Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of hyperactive rhetoric about the fiscal cliff and the trouble ahead. The fact is that people should just take a deep breath and focus on where we are and where we need to go. First of all, it's not a fiscal cliff but a slope. There are many opportunities for us in the weeks ahead to be able to change the unsustainable trajectory of America's financial future. There are many efforts already evident and people taking steps to try to cope with it. The President campaigned very explicitly on raising the top tax rates. It was something that was embraced by Democrats running for the Senate and virtually all of them running for the House. The President won. The Senate actually increased in Democratic numbers. There were more Democrats added to the House. And more Americans voted for the President and his vision, for the Senate Democrats, and for Democrats in the House than my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle. It's encouraging that the President has decided that he's no longer going to negotiate with himself. He's laid out his positions and has encouraged a response. I, for one, was pleased that there was a proposal offered up by my Republican friends, signed not just by the Speaker but the entire Republican leadership. While it still does not have the specifics about what those elusive tax loopholes that they want to close are, which will raise sufficient revenue, I find this an encouraging sign that there is an effort, for the first time, to put something back, and I think there are opportunities for people to flesh out the details. There is an opportunity for tax reform; our system now is not efficient. It's chaotic. It's expensive. It's unfair and perplexing. There is an opportunity for us going forward to add a little more rationality to it while it raises more revenue. There are countless opportunities in the Department of Defense to save money, starting with $250 billion in the nuclear arsenal for weapons that we will never use and don't need. There are opportunities for agricultural reform. And it's been my pleasure to work on bipartisan reform efforts with Senator-elect Jeff Flake of Arizona and my friend from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. And there are real opportunities in health care. Now I hope my Republican friends will stop the charade we went through this last 2 years repealing ObamaCare some 37 times. That train has left the station. The President was reelected. It's not going to be repealed. The Supreme Court has decided that it's constitutional. And most of the major health care players are busy at work implementing health care reform. But we have barely scratched the surface of the ability to squeeze more value out of the health care system. The United States does not have to spend nearly twice as much as all the other developed countries and actually have health care results that, on average, are worse than our European and Japanese friends. We have the best health care in the world for some Americans. But too many are denied regular health care, and others are paying too much for results that aren't good enough. We know what to do: embedded in the health care reform act are elements of reform that used to have bipartisan support, starting with the mandate that was cosponsored by 16 Republican Senators, elements of reform that were implemented by Republican and Democratic Governors alike, including Governor Romney. It's time for us to act on those elements, to accelerate the reform. I note with no small amount of irony that the $716 billion that the Republican ticket, Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan, used to campaign against the President, Paul Ryan's budget included the same reductions, and it's likely that they will be in his budget that's coming forward. Let's act on things that we agree. Let's rebuild and renew America and find ways to save money and put us on the path to fiscal responsibility that the American public needs and demands.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Mitt Romney weathered a storm of criticism late in the campaign after Hurricane Sandy for his earlier comments about privatizing FEMA and turning responsibility back to State and local governments. But during an era of fiscal restraint and global warming, it's high time that we start this conversation in earnest. How big do you want your FEMA to be, how generous your disaster relief payments, and how much do you want to pay? In today's New York Times op-ed section, there is an article that points out the potential liability for flood insurance alone is $1.25 trillion, second only to the liability for Social Security. Right now, we have arguably the worst of both worlds. The Federal Government responds to disaster, usually paying too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things. We provide Federal money to put people back in harm's way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future, risky development worse. We often take remedial action like fortifying beaches, a temporary solution that can actually accelerate erosion elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more serious flooding down river. By giving the illusion of protection, more people locate in dangerous areas, and the vicious cycle is repeated with untold damage to families, with loss of life, loss of property, disruption of business. Perhaps we'd be better off if we began with a serious conversation about what people expect from FEMA and heavily subsidized flood insurance. What if the balance of responsibility between individuals, local, State, and Federal governments were analyzed? What if we required individual property owners to assume more of the cost of disaster mitigation and recovery by paying the full cost of their flood insurance premiums and having recovery benefits provided on a declining scale after repetitive incidents? What if local developers were required to insure their buildings withstood the cost of certain foreseeable disaster events? Would they be less likely to pressure local governments to approve risky development proposals? If individual homeowners absorbed more of their cost with slightly higher home prices, would it make it less likely that they're going to be buying homes in dangerous locations? Shouldn't local governments be required to have stronger zoning and building codes to make loss less likely and recovery less expensive? What if these local governments were put on notice that when they invest in infrastructure, that the Federal disaster relief is only going to cover a portion of the loss and that portion will decline with increasing frequency of events? While there appears to be little appetite for overall Federal control, there ought to be even less appetite for the Federal Government to pay for the failure of local control to plan, zone, enact, and enforce strong code provisions and consumer protection. The notion that this is all going to be a one-way street for the Federal taxpayer to pay for repetitive disaster costs is something that needs to be challenged and rejected out of hand. Make no mistake; I think it would be foolish to privatize FEMA because there is a need for Federal response to true disasters. That's precisely the time that the local economy and taxpayer are least able to pay the full cost of recovery. They need money, personnel, and assistance, but that doesn't mean a permanent entitlement to risky behavior. The Federal Government should deal with what is truly catastrophic and with the humanitarian costs. Families obviously should not be left destitute, hungry, and homeless in the aftermath of natural disaster. There is, however, no reason that we encourage the repetition of these terrible events. In a time of fiscal stress and budgetary realignment, we should include government disaster spending, liability and development policy as we address the fiscal cliff. Done right, this will not only save money, but countless lives, as well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for yielding me this time, and I identify with a number of the reservations that he mentioned about this legislation. A costly, inhumane, and broken immigration system is a shadow over the American landscape. The current system denies the reality of nearly 12 million immigrants, who, for the most part, are already part of the fabric of American life. They work in American business and are often already integrated into existing families. A consequence of this recent election may well be a new reality on the American political scene when it comes to immigration, a willingness