit more excited than i am, but let me say you guys are in charge. you can make whatever you want. i would talk to the people over there. >> well, i -- i'm just tremendously optimistic about what that means for us going forward, and it doesn't happen without 12 years of work in the background to have the credibility to lead on that issue. and i thank you for using your credibility to do that. >> thanks a lot. i appreciate it. >> i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. i want to thank the gentleman for coming up here. i know you had to sit and wait. i hope we were worth your time. i know you were worth our time. if you have anything writing, if you'll leave that there for the stenographer, i appreciate it very much. and gentleman's now dismissed. thank you very much.
i will now be -- chair will now be in receivable motion. this closes the hearing portion of hr-5021, the highway and transportation funding act of 2014. and the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. >> mr. chairman, before i make the motion, i do need to make one more introduction, if i could. i was so focused on mr. mccu mccullough, i did not mention an intern i have with me today, emanuel who is here. he's interning in our office this summer. i'm delighted he's here also. i move the committee grant hr-5 021 of closed rule. one-hour debate, equally divided among the chairs and ranking minority members of the
committee on transportation infrastructure. committee on ways & means. all points of order against consideration. the rule provides the amendment and the nature of the substitute recommended by the committee on ways & means is modified by the amendment printed in the rules and committee report should be considered as adopted and the bill as amended should be considered as read. the rule was all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. >> refer to the gentleman from orlando, florida, for discussion. gentleman's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this rule provides for the consideration of a stop gap highway bill under a closed amendment process. it's pretty straightforward. evenly divides the debate time between the committee on information infrastructure and ways & means. the rule is self-executing for two amendments.
one by mr. shuster making a hand full of technical changes, the other by mr. graves adding some findings. this is a very straightforward rule. i urge the support of this rule. >> i thank the gentleman for his explanation. the committee is now open for amendment or discussion. gentlewoman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have an amendment to the rule. i rule the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers for an amendment by mr., representative blumenauer, number four, that would express that the house enact a long term transportation authorization through at least 2020. the amendment provides funding to the highway trust fund adequate to ensure financing of surface transportation projects through the period necessary to enact such a policy. i think given the space, the information infrastructure in the united states, we should make that an order, let the house decide
whether they want to add that or not. >> i appreciate the gentlewoman for her amendment. is there discussion? i would advise the committee, i believe what the gentlewoman has said, it carries not only merit, but a lot of common sense. however, it should be noted that the united states senate, which is headed up by her party, originally moved their bill to the end of the year, and the big push was get it to the end of the year and mr. shuster found a way to push it further out and to make it a longer enacting bill into next year. and i believe that what the gentlewoman's after, while to 2020 is an attribute that we did not make, but that until the middle of the year be until the end of the year -- the end of this year. i am in favor of voting against the amendment from the gentlewoman. further discussion? seen none. the vote will be on the amendment by the gentlewoman
from new york. those in favor, aye. no? >> roll call, please. >> nos have it. the roll call vote. >> miss foxx? miss foxx, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole, mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. webster, no. mr. burgess, no. miss slaughter. >> aye. >> miss slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern? aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman, no. report the total. >> four ayes, seven nays . >> amendment is not agreed too. gentleman from florida. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. vy an amendment to the rule. i rule the committee grant hr-5021 an older rule so all members have opportunity to offer amendments to the bill on
the floor. >> you've now heard the amendment by the gentleman. gentleman's recognized. >> limited discussion. not only does the underlying field violate cut goal and section 302-f of the congressional budget act, but now the majority has chair pier picked certain amendments they wanted to and closed all process for the rest of the amendments. i made the appeal that all of the amendments of those who came here should be made an order and i certainly am disappointed that mr. blumenauer's amendments are not needed. the committee is going to accept amendments, a clean extension, why not open the process to all members? members should be allowed to improve this bill on the house floor out in the open instead of having these decisions be made by just a few people, and that's
what happened here behind closed door. >> you've now heard the discussion from the gentleman from florida. further discussion on the amendment? seen none. the vote will now be on the hastings amendment. those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed, no. nos have it. gentleman asked the roll call vote. >> miss foxx? >> no. >> miss foxx, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. nugent, mr. webster. mr. webster, no. mr. burgess. mr. burgess, no. miss slaughter. >> aye. >> miss slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings. >> yes. >> mr. hastings, aye. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> reports the total. >> four ayes, seven nos.
