Title:سیاست و برنامه ریزی آب در کنگره جدید – نماینده ایالات متحده تیم بیشاپ (D-NY)

سیاست و برنامه‌ریزی آب در کنگره جدید: زیرساخت‌های آب، بازیابی شن‌ها و کاهش خطر انجمن برنامه‌ریزی آمریکا میزبان تیم بیشاپ نماینده ایالات متحده (DN.Y.)، عضو اقلیت رتبه‌بندی، کمیته فرعی حمل‌ونقل و زیرساخت مجلس در منابع آب و محیط‌زیست، در یک پیشنهاد اخیر سیاست‌گذاری، از جمله خط‌مشی‌های بحرانی در هیل و تلاش برای بحث در مورد مسائل مربوط به بحران آب در Capitol بود. برای بازسازی زیرساخت های آبی کشور Rep. Bishop در خط مقدم تلاش ها برای یافتن راه حل های نوآورانه برای نیازهای زیرساختی آب کشور بوده است. به عنوان یکی از حامیان اصلی ابزارهای نوآورانه تامین مالی زیرساخت، او در مورد مجوز مجدد قانون توسعه منابع آب (WRDA) بحث خواهد کرد. WRDA به یک اولویت دو حزبی برای کنگره جدید تبدیل شده است. پیش نویس لایحه ای که در پایان کنگره گذشته پیشنهاد شد، شامل چندین رویکرد جدید برای تقویت زیرساخت های کشور بود. WRDA همچنین احتمالاً به چگونگی برنامه ریزی و انتخاب پروژه های کلیدی و همچنین پشتیبانی برای احیای منابع آب در پی بلایای طبیعی اخیر می پردازد. نماینده بیشاپ ایده های خود را برای این لایحه و چشم انداز آن در کنگره جدید مورد بحث قرار خواهد داد. ضبط شده در ۲۶ فوریه ۲۰۱۳ در دفتر APA در واشنگتن دی سی

قسمتي از متن فيلم: So thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you and i appreciate the work that you do on behalf of our communities and i thought what i would do is just talk a little bit about worda uh talk uh about some other water infrastructure related activities that i hope our committees

Can work on uh over the next two years and then talk about sandy relief and i’d be happy to to take your questions uh with worda part of you all know we haven’t had a word since 2007 you also remember that that word uh passed with broad bipartisan support

Was vetoed by president bush and then in an overwhelming margin uh that veto was overwritten so it used to be that werda was something that brought the congress together i’m not sure that that’s the case uh any longer but i am very very encouraged to hear chairman schuster

Talk about how werda is his number one priority for calendar 13 to get that done i’ve met excuse me i’ve met with chairman gibbs chairman of the subcommittee on water resources he also has worda as his number one priority it’s certainly a very high priority for

Me and it’s a high priority for for ranking member ray hall so i am hopeful that we can get something done now the challenge will be how do you draft and pass a project driven bill in a way that does not run afoul of the of the earmarked man and and thus far

I at least am not aware of any sort of innovative solution to that problem there’s been some talk about doing a worda that would be projects of national significance only we’ll see senator boxer is working very hard on the word of in the senate she’s determined she says

To do it in an earmark free way i wish you’re the best and i say that with sincerity not with sarcasm i i hope that that we you know that that that is a path that goes forward there’s also some discussion on the part of some members

To see if there would be a tolerance for defining the earmark ban or defining earmarks in such a way so as to exclude federal money that would flow from the federal government to another level of government let us say a town or a city or a county or a village and have those

Projects be if you will exempt from the year mark man whether that is a discussion that has legs or not is way too early to tell but there is no question that we need to move onward we have an enormous backlog of projects that members are very interested in

Being addressed we have a number of projects that have previously been authorized that are bumping up against their their cost cap and given the current definition or current understanding of the year mark band to raise the cost cap of a particular project would constitute an earmark so we are in the position we

In the congress are in the position of basically allowing projects to grind to the hall because they have reached their cost cap or waving the cost cap and basically giving the army corps of engineers by the way an agency with which i which i hold in very high regard but we would be

Giving any kind of if you will fiscal oversight we would be giving away any kind of fiscal oversight that the congress would maintain in terms of imposing cost cash so it’s a tough choice for congress to make but it’s clearly what we’re going to have to make

So we’re either going to have to say raising the cost cap in a fashion that is driven by congress does not violate the earmarked ban it’s not a new norm or we have to say to the corps okay you guys know best go at it my own view would be the former as