to soften hard-edged positions and move us in a more thoughtful direction. We are already hearing some of these signals from the Senate this week. In a small way, the legislation before us today may provide an additional opportunity to move forward. I voted against its earlier incarnation--reluctantly--because it was designed to fail. While I will vote today against the rule, tomorrow I will be voting for the legislation which would create the STEM Visa program and give 55,000 green cards a year to doctoral and masters graduates in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical fields. Dealing with this in regular order is encouraging. The bill was also made marginally better. I think we have an opportunity here for us all to help break this logjam. Creating a STEM Visa program should be a no-brainer. This legislation is certainly not perfect, and I agree, as I mentioned, with some of the reservations that have been advanced. Frankly, unless our objections are addressed, it will not pass the Senate. We don't support the philosophy that immigration needs to be zero sum. We need not eliminate the Diversity Visa program in order to add this program. The Senate, as I said, will fix these provisions, if they take it up at all. Frankly, I hope they do take it up and they do fix it. This would be an important signal to the next Congress that we can and must move forward on broader immigration reform, like the comprehensive immigration reform, that Senator McCain previously supported with the late-Senator Kennedy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. America needs to unite families, to protect and give justice to young people, strengthen business from high tech to agriculture and help us live up to our ideals as a Nation of immigrants. A costly, inhumane, and broken immigration system is a shadow over the American landscape. The current system denies the reality of nearly 12 million immigrants, who for the most part are already part of the fabric of American life. They work in American business and are often already integrated into existing families. Strengthening and expanding legal immigration even helps grow our economy. Conservative economists for the Cato Institute project that a comprehensive imigration reform with a pathway to citizenship would add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over 10 years. Unfortunately, rational immigration policy has fallen victim to some of the most extreme political cross currents in our country which not only deny our roots, but violate fundamental fairness and reality. Recent immigration legislation is costly, inefficient, and cruel as it relates to families already here. Young people brought here as children who know no other life and are American in every sense, but are still denied the American dream. A consequence of the election may well be a new reality on the American political scene when it comes to immigration and a willingness to soften hard-edged positions and move us in a more thoughtful direction. There have been shifts in public attitude embracing comprehensive solutions for some time, but in the political arena this is a more recent phenomenon. It will take time to do this right, but a willingness by some on the other side of the aisle to offer their own version of the DREAM Act in the Senate, for example, is reason for optimism. While I strongly support a comprehensive solution that provides a path to citizenship for people who are willing to play by the rules, work hard, pay their taxes, and demonstrate citizenship skills, there are two intermediate steps that should get us moving in the right direction. The DREAM Act and the creation of a STEM visa program should be low-hanging fruit that almost everyone can embrace. The deferred action announced by the administration to give a sliver of hope to these bright young people who study hard and play by the rules and who are good citizens was a good step but should be followed by early action on the DREAM Act. I am proud this was passed by the previous Congress and I hope it will be the first order of business in the new Congress. These young people are the lifeblood of America's future and we should welcome them and do everything possible to ensure their success. I will vote for H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act, which creates a STEM visa program and would give 55,000 green cards a year to doctoral and master's graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematical fields. I reluctantly voted against this in September because it was brought forward as a last minute suspension bill designed to fail and create unnecessary political divisions. This time, dealing with this in regular order is encouraging. It was also made marginally better. For example, the new version of the legislation decreases the wait time for certain spouses and children who are planning to join their loved ones with permanent residency in the United States. It also removed a concerning provision that forced STEM visa applicants to commit to working in the United States for five years. While prospects in the Senate are still dim, the most important change has been the willingness of my friends on the other side of the aisle to take another look at immigration and maybe dial down the political rhetoric. I was personally willing to meet them halfway. Creating a STEM visa program should be a no-brainer. It will make a huge difference in keeping the best and brightest from around the world in the United States. These students come to our colleges and universities to receive the best education available and it is insane to send them back home or to other countries if they want to stay here. It has been said that we should staple a green card to every diploma for an advanced degree. We should certainly do whatever is necessary for appropriate verification to ensure national security, but the overwhelming majority should be welcome to reside, be productive, create families, and support businesses right here. The legislation is certainly not perfect and unless our objection is addressed will not pass the Senate. We need comprehensive immigration overhaul, not a piecemeal approach. I also do not support the philosophy that immigration needs to remain zero-sum: we should not need to eliminate the diversity visa in order to add this program. I am confident the Senate will fix these provisions. This would be an important signal to the next Congress that we can and must move forward on broader immigration reform. America needs to unite families, to protect and give justice to young people, strengthen business from high-tech to agriculture, and help us live up to our ideals as a Nation of immigrants.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Perhaps one of the best parts of serving in Congress is the access to our Library, the Library of Congress, the dedicated staff at CRS, and the magnificent Members Reading Room. The Library of Congress is truly a national treasure; and leading the Library of Congress is another national treasure, Dr. James Billington, who had a long and distinguished career as scholar and institutional leader before assuming leadership of the Library of Congress 25 years ago. As chair of the Library of Congress Caucus, it's been a great pleasure to work with Dr. Billington and his outstanding staff on a variety of issues and activities for Members of Congress. The caucus urges you to join Speaker Boehner today in the Rayburn Room at 11 a.m. as he honors Dr. James Billington and his exemplary quarter century of leadership as the Librarian of Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. You have heard and you will continue to hear how important it is to pass this legislation to level the playing field for the United States and our businesses that seek to do business with Russia, one of the 10 largest economies in the world. This provides us an additional tool to make sure that our friends in Russia play by the rules. Now, while one of the Presidential candidates talked about Russia being the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States, I think it's clear that times have in fact changed. The relationship between the United States and the former Soviet Union has been dramatically altered. Russia is an opportunity for us--it's a challenge. We have differences of opinion. There are issues that we, frankly, need their cooperation. There are others that we're pushing back a little bit. But it is far better to be engaged in economic competition and cooperation to help build those bridges. Speaking of bridges, I think it's encouraging to watch the debate