>> amendment not agreed to. further amendment or discussion? seen none. vote will be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina, vase chairman of the committee. those in favor, signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from orlando, florida, mr. webster, will be handling this for republicans. mr. polis will be handling this for democrats. the next rules committee meeting is scheduled for 3:00 on tomorrow, on the charitable extenders package. i want to thank the important visitors that we had today. up to and inlutiewdinluting our in congress. thank you very much. this is a distinct pleasure, not only to know mr. foxx brings teachers who she speaks about on a regular basis to the capitol, but you joined us in the rules committee. certainly emanuel, if that is
his name. one of his interns. and have ssavannah and juliana, to thank you for taking time to be us with today. we have now completed our work for the day, and this ends our hearing. >> katie o'donnell is covering the financial services bill on the house florida's week. what is the funding level in the legislation and what areas of the federal government? >> it is $21.3 billion total. agencies and the financial services area -- treasury, irs. they're looking at funding. small business administration. >> you mentioned it involves the irs. how has the recent investigations affected what is
in the bill? >> a lot. there is a good handful of writers taking aim at the irs. they prohibit funding towards targeting people for the first amendment rights. cut the ultimate which is a 340el $1 million increase from current funding levels. is $1.5 billion less than the president requested. the irs has seen its funding levels dwindle. funding time the actually increased year-over-year was in 2010 which was before they had to do a lot of their current responsibilities. there is some new tax evasion law. the federal health care overall where they have 40 provisions to implement.
the irs has been frustrated with its strained resources. in addition to cutting money, there are several riders saying things like spending. write about some of the bills other policy writers, including a provision decriminalizing marijuana in washington, d.c. tell us about that one. collects that would prohibit your criminalizing marijuana. funds cannot go towards any law that would either legalize or reduce penalties for possession of marijuana in d.c. there are a lot of concerns. democrats have accused republicans of basically being hypocritical on states rights because when it comes -- when it comes to d.c. provisions, democrats have refused republicans of legislating
bills. in this case, it is not clear what the first amendment was once enacted but it did pass republican partyline vote. >> the delegate for the district of columbia weighed in on this and in a tweet and speaking on the house floor last week -- why is she opposing it? >> it is an infringement on the city's ability to govern. the bill handles funding for the district of columbia so there is always a fight over an abortion provision, funds going towards abortions in d.c. she routinely sees this as kind of congress overstepping its bounds. >> what are some of the other key issues and amendments you'll be looking for during the debate? >> the fcc gets a funding cut. democrats are really opposed to this.
the ranking member of the subcommittee on financial services on the appropriations committee has basically said the republicans are asking for another financial crisis. it would see about a $100 million cut from president obama's request. it does continue at current levels but the fcc says they need more money to implement the. frank -- the dodd-frank overhaul. there are provisions that would require new reporting requirements and some of the derivative provisions. anything to do with the d.c. is always a flashpoint. abortions -- and there will be a lot of working fors. the irs, doesn't look like they are protesting the writers on the irs, but they may offer amendments to try and increase the funding.
>> kitty o'donnell -- you can hear her stories and follow her on twitter at katie o'donnell. we appreciate your time. >> on the next washington journal, jeff denham on the influx of incoming minors on the u.s.-mexico border. republicans pass on immigration. jim mcgovern of massachusetts talks about his resolution to remove u.s. troops from iraq at the end of the year and spoke about lawsuits against president obama. the financial literacy group representative to discuss of teenagers. washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. tuesday, hearing on public and private efforts for criminal networks.
subcommittee meets at 2:30 p.m. eastern. we will bring it to you on c-span 3. >> we are at the henry center which is 50 miles south and west of des moines. the wallace's of iowa consists of three generations of wallace's. the patriarch was known as fondly as uncle henry and he was the founder of farmer magazine. his father was u.s. secretary of agriculture under woodrow wilson and his son was born on this farm in 1880. andent on to become editor was asked why