Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which makes a mockery of science, public health, international cooperation, the environment, the Supreme Court, and Congress. The problems with this bill start with its title, the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act.'' The bill has nothing to do with taxes. I had an amendment to actually prevent the EPA from imposing an energy tax that the Rules Committee would not allow. During the rules debate, my colleague Mr. Sessions from Texas indicated the committee did not because my amendment was ``not germane'', because the bill doesn't have anything to do with taxes. Welcome to another journey down the legislative rabbit hole. Last week, the majority pretended that you didn't have to have both Chambers of Congress to enact a law. This week, we have purposely misleading bill titles. The rule, by the way, did waive a point of order on germaneness for a provision added in committee, but the Rules Committee refused to make in order an amendment that would actually prevent energy taxes. That's because there is no threat that the EPA will impose taxes. Instead, the agency's measured and reasonable approach to update the Clean Air Act to deal with carbon pollution will reduce health and economic costs. The tax moniker is not the only falsehood being floated about the EPA. Supporters have also claimed this bill will prevent rising gas prices. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact has rated this claim false. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. They're taking a page from Frank Luntz' approach to environmental policymaking. They don't want to have a fact-based debate about the EPA's authority to limit carbon pollution. Instead, they're working to perfect the use of poll-tested, wildly inaccurate language to attack sound science and to undermine confidence in laws that keep us safe. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this unfortunate piece of legislation and the tactic that is being used to advance it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have profound reservations about our troop commitments in Afghanistan. History suggests that we will not be successful in stabilizing Afghanistan with military force. No one has and I don't think anyone will. I opposed the tripling of forces in the region and think that a rapid drawdown starting in July is absolutely essential. We should not, however, tie the hands of the administration and put the civilians in Afghanistan at risk by forcing a complete withdrawal of troops in 30 days. The forthcoming reduction in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must be significant and sizeable, but must be executed in an orderly fashion. The reasons for a timely departure are many. Afghanistan today is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, ranked next to last out of 180 by Transparency International. If you have a culture of corruption, it's hard to plant seeds of positive growth. Economic development through roads and water make the difference between people being thug and doing whatever necessary to feed their families. The United States and international donors simply cannot afford to bankroll 70% of Afghanistan's budget and to keep spending $8 billion a month in taxpayer money. We spend in one day 20 times what the average Afghani will earn in an entire year. Yet for all that spending there is a dire need for the most basic of services. In the rural areas, 80% drink polluted water, only 10% have adequate sanitation. It grows clearer by the day that the more heavy-handed we are and the stronger our military presence in Afghanistan, the more we unify the threats against our troops, the United States, and our allies. Military efforts do little to address the Afghan people's grievances over their exclusion from the political process and do little for long- term stability throughout the region. We should focus on civilian efforts, working with Afghans to strengthen their ability to govern, support civil society, fight corruption, and help to rebuild their country. We cannot do this in 30 days, not even 30 weeks. That's why I oppose this resolution and instead support a significant--but thoughtful--drawdown in July.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Pesticide pollution in our waterways impairs fish habitats, threatens drinking water, and creates dead zones in our oceans. In its most recent ``National Water Quality Inventory; Report to Congress,'' the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that pesticides are the sixth leading cause of water quality impairment in estuaries. In Oregon, according to the EPA, 19 of our water bodies are considered pesticide-impaired. If ingested in drinking water at high levels, pesticides can cause a range of health problems from cancer to birth defects to kidney and liver damage to nervous system effects. This legislation would overturn a recent court decision requiring EPA to issue Clean Water Act permits for certain pesticide discharges. It doesn't make sense to take away these tools from the EPA without replacing them with something better. The EPA has struggled to address agricultural run-off and other non-point source pollution under the Clean Water Act, and these sources will continue to be exempt from permitting requirements. But point source discharges of pesticides that leave a residue in waterways, which is the subject of this legislation, is something that the EPA can address and has now been compelled to address by a Federal appeals court. While the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires registration of pesticides and evaluation of their impact on human health and the environment, it does not involve a performance standard for specific bodies of water. In areas where pesticides have impaired water quality, I believe it makes sense to provide the EPA with tools to address that impairment. I have heard a number of concerns from the agricultural community in my district about the specific standards being applied here as well as the increased burden of filling out paperwork. I look forward to working with stakeholders in my district to ensure the new requirements are not unreasonably burdensome. I would also support additional resources from the Federal Government to help counties, municipalities, public utilities, water districts, farmers, ranchers, and forest managers deal with any additional costs association with the permit requirements.