on this floor today. It's been my pleasure to be involved with a variety of them over the years, but this is one where there is commonality, where there's consensus, where we're working together to move forward. I hope this forms a pattern by which we will be able to have future success in critical, thoughtful trade policy crafting in the future. The American economy needs it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. For years, I have traveled the country preaching ``bike-partisanship,'' using bicycle and pedestrian facilities to help people burn calories, not fossil fuel, improve their health, have fun, and enrich the community. Red State, blue State, Republican, Democrat, Independent, it doesn't matter; the public gets it and has been part of an amazing renaissance. Let's redouble our efforts at creating a stronger Federal partnership to help more communities realize this vision. But let's not stop with bike-partisanship. Are there other areas that are low or no cost that enjoy broad public support, solve problems, and bring people together rather than divide them? What about rebuilding and renewing America? Certainly the need is there. Until recently, the T&I Committee was an island of congressional consensus. Since we merely extended the last transportation reauthorization and the new Congress must act in about 97 weeks, let's work on a bolder vision of investing in America, one that puts people to work, improves the economy, the environment, and saves money in the long run. Congress can begin on this now. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Congress can't ignore the near bankrupt flood insurance program. While we fix the short-term problems, however, let's make it more effective, efficient, and actuarially sound so that it will spare lives, property, and the Federal Treasury. Overhauling the flood insurance program would solve the most immediate challenges caused by extreme weather events likely due to global warming. We may even be able to discuss climate change in a more thoughtful and rational way. Based on the work I've done in the past with Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator-elect Jeff Flake, I know agricultural reform is a ripe opportunity. Taxpayers cannot afford to lavish unnecessary subsidies on large agribusiness while harming the environment and shortchanging small farmers and ranchers. Surely Tea Party Republicans and members of the Progressive Caucus can come together to improve nutrition, wildlife habitats, hunting, and fishing while strengthening family farms. And since Big Bird dodged a bullet during the Presidential campaign, maybe it's time to address the vital role that the Federal support for public broadcasting plays, which we all rely on--not just for news and information, but education for our kids and, as illustrated by Hurricane Sandy, emergency communication. With incredibly broad public support from Americans regardless of political party, Congress should make a long-term financial commitment to funding the most trusted brand in broadcasting so it can plan for the future. The last 10 years have been characterized by bipartisan cooperation to promote access to safe drinking water and sanitation around the globe. My 2005 legislation, cosponsored by Henry Hyde, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, saved lives and made friends for America. In this Congress we have another bipartisan bill, Water for the World, which is cosponsored by my friend Ted Poe, which would build on that foundation and accelerate progress. It's all teed up and ready to go and could be easily passed next week. Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of Americans think getting full information about their situation as a loved one faces the end of life should be a top priority for health care. Before the 2009 political ``lie of the year'' about ``death panels,'' this provision in the health care reform enjoyed broad bipartisan support. There is new legislation to personalize people's health care so that they get the information they need to make these difficult, sometimes painful, decisions and make sure their decisions, whatever they are, are respected by doctors and hospitals. This refined legislation could easily be achieved now that we're implementing health care reform. These are all bipartisan, cost-effective initiatives that are overwhelmingly embraced by the public. Is it perhaps time to have a Legislators' Caucus, where Members in both parties who just want to get something done can come together with ideas like these? Who knows? Working together to get something done might become habit-forming.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on H.R. 3409, the so-called ``Stop the War on Coal'' bill. am strongly opposed to this legislation and joined many of my colleagues in voting against it, because it endangers our environment, the public's health, and the stability of the American auto industry. While this bill is about much more than just coal, I want to take a moment to be clear about my position on coal: it is an energy source from our past, not for our future. We must reduce our reliance on coal for generating electricity at home and abroad. I have long been fighting to protect and strengthen the Clean Air Act. Predictable enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act helps protect our health, keep our air and water clean, and provides regulatory certainty to American businesses. As countries around the world strengthen their environmental protections, it is concerning to watch the United States move backwards. Not only does this bill restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's power to protect public health, but it changes the regulatory process to blatantly prioritize profits over human health. It also rolls back an industry-negotiated agreement to strengthen tailpipe emission standards. I supported many of the attempts to improve this bill, including an amendment to implement a renewable energy standard, an amendment to require a study on the public health impacts of coal dust, and an amendment to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to take action under the Clean Air Act when such action would reduce our reliance on oil. Unfortunately, the Republican majority defeated all of these commonsense amendments. We find ourselves in this debate due to the lack of comprehensive national policies on energy and global warming. The actions we should take now would help us move forward into the clean energy economy; instead of focusing on the past. We should lead by example and enforce the Clean Air Act against older, inefficient plants to make them clean up or shut down. We should enforce the Clean Water Act to restrict or shut down mountain top removal coal mining. When the economy strengthens, we should enact a carbon tax to discourage the production and export of our carbon pollution. And finally, we should fight for international action global greenhouse gas emissions so that emerging global economies do not destabilize the global climate. While this bill is upsetting enough on its own, it is particularly frustrating given the work that Congress has failed to do this session. We have yet to address tax reform, the looming budget sequestration, or even the Farm Bill. Instead, Republican leadership has decided to spend this week to vote on policies that we have already voted on several times, and that have no chance of becoming law. I offered an amendment to strike the language in H.R. 3409 and replace it with broadly supported, bipartisan language to extend the Production Tax Credit. This language would have helped protect tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs across the country, and helped move the United States into the clean energy economy. I am frustrated that we did not have a chance to vote on that important amendment, which would have created jobs in Oregon, strengthened United States manufacturers, and improved our public health and our environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, with many of my colleagues, I voted to oppose H.R. 6429 introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith. While I strongly support creating a STEM Visa program, and cosponsor Rep. Lofgren's H.R. 6412, the Attracting the Best and the Brightest Act of 2012, the bill brought to the floor today was a partisan, unserious approach to a serious question. It was a last-minute suspension bill designed to fail. It unnecessarily raises questions about its application and divides Congress when it should bring us together. We need serious comprehensive immigration reform. Legislation that creates a STEM Visa program should be low-hanging fruit that builds momentum toward this goal. H.R. 6429 however, creates unnecessary divisions. Not only will it never be enacted into law but it sets us back on both this issue and the larger goal of immigration reform.