Opposed to the latter but but we’ll see how that goes but what is encouraging very encouraging is the approach that chairman schuster has taken thus far i i believe that he is determined to return the tni committee to what i view as his legacy which is conducting its affairs in a bipartisan

Fashion that was certainly the case the first eight years i was a member of the committee four years under chairman young four years under chairman overstar it was decidedly not the case in the 112th congress and i really do believe that chairman schuster is determined to to have the transportation

Committee function in the bipartisan way that has been its tradition uh for a long long time i was also encouraged at the very first hearing the chairman health was a chairman was a hearing on the federal role in in financing infrastructure and investments i think that’s very

Important and again a bit of a departure uh from where we were in the last congress so i’m i’m optimistic um uh i don’t have the answers if you will in terms of how we’re going to deal with the project driven nature of a word of build but i’m optimistic that we’re

We’re going to do something collectively and cooperatively and effectively uh onward over the next several months um and i also believe that it is absolutely essential that we do that because as i said we’ve got a pretty pretty extensive backlog of needs that have to be addressed

Um we talk about two others actually three other water related projects that i hope we can move i have a bill that was h.r 3145 in the last congress i hope we’re about to file it this week so i’m not sure what the new number will be that will

Really expand the federal investment in in wastewater infrastructure clean water infrastructure it would provide 13.8 billion dollars over the next five years to the srs it would um it would create a clean water trust fund and it would also create a a financing mechanism similar to the tiffia financing mechanism that is in

The uh is in the highway but we’re not calling it we’re very very creative here so we’re taking a tool box approach to addressing a need that is i think extensive and has been largely ignored in recent years as recently as 2010 we the federal government provided 4.3

Billion dollars to the srf which then went out to the states my state new york gets 11 of that so we got round numbers 500 and some million dollars of of wastewater infrastructure funding the total amount that we’re going to spend in fiscal 13 for uh contribution to the srf is about

۷۰۰ billion nationally so new york got 500 million in 2010 nationally we’re going to spend 700 million in 2013 not anything approaching the scale and scope of what we need to do the estimates are that we have 300 uh billion dollars worth of wastewater infrastructure needs that have to be

Addressed and for me this is a no-brainer i mean this is one where everyone wins we’re gonna we’re gonna improve the environment both we’re going to put people to work and we’re going to create an environment in which economic development can occur i’ll just talk about my district i

Represent the eastern end of long island i have about 300 miles of coastline i have i have two estuaries of national significance and so uh how we deal with our waste is really really important to the quality of the surface waters that surround us and

Uh and only 30 on long island is sewer 70 is is uh so we’ve got a problem and we’ve got waterfront communities that simply cannot expand uh in terms of new businesses or anything like that because there’s no reasonable environmentally responsible way of dealing with the waste so that’s a real hindrance

To economic development so we want to talk about helping job creators do what they do and helping small businesses be the engine of our economy we’ve got to provide the environment one of the things that i that is just a truism of how our country has evolved his job development in our

Country has always been a partnership between the public sector in the private sector and it has been the public sector’s responsibility to provide uh if you will the environment or the framework that allows the private sector to do what they do best which is innovate and create and build build jobs

This is part of providing that that context part of providing that environment to provide a way of dealing with the way so i’m i’m very hopeful that we can move on this i’m going to file a bill this week i’m right now working to develop some some lead republican sponsors to join me

Uh we’ll get a lot of democrats on the bill but i really would like to have a lot of republicans my lead republican in the last conference with steve la tourette as you know he’s now retired which i say unfortunately he’s retired great guy so um i’m hopeful of having a good

Group of republican co-sponsors and then i’m hopeful of that that sharon gibbs and chairman schuster and ranking member rahul and i can work on this in a way that really moves it out of committee again i will say this used to be the kind of thing that would fly out of committee

With broad bipartisan support it would pass the house with broad bipartisan support i’m hopeful that we can recapture that sense of cooperation two other areas that i’m hoping we can work on one is the harbor maintenance trust fund and the other is something that as recently

As 18 months ago i didn’t know existed which is called the england waterways trust fund who knew uh but at any rate both um i think need the way in which we deal with both need to be reformed we’ve got an eight billion dollar balance sitting in the hardware maintenance trust fund

That we’re not addressing and we take in about 1.4 uh billion dollars a year and we spend about 700 um 700 million against that now we’ve got dredging and hardware maintenance needs all over this country and we’ve got birth and channel needs all over this are not all over this country