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, President Obama yesterday outlined four areas to curb foreign oil dependence: domestic production, natural gas vehicles, car fuel efficiency, and better use of biofuels. He could have added a fifth element, his administration's own Sustainable Communities Partnership between EPA, the Department of Transportation and HUD that has helped communities large and small provide families transportation and housing choices which conserve oil without sacrificing economic growth. This combination of smart transportation alternatives, land use and design keeps communities resilient and reduces the impact of high gas prices. With only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, America will never drill its way to energy independence as long as we continue to consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil. The only real way to gain independence from oil price shocks is to give families independence from oil.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would claim the time for Ways and Means.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have appreciated the debate here on the floor talking about the essential services that are included in the FAA reauthorization, but sadly, some of the consequences are for significant cuts in vital services--I hear some of my friends talking about Essential Air Service. It impacts my State. We're looking at significant reduction in airport construction, and as we've heard, it would stop NextGen, as the former administrator under the Bush administration was quoted as saying, ``in its tracks.'' But Madam Chairman, it doesn't need to be this way. We can, in fact, respect the concerns about not adding to the deficit without shortchanging these essential programs. Our friends in the Senate, have provided one of those rare occasions where the other body has shown us the way. They have passed in the last year, with 93 votes last year and 87-8 votes already in this session, a reauthorization that actually adds revenues, but not general taxes, but there's been an agreement that has reached overwhelming consensus. You don't get 87 votes out of the other body for raising revenue unless there's broad acceptance with the industry, with those who are regulated and those who are concerned about preserving these essential services. There's an agreement within a broad swath of the industry to increase the fuel tax, a user fee for the people who benefit. Another critical area that the bill is silent on, and in fact we haven't adjusted for 10 years, is the ceiling on the passenger facility charge. This isn't even a tax that Congress imposes. It is simply an authorization for what local authorities can decide makes sense for their vital programs. Madam Chair, we don't have to choose between tens of thousands of jobs lost, putting the traveling public at risk, delaying essential efficiency improvements, and cuts to vital programs or increasing the deficit. We can simply move forward with simple, commonsense, broadly agreed upon proposals to adjust revenues to have the flexibility, to make the investment that's going to make a difference for years to come, and make the difficult job of the chair and the ranking member and the two subcommittees, to make that difficult job much easier. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining for Ways and Means.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent that these 2 minutes be assigned to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her advocacy here. I just finished listening to my friend from Colorado, and he gets it half right. First of all, it is ironic that the new Republican majority, having been touted on the floor for its openness, did, in fact, rush this to the floor without the 72-hour notice, not any substantive committee work. If it had been subjected to careful committee analysis, the flaws in the argument would have been revealed. It is not going to save a single penny of taxpayer dollars, not one, even in the unlikely event that this legislation passed through Congress, which it won't. It won't defund NPR. NPR will exist. And those of us who are in Cleveland or New York or Los Angeles or Washington, D.C., will be able to enjoy it, although it will be diminished a little bit. But what it do is hammer small rural American stations, small town and rural America, where it is more expensive to broadcast and where they rely on this funding to be able to purchase the programs. It would not just hammer NPR, but it would deny them the ability to use the funds for that subversive show ``Prairie Home Companion,'' for ``This American Life,'' for the car guys. It would prohibit them from purchasing locally produced content from other public broadcasting stations. This is lunacy. It unravels a carefully crafted partnership that has delivered year after year. It is why the American public strongly supports this investment, less than one-half cent per day per American. In fact, 78 percent of the American public want it maintained or increased. And, most interestingly, that same bipartisan poll showed that two-thirds of American Republicans support keeping the funding or increasing it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentlelady. I want to make five basic points. Number one, there are no savings to the taxpayer in this bill. It simply passes on higher costs and fewer choices to local stations. Second, it is not going to stop NPR, which will go on in New York and Los Angeles and even Portland, Oregon. What it will cripple is what happens in smaller local stations around the country who rely on NPR and other public broadcasting entities for their content. My good friend from Tennessee just went through all the steps that are necessary to produce local content. That is complex and it is expensive. That is why they voluntarily buy ``Morning Edition'' or ``Prairie Home Companion'' or ``Car Talk.'' NPR never said it didn't need the money. They are relying on a discredited video that was exposed by Glenn Beck's Web site, of all places. Our friends should talk to the thousands of volunteers at home who rely upon public broadcasting resources to provide the content that Americans love. Reject this travesty.