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I voted against H.R. 5987, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act. I recognize that the Manhattan Project played an important role in the United States' energy history and has had a significant impact in the Pacific Northwest, and it makes sense for us to draw attention to places like Hanford, Washington. However, adding these responsibilities to the National Park Service's portfolio when the agency is already underfunded and overworked does not make sense. It is frustrating to me that while we are told by the current House majority that there is not sufficient funding to clean up nuclear sites such as Hanford, there is apparently enough funding to turn the Manhattan Project into a national park. We should focus first on making sure these places are safe for the human and wildlife populations that live near them, before marketing them as a tourist destination.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there have been two struggles to make American democracy work. First was who would be eligible to vote. Originally, only those who were white, male, property owners over 21, voted, perhaps a quarter of the population. More than three-quarters of a century later, having fought the civil war, African Americans were granted the franchise. It would be another two-thirds of a century before voting rights were extended to women. Finally, in a battle that I was proud to be a part of as a college student, campaigning and testifying before Congress, we adopted the XXVI amendment, extending the voting rights to young people at age 18. But there's always been another battle: Who amongst the theoretically eligible voters are actually able to cast their ballot and have it counted? It's no secret the States in the Old South waged a brutal extra-legal war to prevent newly enfranchised African Americans from voting. The discrimination, intimidation and violence are well-chronicled; and it's why, almost a century after African Americans were given the legal right to vote, we still need the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to really give them the vote supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution. Despite the Voting Rights Act, and two centuries of struggle, there's still a battle today. Part of the Republican game plan for 2012 is to make voting difficult or impossible for some of the same groups who have long suffered discrimination, who are now seriously disadvantaged by new voter suppression laws that have been passed by Republicans in States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Because voter fraud is a Federal offense, with serious legal consequences, even jail time, improperly cast ballots are virtually nonexistent in the United States. There are far more votes that are lost due to malfunctioning voting machines, mistakes and sleight-of- hand by local elected officials who are either inept or cheating than are all the cases that have been documented nationwide. Texas has another effort to pass aggressive voter ID legislation, but they can find only five documented incidents of voter fraud in 13 million ballots cast in the last two elections. In Pennsylvania, there have been fewer cases than you can count on your fingers, yet up to a million people may be denied the right to vote because of these legal changes. Millions of poor, elderly, minority and student voters don't have passports or driver's licenses; some don't even have birth certificates. They may face the modern version of a poll tax, and that's unconscionable. The media and courts are pushing back on some of the more outrageous behaviors, like Ohio's Secretary of State, John Husted, who was called out and forced to back down after he tried to limit early voting in counties with Democrats in the majority, while expanding them in Republican counties. Come election day, the problems will still persist. There is a solution: pry partisan fingers off the controls of a varied election process. We shouldn't be treating the precious right to vote as a game where partisan advantage comes at the expense of our civil rights. Oregon has been involved for 25 years with what is no longer an experiment but a display of a better way: vote by mail. Each registered voter in the Oregon is mailed a ballot to their residence 19 days before the election. They are given well over 400 hours to examine the ballot, make their decision on the issues and individuals, and return it by mail or in person. Oregonians don't worry about people gaming voting machines, closing precincts early, having long lines for working people at the end of the day, or mysteriously running out of ballots at precincts that are likely to vote against you. In Oregon, there's no problem with illegal voting. Everybody has access to the ballot, and results are processed in a timely fashion. It's shameful that, after more than two centuries of struggle for the right to vote, we're still playing games with people's opportunity to exercise that hard-won privilege upon which our democratic tradition rests. I will be championing the Oregon solution of vote by mail to make the process simpler, more reliable, most important, fairer, while saving money in the process. I hope these blatant attempts at manipulation and discrimination backfire so that the next Congress and the administration are positioned to do something about it. A country that prides itself as the oldest democracy deserves for the democratic process to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, together with a group of bipartisan cosponsors, I am proud to introduce the Medicare transitional Care Act of 2012, legislation to aid patient transitions from one care setting to another within our health care system. The legislation will improve patient health outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions, and save valuable healthcare resources. When people leave the hospital after an operation or illness, they are often overwhelmed by a complicated and risky road to recovery. Patients frequently report difficulty remembering clinical instructions, confusion over medications, and in cases where multiple providers are involved, can receive conflicting instructions from different providers. A study published in April 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that almost one third of Medicare beneficiaries studied who were discharged from a hospital were re-hospitalized within 90 days. Additionally, one-half of the individuals re-hospitalized had not visited a physician since their discharge, suggesting a lack of follow- up care. The study estimated that Medicare spent $17.4 billion in 2004 on unplanned re-hospitalizations. In its June 2012 Report, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, highlighted the need for an explicit payment for transitional care services, given the documented evidence that effective and coordinated care transitions improve health outcomes, reduce readmission rates, and generate significant savings to the U.S. health care system. The Congressional Budget Office has echoed these findings. In a report documenting lessons from Medicare's demonstration projects, the CBO emphasized that ``programs that smoothed transitions (for example, by providing additional education and support to patients moving from a hospital to a nursing facility or between a primary care provider and a specialist) tended to have fewer hospital admissions.'' There are some well-established and peer-reviewed programs that could be adopted. For example, the Transitions Care Model, which assigns a transitional care nurse during the transition period, has resulted in cost savings of approximately $5,000 per patient. Other models also have demonstrated savings, such as the Care Transitions Intervention model, which provides patients with a transitions coach and self- management tools, has reduced hospital readmission rates from 20 percent to 12.8 percent, while Project Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions, BOOST, which provides hospitals with management tools and mentoring programs to improve the discharge transition process, resulted in lower rates of mortality and 30-day readmissions rates dropped from 25.5 percent to 8.5 percent for those under age 70. It is our hope that stakeholders involved in the care delivery system