But certainly on both coasts uh more so the west coast and so i’m hopeful that we can find a way to finance the spending the proceeds that are currently sitting in the trust fund and then on an annual basis if we take in 1.4 billion we’re gonna we’re going to spend 1.4

Billion because we’re going to have a lot of work to do to get our major courts ready uh for the new shipping that will be coming through the panama canal sometime in the next two to three years and we also have all kinds of needs for less less obvious sports again i represent

A district that has the two largest fishing ports in the state of new york china foreign and there are ongoing harbor maintenance needs and inlet dredging needs there that at the present time we’re not addressing adequately and also with the year mark man becomes much much more difficult i mean

Whenever i argue with people about whether or not we should have earmarks let’s remember that the army corps of engineers budget is 100 year mark it used to be that it was 75 executive branch 25 percent legislative it’s now 100 uh executive and so what i was saying was

Who do you think is spending more time worrying about the shitty inlet me or the director of the onb i think i win that i think i’m spending more time worrying about the okay than that he or she is and then a little waterways trust fund basically the same issue we’ve got an

Aging infrastructure we’ve got an infrastructure that is uh that uh a piece of it takes up a huge chunk of what we spend out of the inland waterways trust fund uh and we’ve gotta we’ve gotta reform the way that operates so i’m i’m hopeful again i’ve talked to chairman gibbs about all these

So he knows what my interests are uh i certainly have the support of ranking member ray hall so i’m not i won’t say i’m confident i’m hopeful that we can move in some of these areas uh lastly let me talk about sandy recovery um you all know you know that we we’ve got

۵۰ some billion dollars of recovery funds that will be divided between new york new jersey and in connecticut with the overwhelming uh portion of that going to new york and new jersey uh we’ve got a lot of coastal red coastal shoreline uh restoration needs again again not all my district but i represent

Probably 80 percent of fire island which is part of the very beach structure that protects the mainland of long island uh the doom structure of statin of um of fire island is essentially flattened uh so uh a very serious problem and we at this very moment are very exposed to

Any any kind of storm system that is going to happen so if we get our traditional you know late winter spring nor’easters we’re going to have some problems um as you know staten island was devastated the western edge of long island long beach far rockaway lindenhurst those areas were just

Devastated and then the new jersey shore was was devastated thankfully my district the storm had less of an impact as you move further east and so my district had a lot of flooding and a lot of coastal erosion but we did not have as much of the structural damage

That occurred uh further to the west and in new jersey but we’ve got a real opportunity here we’ve got uh 50 some billion dollars we’ve got language in the sandy supplemental that allows the armed force of engineers to restore to design specification as for store as opposed to restoring to pre-storm

Condition that’s really really important we have a hazard mitigation fund which is going to bring hundreds of millions of dollars if not more true areas to municipalities so that we can not only restore but restore in a way that will hopefully withstand future storms and so i think we have a real

Opportunity but let me tell you we have got to do it right we have got to do it right i mean for the first time since i’ve been here the damage supplementals became a controversial issue i mean every other week within two weeks of katrina we had 60 some billion

Dollars on the way to louisiana and the gulf coast it was nine weeks and i mean let’s just look look at how many people voted against it uh so there’s gonna be an enormous amount of scrutiny there’s gonna be an enormous amount of finger pointing second guessing i told you so

So it is incumbent on on all of us and i think a lot of this falls to the to the community that you represent in the community professionals that you represent um that we’ve got to do this right uh because if we don’t do it right i think

It’s going to be held today both practically and politically so let me uh let me stop there and uh i’d be happy to take your questions thank you very much questions from from the audience are you looking at any new funding mechanisms um i’m not aware of any i mean you know

They’re the things that we’ve talked about you know public private partnerships private activity bonds uh that kind of thing uh but i mean it would it would be primarily uh funding that would come through the appropriations process but but um certainly in um in the the bill that that i’m dealing with

Which i know is not your question h.r 3145 i mean uh you know we want to encourage public-private partnerships we want to encourage uh you know we want to lift the cap on private activity bonds that that kind of thing so i do think that we have to explore

Um we have to explore alternative mechanisms of financing um the environment is such that you know the traditional ways that we finance infrastructure projects may not be sufficient anymore the other issue we have is i mean you know the elephant in the middle of the room that i have not

Spoken about is is sequestration i mean um uh you know i mean this the sandy we lose three billion dollars um to sequestration uh for the sandy relief now and let’s remember that the sandy relief initial request was 80 some billion from governors christie and paul and that by the way