will carefully evaluate this legislation and provide comments or suggested improvements to me and the other sponsors. We are interested in ensuring that the legislation's terms are adequately tailored to the different circumstances and settings in which these transitions occur. Providing a transitional care benefit within Medicare will help coordinate care, develop a care plan for patients and their caregivers, identify potential health risks, and prevent unnecessary hospitalizations. I thank my cosponsors and look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to the birth of my daughter's first child, my first grandchild, I was unable to be in Washington, DC for votes on Thursday afternoon and Friday, September 13 and 14, 2012. Had I been present for votes those days, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 576: I would have voted in favor of the Van Hollen motion to recommit with instructions, legislation that would eliminate sequestration entirely, provided that subsequent deficit reduction is enacted that equals or exceeds sequestration's deficit reduction over 10 years. The Motion would also provide that such subsequent deficit reduction legislation be balanced by requiring upper income taxpayers pay their fair share, protecting middle class tax cuts, and including targeted spending cuts. Rollcall vote 577: I would have voted against H.R. 6365 that would irresponsibly have offered a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction and placed the enormous burden of those cuts solely on the non-defense discretionary budget and, by extension, squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable. Rollcall vote 578: I would have voted in favor of the Barber motion to recommit that would add a provision to the bill that extends the funding for Military, Reserve, and National Guard personnel for the full fiscal year, as well as extending coverage of disability examinations and the treatment and additional services for homeless and mentally ill veterans. Rollcall vote 579: Despite certain reservations, I would have voted in favor of H.J. Res. 117--Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 to continue funding the government's operations for six additional months. Rollcall vote 580: I would have voted in favor of S. 3245 bill to extend by 3 years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program. Rollcall vote 581: I would have voted in favor of the DeGette Amendment to make changes to the findings section of the bill, demonstrating that the loan restructuring complied with the law and highlighting that the projects funded to date are expected to create 60,000 jobs. Rollcall vote 582: I would have voted in favor of the Waxman Amendment allowing the program to continue to provide financing to innovative energy projects. Rollcall vote 583: I would have voted in favor of the Motion to Recommit, which would require that 75 percent of any materials used in projects receiving funding under the Incentives for Innovative Technologies program be produced in the United States. In addition, the Motion to Recommit would require the enactment of H.R. 6213 to be contingent on extension of the Production Tax Credit, which would further stimulate the clean energy economy. Rollcall vote 584: I would have voted against H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, which arbitrarily picks winners and losers in the alternative energy field. By setting a cut-off date of December 30, 2011, House Republicans are prioritizing older technologies--those most likely to fail--at the expense of newer, more innovative projects.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. In meeting with hundreds of constituents and dozens of small business this summer, one theme emerges repeatedly: The price that American families and small business continue to pay for the near collapse of our economy. Earlier this year, new examples emerged of manipulation that was harmful, and in some cases potentially illegal, by Wall Street in New York and Fleet Street in London. Financial interests continue their assault on even modest reforms in the Dodd-Frank financial legislation protections for consumers and for the financial system itself. Now, clearly, the elements are a little overly complex and not perfect, but, in part, that's the result of aggressive action from the industry itself assaulting the regulatory process. On the campaign trail, Governor Romney and his running mate argue for less protection and a return to largely self-regulation of banks that nearly brought the global economy to its knees. At the same time, the Republican Party's response to the challenges of the mountain of student debt is first to reduce the funding for Pell Grants that help make college more affordable for low-income students, and then they would help fewer student borrowers but help more bankers by giving the lending business back to the private sector--backed by a government guarantee, by the way. Hardly a free-market solution. Governor Romney famously pointed out that if this doesn't work for you, you can always borrow from your parents. I think most people, not just Republicans or Democrats, Independents, believe that's not the solution. It's more of the problem, even for those students who have parents that could finance them. There are things that we can do. We should, of course, fight to protect the reforms and the restraints on Wall Street and protect direct, lower-cost lending to college students, but we also might inject a little more competition into the financial marketplace. Now, for millions of Americans, a little competition to the big banks comes from credit unions who are more on the scale of a community bank. Most are small to medium-sized, very local, and nonprofit, with a volunteer, membership board of directors. That nonprofit status is important. They not only don't pay taxes; they're not paying dividends to stockholders or multimillion dollar bonuses to CEOs. They use that advantage to lower costs and improve service. Credit unions are currently prohibited from lending more than 12.25 percent of their assets to business. Now legislation has been proposed to raise this lending cap to a little more than a quarter of the assets. That would be ideal for small business lending. It wasn't the credit unions on Main Street that almost brought the economy to its knees; it was Wall Street gamblers and, too often, cheaters in the financial sector. They were skirting the law and, in some cases, breaking it. Maybe it's time that we give small businesses a boost by giving commercial banks a little competition. I hope my colleagues will not just sponsor H.R. 1418, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 2011, but also be an advocate. It will be a strong signal that we truly want competition in the financial arena, that actions have consequences, and small and emerging businesses are our priority. Let's give small business more choices for financing they need, and let's help credit unions get more capacity to meet that need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, wind power is an American success story. It is one of our fastest growing manufacturing sectors, with over 500 American-based facilities. It provides us with clean, renewable energy that both consumers and the environment demand. But, unfortunately, it is threatened with the production tax credit due to expire at the end of the year. I am pleased to join with my fellow Ways and Means Committee member, Dave Reichert, from the Northwest, as cosponsor of H.R. 3307, to extend the tax credit so that we don't lose as many as 37,000 jobs to the uncertainty. Congress shouldn't wait until the end of the year because people need to make investment decisions now. Until we enact a comprehensive energy plan for this century, the production tax credit is key to our energy future: clean, dependable, very low operating cost wind energy. Please join us as we work to guarantee this production tax credit for our economy and our energy security.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank Ranking Member Conyers for his courtesy. For over a decade, I have deeply been concerned about the potential overreach of wiretapping legislation and efforts at the NSA. I have voted repeatedly in the past against unreasonable expansion of any administration's ability to intrude in the lives of unknowing and innocent Americans, and I will do so again today. I remain confident that the dedicated members of the intelligence community do not need to erode the rights of Americans in order to protect them. Any apparent gains in security that may be achieved are modest and more than outweighed by longer-term potential loss of civil liberties and oversight, the sense of security that each American deserves. I'm troubled by the implications for our Fourth Amendment rights, the absence of meaningful court review, and the risk to American liberties that stem from the FISA Amendments Act. Frankly I see no reason to rush into voting on a bill so deficient. The American people would be better served if we continued the debate and the examination, had thorough answers from NSA, and took up reauthorization based on a more complete review and process. In fact, I think as we stand here today on the floor, not even the NSA knows the extent to which the FISA Amendment Act may potentially have been abused. The right approach would be refining this bill and more broadly taking a closer look at what over the last decade has become an intelligence community that is, frankly, some feel, growing out of control. It's been over 11 years since 9/11. We ought to be able to get this right. We shouldn't be rushed into doing something that has significant long-term implications for every American. You know, take a deep breath and take a step back. There are over 4.2 million Americans who hold a security clearance. That's more than the entire State of Oregon's population, and let's throw in the city of Seattle for good measure. Almost half of them hold Top Secret security clearances, more than people who reside in Maine or Idaho. When you've got those millions of people, you have an entity that is cumbersome, potential for abuse, and, frankly, potential to be infiltrated or have mistakes. Think about it: 9/11 occurred in part not because we didn't have information. Remember the memo on Bush's desk warning of a potential attack from bin Laden? What we are doing at the same time we are eroding American rights? We're piling on more and more and more information, and it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to sort through. We risk putting Americans in trouble.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we return to Capitol Hill, ending the summer recess with strong conflicting emotions. Today is the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the horrific attacks that rocked the Nation and were especially poignant for us on Capitol Hill. As representatives of the government we had sworn to uphold and defend, these senseless, despicable acts exposed a real vulnerability. We all remember what we felt as we were watching the Twin Towers collapse, the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then yet another plane going down in a lonely field in Pennsylvania, destined for us here on Capitol Hill. People came together in an outpouring of support for one another and for our Nation. There was a sense of resolve, unparalleled at any time since the cowardly attacks on Pearl Harbor. The response of the government since then, however, has been somewhat mixed. We have protected the United States so far against any repeat attack, but at great cost. We have thrown money at the problem. We have had significant bureaucratic overreach, particularly in terms of personal liberties. We will be paying the costs of the horribly misguided war in Iraq for generations to come. After an original, terrific response routing the Taliban in Afghanistan, we took our eye off the ball. We allowed Osama bin Laden almost another decade of life and mischief. Later, we were sucked back into Afghanistan on the terms of the Taliban and al Qaeda, not on our terms. Now, this is not merely a Republican problem, although George Bush and Republicans were in charge and made some of the worst mistakes. There was much bipartisan support for the excesses. To this day, there is bipartisan confusion about the best path forward to protect the Nation while protecting civil liberties and the budget for the situation today and not the conditions of September 10, 2001. My wish for Congress and for the candidates span out on the campaign trails, is that we mark this anniversary with a commitment to allow a little common sense and good will to enter into the political discourse. This can be an emotional job. I was thinking about the emotions that I expressed, having a chance 15 years ago to go through the hectoring and interfering military on Aung San Suu Kyi's compound in Burma, where she was held under house arrest by the dictatorship. My son, daughter, and I spent an amazing afternoon with this extraordinary woman. I could scarcely imagine then, what will happen next week when we will be awarding that courageous woman the Congressional Medal of Honor here in the Capitol and then she will return to Burma as a member of their nation's parliament. The success of this woman, together with the steely resolve of the American public after 9/11, ought to give us all pause and, hopefully, a renewed commitment to do our job right. Since 9/11, the challenges and circumstances have evolved. We have greater challenges in terms of security, climate instability, natural disaster, and our own economic vulnerability. It's a tall order to deal with them; but, hopefully, we will all be inspired by the example of Aung San Suu Kyi standing up to the Burmese dictatorship and ultimately gaining a measure of success-- and, of course, by the American public in their response to horrific attacks of 9/11. It's time today, for the politicians to do their job: to listen, to speak the truth, and to lead.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Powell's Bookstore, a Portland landmark, on the occasion of its 41st anniversary. One of the benefits of my job is an opportunity to become a part of a lot of exciting events: Groundbreakings, anniversaries, ribbon- cuttings, commencement speeches. On August 25th, in Portland, I shared a truly unique moment. It's one of the reasons why people come from all over the world to share in the Portland experience. No tour of Portland is complete without a visit to Powell's City of Books. This is not just because this bookstore is the one attraction in Portland that's open 365 days a year, and bad weather doesn't stop you. In fact bad weather makes the trip to Powell's even more fun. It's iconic but I think few people really understand why and how it got to be that way. Portland is the livability capital of the United States. And livability is about things like bikes and beer, about restaurants that are locally owned, gluten-free organic and free-range with everything sourced from less than four blocks from the restaurant. It's a powerful concept, to be local, human-scale and high quality. Think about Powell's. It's local in the extreme, but it's been on the web for almost 20 years now. The staff is amazing! It's full of Reed college double majors in physics and philosophy who are members of the longshoreman's union and speak Swahili and Gaelic. It's probably the best place in Portland for a first date. You really get to know someone wandering through the stacks at Powell's with them. It's a great place to ditch a kid for a long period of time, although that sometimes makes Michael and the staff a little nervous. It is the ultimate Christmas experience as all of the last-minute shoppers flock here. It's not just what you get, it's what you do, sharing in the frenzy of the wild-eyed, strange people who are wandering the aisles at the last moment. Powell's is uniquely Portland because it is a family enterprise. On August 25th, I was joined by Alice Powell who is Michael's partner in life and a professional in terms of counseling that I think often has helped move the institution along. There may have been a few moments in the history of taking risks in this enterprise where maybe another income made a difference. Michael Powell is a shy semi-curmudgeon, so it's hard to tell about all the contributions that Michael has made to the community. It's not just about his business. He's one of the people who understand that what's good for the community is good for his business, and what's good for his business is good for his community. For the better part of these 40 years, I've had a chance to work with him on a wide variety of projects, from parks and planning, to transportation and downtown development. Michael has helped lead the charge for business people to tax themselves to improve the quality of the downtown experience. For 20 years he's been not just active, but a leader, in bringing the streetcar to Portland and then expanding it. Because of Michael's efforts, the streetcar is one of those experiences that make Portland unique. Now with their daughter Emily, it's been three generations of Powell's