Was not a padded number that’s a real number uh what we passed including the increase in the flood insurance was 60 60 billion and now that number is going to get back down by another three billion presumably as a friday uh and the army corps of engineers i mean we’re going to cut

Their budget by 600 million dollars we’re going to cut total infrastructure funding in fiscal 13 by over 4 billion just from sequestration so we’re in an environment in which i think at least in terms of what is a proven job creator we’re going in the exact wrong direction the best way for us

To get ourselves back on track financially fiscally is to have a growing economy and infrastructure investment is integral to a growing economy and yet the prevailing mindset seems to me that the way we have a growing economy is by imposing austerity i’m not aware of any country

Uh where that’s worked if someone can point one out to me i’d love to be educated i don’t say that sarcastically i say that uh sincerely as well but everything i’ve learned about how austerity works is that it takes you it gives you more of the same so yeah

An infrastructure back well certainly the president made reference to it um in his state of the union uh speech and it certainly thing i mean there’s there was a bill in the last congress i think the rosa delauro bill that i was a co-sponsor of lots of dems were

Co-sponsors of i don’t know that i don’t know that too many republicans signed on so i think an infrastructure bank has got to be one of the tools if you will in our toolbox if we’re gonna if we’re gonna make the kind of advances that we

Need to make because again i will say the environment is such that if we’re going to rely just on the appropriations process to fund what we need to do it’s pretty clear that the appropriations process isn’t going to get us there i’m wondering if there’s anything in the bills that encourage

People to look at climate change as they’re making these infrastructure upgrades um i know that there was language in the last word of bill the 07 word of bill that required the corps to to allow for climate change in terms of their studies any i’m sorry to put you on the spot is

There anything in the sandy supplemental that makes specific reference uh to mitigating against climate change no but it does make reference to losing available look i would hope uh that the climate change deniers i would hope that um they would be willing to embrace reality you know i mean i mean

I mean as governor cuomo said i think he was absolutely right we have a 100 year storm now every two years i mean uh something is changing and and for us to continue to say that it’s you know cyclical or you know bad luck i mean is

You know we gotta we gotta embrace reality here and recognize that climate change is a real thing and we’re gonna have to start dealing with them in the uh where you need your microphone i’m just going to say in the clean water and drinking water srf part

Of the sandy moon they do make resilience and eligible activity and upa asks for the first time to define what resilience is so that’ll be an interesting exercise yeah there’s also resilience language if i remember correctly in the armed force section so uh so yeah so you’re quite right thank

You for pointing that out well i was just wondering in terms of the clean water infrastructure bill that you’re considering introducing are you making any particular provisions for small or rural communities in terms of their debt burdens and being able to service that yes uh there there would be

Um there would be uh loan forgiveness uh in in the potential for loan forgiveness in the language of the bill there would be um potential for what what the federal government refers to as negative interest i love that um but but yes uh there would be uh there would be an accommodation for

For um for communities that can’t uh that that can’t carry the the you know servicing along and that exists now i mean in the uh i mean i know we were able to get uh four million dollars to rehab a sewage treatment plant for a tiny little community in my district called greenport

Year-round population in greenport is 2100 people they have their own sewage treatment facility they were under a court order to reduce nitrogen loading in long island sound and uh they got four million dollars from the srf now there is no way that a community with a

Tax base of 2 million 2 000 people is going to be able to handle that without having to disrupt other things so we were able to get a great deal of that as forgivable uh advance you mentioned senator lockster’s interest in the concept of infrastructure of national significance

And that’s a concept that uh we the apa find intriguing as well that there is going to be about a role in certain kinds of things shouldn’t there be a priority or it can be identified in that way uh it’s uh fairly easy to understand how that

Might work uh in the senate uh it’s a little tougher to think about 435 districts in the house because certainly we’re not going to pass major legislation that leaves out a large number of those 435 districts that perhaps uh within an overall infrastructure whether there’s water whether it’s transportation whatever it might be

There might be a way of having another program that deals with that concept do you see that gaining traction anytime in the near future in the house i think it can i mean look the surface transportation bill safety loop had a provision for projects of national significance and now again passed in a

Different era safety blue i think passed with 15 descending votes in the house of representatives we don’t pass post offices now with fewer than 15 percent of the votes but um but um i do think that there is the potential for the house to embrace projects of national significance

Hey i was wondering um if there is any provision in the bill or any of the measures that you’ve spoken of for green infrastructure or for projects that will maybe be a smaller amount upfront but will require ongoing needs there is a green infrastructure provision in in our wastewater infrastructure

Somewhat controversial by the way some people don’t like that sure but we do have it yes along those lines what about some sustainable and uh environmental management of the wire facilities and energy efficiency and renewable energy is that a component of our bill yeah um

I don’t think that it is and so that’s something that i would like to if you want to help work with us on that i’d be happy to do that the term infrastructure has an awful lot of meanings as a steward of federal infrastructure i understand i’m very

Interested in the future of the civilian realignment act i understand it was reintroduced last week can you say anything about its prospects uh uh what the politics are that relate to it that have held it you’re um you have much more knowledge on this subject than i do so talk to me about

The situation what is it well i can’t speak for every federal agency but mine in particular which i where i might on my lapel nasa um is 50 smaller in terms of the dollars that we have to conduct our programs and yet over the time that we’ve reduced our

Budget by 50 percent in real terms our facilities are at 150 percent of where they were compete and so facilities are a very large burden on a relatively smaller agency so tell me about the civilian realignment so the theory is that the principles that guided brac to allow the dod to

Step out of a political context and deal with some contraction and realignment issues in a in an effective way should be applied to the civilian part of the federal government’s infrastructure as well so that’s the principle of the bill i understand it’s been introduced in the last two congresses but who’s those

People you know the sponsors i don’t i i don’t want to live and comment on something that i obviously know almost nothing about so um i will um i will have to take your question and do a little research and then if you could leave your uh

Your card with with my uh my colleague i’d be happy to get back to you i’m sorry i just don’t know by the way when i first started running for congress uh somebody asked me a question and i said i have no idea i don’t know

The answer and i was with a reporter was trailing me that day and he said you know i’ve never heard an elected official or a kind of need to be like i don’t know and i said to him if i may be a little profane for a second i i said to him

That i was a college administrator and i spent 29 years in rooms full of students and the very best detectors in the world for students and i learned not to try to bluff my way through i don’t know other questions obviously i’m running out of things i know so uh

Given what we’ve already talked about with the sandy recovery that you could epa to define resilience the need to build up to design standards rather than previous performance standards uh how do your constituents and how do you uh the balance between planning properly versus getting things done as soon as

Possible and so that’s such a great question and it’s it’s very difficult i mean when you’ve got you know your entire life savings sunk into your home and you’re living in a hotel room your primary focus is to get back to that that home at the same time you know we

We i think have an obligation to if we’re going to be assisting in the rebuilding of that home or the refurbishment of that home uh we have some obligations it seems to me to try to do it in a way that will allow it to withstand future storms one of the

Things in the in the uh for my district is that the core has and we’re going to be looking very carefully at this is elevating homes along the shoreline uh another another potential there’s actually three areas three potential funding pools for that is the core uh under its jurisdiction under its authorization

What’s called firearm on top point reformulation study uh the cdbg money could be used at the discretion of the state to elevate or relocate and then and hazard mitigation grant money under fema that could also be used so i think that’s going to be a challenge and it’s going to be a

Challenge for the property owners it’s going to be a challenge for the local government and it’s going to be a challenge for a state government because let’s remember with the exception of the core how we spend the fema money hazard mitigation and how we spend the cbpg money is going

To be determined uh at either the state level or the county level so uh i think it’s a it’s a real i mean it’s a tight book that that we’re going to have to make sure that we that we maintain our balance on to assist people restoring their love for getting their

Lives back to normal as quickly as possible if that is in fact possible and for some community it’s just not possible i mean but but at the same time doing it in a way that’s responsible and and in a way that recognizes long-term challenge i wanted you to comment on the

Role of mitigation in a new world available in the 2007 word of mitigation facilities projects was so seen on par with the uh 404 regulatory program that’s no criticism about the way the past time approach is that potentially the area for adding attention or is that an area perhaps where the budget would

Be balanced well i um i i think it has to be an area for increased attention i mean i think we’ve had so many reminders of of how vulnerable we are and and we also have technologies and and uh you know innovation that lets us know

How we can help you know how we can withstand some of that so i think mitigation has to play a more prominent role than it has in the past and i don’t know whether my colleagues agree or not but that’s certainly how i will be approaching fema has

In new jersey new york they’ve issued what they’re calling advisory flood maps which provide information for communities in a recovery process and in effect to elevate higher um there’s a there’s another piece to that story and that is the bigger waters act and modified to reform the flood