involved with this institution going head-to-head against the big chain establishments. With all the changes in publishing, all the changes in the economy, they've been a constant. Powell's has been a leader in ways that have made a big difference to us all. I was asked to share a memory of Powell's, which was kind of hard because I've got so many of them over the years. There is one experience that stands out. I love books. I'm a library junkie. I have my own study carrel in the Library of Congress, perhaps the most magnificent building in Washington, DC. I was having a tour for some Oregonians that were in town, going through the Library of Congress. We went up the staircase to look over that magnificent reading room, just a spectacular sight. It is hard to believe that it was built by the Corps of Engineers over 100 years ago. While we're standing there, looking down at the reading room, there were people from another tour crowding behind the Plexiglas, quietly oohing and ahhing. I turn to my right and there's someone wearing a Powell's City of Books t-shirt. I interrupt to say, ``That's cool, I'm from Portland, I represent the Powell's.'' Before you know it, the whole tour is disrupted because people are noticing the Powell's shirt and they're talking about how much they love Powell's. I thought it was a perfect expression of what Powell's means to Portland and to people around the country. Congratulations on 41 years. Thank you for enriching our city and our experience. We look forward to many more years of your success.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Today, a time of heightened tensions in U.S.-Iran relations, I voted for the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, H.R. 1905, a balanced and serious approach towards ensuring Iran will never have nuclear weapons. Throughout my time in Congress, I have firmly opposed the use of indiscriminate sanctions as a blunt tool of foreign policy, one often more successful as political fodder than as leverage to effect positive change. The timing of previous Iran sanctions legislation was damaging, undermining the administration in the midst of complex, delicate discussions with Iran. Today, the circumstances have changed. Negotiations are stalled, and this legislation has been focused and toned-down, making it an asset, not a liability, for the administration as it works to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. A coherent and unified U.S. policy towards Iran is the best way to strengthen diplomacy, which remains the best, some say the only, way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This revised legislation-- based on input from a broad coalition, including the White House-- brings coherence and focused pressure to the negotiating table. I commend Chairwoman Ros Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for producing a bill that is based on policy, not politics. There were extreme voices pushing to include some very harsh language that, for example, would have made the few currently permitted humanitarian transactions with Iranian financial institutions illegal. To the benefit of the U.S. and innocent Iranian civilians, these provisions were left out. Another critical change to this legislation is language that clarifies in the Act is not an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria. The resolution would provide the administration with additional leverage for their broader diplomatic effort. Sanctions are effective when it is clear that if concessions are made, the other side has the ability to reciprocate by easing elements of the sanctions regime. This bill provides the administration with such flexibility. In the midst of negotiations yet to yield progress, focused sanctions that unite both Congress and the executive provides leverage that increases the likelihood of success, and an alternative to military action, which our nation can ill-afford and which I oppose.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6169, a partisan bill that would put in place a contrived and expedited procedure for tax reform, a challenging issue that would benefit from a full and robust debate. Tax reform is a very complicated, very difficult endeavor. This bill, which attempts to limit debate in both the House and the Senate, will not become law. It wastes time that the House could better apply to the multitude of challenges facing our country. Over the past several years, taxes have been lower than at any time since the 1950s. Yet the United States--with military commitments around the world, a badly underfunded commitment to domestic infrastructure, and growing obligations to the Baby Boomer generation-- also faces a substantial budget deficit. We are also grappling with a yawning gap between our wealthiest and our neediest. Tax expenditures have grown faster than the rate of inflation and now give away nearly half of all income that the income tax would otherwise collect. It is imperative that Congress begin the difficult work of tax reform in earnest. This bill represents a failure to have an honest conversation about tax reform and for that reason, I oppose this legislation and had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is a unique and special place. There are many political offices in America where one can get into office via accident or appointment, but every man and woman on this floor had to be elected by friends and neighbors to deal with the fiscal and economic health of the Nation, for giving voice to people's fears, aspirations, and dreams. I count every day of service in Congress as a gift. Our friend and colleague Steve LaTourette's announcement that he would not seek reelection should give pause to every one of us. You often hear a person say they don't always agree with somebody but they respect them. With Steve LaTourette, that's true. Despite being in different political parties, I deeply respect and appreciate Steve's forthright opinions. His focus on having the resources to rebuild and renew America is as refreshing as it is important. He's willing to call for increases in fees and taxes for infrastructure at the same time he pushes for responsible budget cutting and right-sizing government in a way that's going to pinch almost everyone. His approach is courageous and consistent and, ultimately, we will follow that balanced path. He has a sense of justice and regular order, as when he took to the floor as a lonely voice arguing for due process on behalf of a disgraced former Member. He does what he believes in. Another overused phrase in this body is ``wake-up call.'' But Steve's decision and announcement should be a wake-up call, a wake-up call to the majority party to think about what this portends for their ability to govern and what will happen when the political winds shift just a little, which they surely will. It's a wake-up call for the people on my side of the aisle that as we fight against what we think are shortsighted and destructive policies, we need to do so in a way that is fair. We all should look for opportunities to make a little progress on second- and third-tier issues that will help do some good while we build the capacity of this institution in bipartisan problem solving. Most of all, this should be a wake-up call to the American public. Too many of us have allowed our political decisions to be outsourced as the political process increasingly is taken over by smaller and smaller groups of extreme opinion in primaries of both parties. The Tea Party activists have gotten headlines this weekend in the Texas Senate primary, but the dynamic is known by both parties and potentially distorts the choices of candidates and of issues in the fall. Some Members of Congress gain a little notoriety by virtue of vision or policy. Usually we get it by being outrageous and stark. Perhaps we are known at home and for groups that have interests that we work with, but the vast majority of us wouldn't register above ``margin of error'' on the larger stage of American national politics. Steve, despite two decades of solid, distinguished service, his wit, good humor, and effectiveness--is like a number of us who may be characterized as an ``obscure Member of Congress.'' Yet I would argue Steve LaTourette should be on the radar screen of every American. His is a powerful message of an institution that needs serious readjustment. Steve, his family, especially the younger children, will do just fine. I think he'll have a better job, spend more time with family and friends, and I think he'll live longer. But make no mistake, everybody should pay attention to his story, his career, and why he's leaving. After a lifetime of solid, productive public service, if this leads to people's reconsidering how we do business and how the American public assesses whom they reward or punish, then our loss due to his retirement may be the most important contribution in his distinguished career.