Insurance act that in effect will phase out subsidies so people that do not build back to those advisories will at some point in time be faced with very very intensive flood insurance here to comment on all that you know again it’s a challenge but if the federal government is going to be

The insurer of last resort which is basically what the flood insurance program is i think the federal government has i think it’s proven for the federal government to say look we can’t keep coming back claim after claim after claim so it’s a very tough area but i i think that i i think

You know withholding subsidies is something that that uh my own view is proof i mean so and i say that representing an area that’s got lots of homes that are you know included in the floodplain so but i i just look i mean like i said

Uh if we’re gonna if we’re gonna you know storm after storm handle claims without any change in behavior i’m not sure that’s the wisest path for the federal government to take that by the way will just become a 30-second head despite the inclusion of resilience in the sandy language the administration still has

Relations to the principles and guidelines as we’re 2007 requested so we’re still planning new projects based on economic development as the sole goal do you have any comments on well we’ve been pushing we’ve been pushing omb to develop their guidance as quickly as possible for the sandy uh regulations so that we um

So that you know agencies that are absolutely vitally recovering like the core uh know what what they can do or what they should do so i look um i i think you know the guidance needs to be needs to be formulated i hope it’s done so as quickly as possible but i

Think it’s you know it has to deal with issues like like resilience again you got two choices with reality and one of them is to accept it and then the reality is that you know we’ve got uh you know year after year season after season we’re dealing with weather related

Natural disasters that require us to respond let me uh ask one final question i know we will let you go right at the top of the hour um i i want to get your opinion on the issue of revenues and revenue particularly for infrastructure you mentioned chairman schuster’s

First hearing with the issue of revenue was front and center and there seemed to be a greater openness to exploring whether it’s the gas tax or other tools to raise revenue there’s also a lot of talk about tax reform happening in this congress and just your views on whether either through

Modification existing revenue streams or through tax reform the creation of new streams or other sorts of innovative finance tools that might be used to provide greater revenues for infrastructure investment my own view is all the above we have not raised the voter fuels tax since 1993 um we have not raised the harmful

Maintenance trust fund in a long long time we haven’t raised the inland waterways trust one fee i think since 1993 as well um we have increased demand increased cost and a diminished revenue stream and so we only have a couple of choices we either do less and by the way you all

Remember that the mantra of the tni committee uh in the 112th congresses let’s do more with less how’d that work out um you know what you when you have less you do most that’s just that’s just the cold hard truth and we have lots of needs we have lots

Of aspirations uh and we’re going to need more revenue and the other way i would put it is and forgive me for going slightly we spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year 48 cents of every dollar we spend is on people over the age of 65.

۱۸ cents of every dollar we spend is on national defense and 9 cents of every dollar we spend is on interest on the national debt that’s 75 cents of every dollar we spend is in just three areas so something has to give here and one of

The things that i think has to give is that if we are going to continue to have the aspirations that we have and i don’t just mean we the government i mean we the people of the united 50 percent of states american people think we should come anybody want to

Guess what it is 80 people in the world no yeah well yes foreign foreign basically everybody else every single other area of the federal government people want to spend more than we’re spending yet they also say we have to cut our spending so um obviously those two systems do not align

But i think we need to be very very careful about where we spend our money i think we have to we have to grapple with uh with um you know an aging population we have to grapple with lots of things but one of the ways we have to do that

Is with more revenue and whether it is user fee based revenue such as the highway trust fund such as the inland waterways trust fund or whether it is closing loopholes but let’s remember our republican colleagues have said that they’re all for tax reform but they want it to be revenue neutral so

I don’t know what that gets us in terms of solving problems in terms problems that can only be fixed with money uh like dredging a harbor there by the way is no you know cost-free way of dredging a harbor right there’s no cost-free way of building the sewage treatment facility or laying the

Pipe for it um so i think we have to i’d look i mean we’re in a discussion this week and for the last several weeks of whether we take a spending on the approach to solving our problems or we take a balanced approach this is one of those areas where i

Believe we need to take a balanced approach you know make the types of prudent reductions in our expenditures that we can make but at the same time we have to we have to generate some additional revenue revenue as a proportion of gdp federal revenue as a proportion of gdp

Is lower than it’s been at any time since world war ii so anyway with that i’ll stop thank you all very much you

ID: 85UKiaJ7Z10
Time: 1365799242
Date: 2013-04-13 01:10:42
Duration: 00:41:24

منبع