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more essential to quality of life, to the health of our families and of our communities than water. Water is life. Safe drinking water and basic sanitation make the difference between health and sickness, between a family thriving or struggling just to exist. Water quality and quantity are serious issues in communities across the country, especially now, when changing weather patterns, extreme drought, continued growth combine to put an even greater demand on our aging, inadequate infrastructure. To ease these pressures, I am introducing the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act, which would establish a trust fund to help local communities meet their water infrastructure needs. Over a thousand communities across the country are struggling with combined sewer overflows as well as inadequate and aging sewer pipes. Small communities in particular, which already face huge questions of water supply and quality, have few resources with which to pay the bills and are seeing sky-high monthly costs for consumers. The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act creates a deficit-neutral, consistent, and firewalled trust fund to help states replace, repair, and rehabilitate critical wastewater treatment facilities. It will be financed by assessing small fees on a broad base of those who use water and contribute to pollution: water-based beverages, items disposed of in wastewater, and pharmaceuticals, which often wind up in wastewater systems. The materials that flow into sewer systems and then into rivers and streams present unprecedented challenges to our water infrastructure. More and more products are designed to be flushed down toilets and drains, placing them in systems that are already stressed. Pharmaceutical residues are showing up in treated wastewater and because they are difficult to treat, I'm afraid we are slowly medicating vast numbers of Americans against their will. Aging water systems--some still made out of brick or wood, some dating from the century before last--mean that America also faces old-fashioned system reliability issues. Reports indicate that each year an average of six billion gallons of drinking water leaks from these inadequate and ancient pipes. Six billion gallons is enough to fill 6,000 Olympic sized swimming pools--if lined up, these pools would stretch from Washington, DC to Pittsburgh, PA. These aging and outdated systems are not just a local problem, relevant only to a single neighborhood, city, county, or even state. Water does not obey county boundaries or even state lines, and it is a resource on which we all rely. The Federal Government should help fill the funding gaps that local communities and States cannot. The opportunity is now: There is significant State and local investment, interest rates are near an all-time low, and enacting this legislation, the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act, will leverage hundreds of billions of additional dollars. The American public is already paying a disproportionate share of the costs of water infrastructure. Residential households have the least capacity to absorb additional costs during these difficult times, and they already face wildly escalating costs to deal with problems that they did not create. The voracious water demands of industry far outstrip household needs. In large measure, the Cokes of the world, the pharmaceutical companies, and industries that produce products that get flushed are the ones that accelerate water demand and complicate water treatment. Industries that profit by putting their products in the sewer systems--either by design or inadvertently--or who withdraw vast amounts of fresh water to make a profit should pay their fair share. Clean water is absolutely essential for these industries and the rest of the business community to function. A small fee to pay for water infrastructure upgrades would provide the business community far more in benefits than it would cost, and it could be used to leverage a broader range of investments. This bill will help communities deal with their water infrastructure needs in a stable, proactive way, and will provide significant benefits for those who rely on our water system, the local government officials charged with making the system work, and the industries who rely on a clean, consistent source of water for their products.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy. She had it exactly right. We've gone down this path. We had an opportunity for us to see how effective the Bush tax cuts were in creating employment in America versus those high rates in the Clinton era, a couple of percentage points higher. Look at the job creation: 22 million jobs in the Clinton years when we were actually balancing the budget for 4 years in a row, reducing the deficit, versus anemic job creation in the Bush administration that was less than 5 percent of that. We've tried it their way. With all due respect, it's really hard to characterize what happened in 2010 as bipartisan legislation. The Republicans in the Senate refused to legislate. It was going to be that all the tax relief expired. A consensus was reached. A compromise was made to extend it. Hopefully, we could have worked things out, but we didn't. We're now right back in the same spot. I would respectfully suggest that what we are looking at now with my Republican colleagues, when they talk about the largest tax increase in American history, is when you put the Republican-Romney bill in effect. If you are going to have that massive cut for the wealthiest of Americans, the only way you can make that deficit-neutral is by raising taxes on the other 95 percent. And you can quibble with some of the assumptions of the various independent experts, but they all agree: if you're going to give people who make over $1 million an average of more than $100,000 in annual relief, you are going to be raising taxes on the 95 percent of the rest of America. That's not right. It's not necessary. There are better alternatives, and you're going to hear it in the form of the Democratic alternative that's going to come forth later this afternoon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is an interesting question: Which lane are we going to choose? The study that has been offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle is bogus, and I invite people to actually look at it and look at the critiques that have been offered up. But we've had a real-life experiment because these tax rates that are being talked about were exactly what we had in the Clinton years, at which time some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle predicted calamity, job loss, and that the economy would crash. What, in fact, happened is that we created 22 million jobs. What has happened is that, when they had a chance to experiment with their vision in the Bush years, where they put in place these tax reductions, if they would have worked, what would have happened? Did employment even match what happened in the Clinton years? No. In fact, it was less than 5 percent of what happened in the 8 years of Bill Clinton. In fact, the Obama administration--after the first few months when it was in office and could be credited with responsibility for the economy--has produced more private sector jobs than the entire Bush administration in 8 years. The job loss that's gone negative has been slashing in the public sector, primarily teachers and firefighters and police officers at the State and local levels. Mr. Speaker, the strategy here is to continue punting. My Republican friends are punting on the farm bill. My Republican friends are punting on SGR. They are now proposing a budget solution that gets us past the election because they can't face up to their own Tea Party extremists, and they're split.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. That's what is at stake here. I would suggest that we take what we ought to be able to agree on, the 98 percent of this tax reduction, agree on that, not punt, give some real certainty, and then have an honest debate about their proposal to increase taxes on the middle class at the expense of being able to provide for the richest of Americans. Let's have that debate. Let's not hold people hostage in the short term.