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the Republican assault on public broadcasting continues. We are told that tomorrow we will be considering H.R. 1076, which really goes further than anything that we have considered to date. It would prohibit the purchase of any content for public broadcasting resources using Federal money. Now, I think we are going to see in the course of the debate some unfortunate, and I hope unintended, consequences. It is ironic that my Republican friends who came to Congress this time with a pledge of regular order, that everybody would have 72 hours to review legislation online, that we are going to have the committee process working in a robust fashion, have again decided to violate their own rules by rushing this to the floor without extensive committee work and without being available for Americans to review this legislation for 72 hours. I don't understand why, but I can guess that if they really want to try to pass this, they would be far better off rushing it, not having it carefully examined. First and foremost, the whole point of public broadcasting is the development and broadcast of content that doesn't have commercial value, that doesn't inspire the networks, the channels, radio and television, to be able to sell advertising for this particular type of program. You will search in vain reviewing the thousands of commercial radio and television stations, cable channels and networks, to find the type of educational programming that we rely on PBS for, for example, to supply to our children. There is no content for our children on the vast commercial sea of broadcasting that doesn't come from people who are trying to sell something to our kids, not educate them. You're at a time when news is shrinking in the commercial arena. Newspapers are getting thinner. Broadcast networks are withdrawing correspondence from overseas at precisely the time that the American public needs to know what is happening in the Middle East, in Japan. At precisely the time commercial coverage is shrinking, public broadcasting has actually expanded coverage and, in fact, at times devotes a lot of time and attention to boring news--boring news which often we find is some of the most important for us to understand. This proposal would prohibit not just purchase of NPR, which is the target. Ironically, National Public Radio has a miniscule level of support from the Federal Government. Most of this money flows to provide content and programing to smaller stations in rural and small- town America, where they don't have the financial base to be able to provide robust public broadcasting. We're always going to have public broadcast stations in New York and San Francisco, Los Angeles. Even Portland, Oregon, a medium-size city, will have that resource. It will be diminished if we don't have the program support, but it will be there. In rural Burns, Oregon, where it costs 11 times as much to send a signal, that's where it's going to be hit. Now, denying the ability to purchase content doesn't mean just NPR. It's ``Car Talk.'' It's ``Prairie Home Companion.'' And most significantly, in my mind, it is some of the special programs that have been developed for the Pacific Northwest. Again, no commercial station would do it because no advertiser will pay for it. But it serves a market for important news that people need to have about their communities. It's not just in the Pacific Northwest. It's in the Rocky Mountain States, in the Upper Midwest. In fact, some of these stations are the sole source of programming. And so by prohibiting the use of this resource, it's going to cut them off at the knees. Well, that's unfortunate because public broadcasting is the most trusted name in American media. It's why Republicans and Democrats alike don't want it cut. In fact, some would even increase it. I hope my colleagues will listen to what the American public wants and reject this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this morning thousands of people on Capitol Hill turned to NPR radio or the NPR Web site to find out the latest developments on the horrific situation in Japan, the potential nuclear meltdown, and with the fast-moving events in the Middle East. This is why the Pew survey revealed yesterday that, while media across the board is declining--broadcast television news, newspapers, radio-- that we are watching a renaissance as far as public broadcasting, in particular NPR, which is increasing its audience, its revenues, and its reporting staff. But the health and vitality of NPR is not a reason to slash the financial support for public broadcasting. First and foremost, it is a miniscule part of the budget, less than one half a cent per day for each American. But more important, this is the type of infrastructure America needs right now. The public broadcasting support provides a unique service that is not available on commercial television. The education, culture, news, even the boring news, is an area where there is no commercial market. That is why you will search 500 stations in vain on cable and satellite to find that type of programming that is available for news and for educating our children, not selling them something. More significant, the amount of money that comes from Public Broadcasting to NPR is a tiny fraction of its budget. Most of the Public Broadcasting support that is provided by Congress goes to local stations, with particular emphasis on rural and small-town America. Taking as an example my home State of Oregon with its awarding- winning Oregon Public Broadcasting, it costs 11 times more to broadcast to the far eastern reaches in Burns, Oregon, than it does in metropolitan Portland. That is a pattern that is repeated coast to coast. Rural and small-town America relies more heavily on Public Broadcasting. It doesn't have the population base to ever provide for itself. Slashing Public Broadcasting funding is not going to stop Public Broadcasting in New York or Washington, DC., in Seattle or Los Angeles, or even Portland, Oregon. What it will do is make the programming less rich, and it will reduce the ability to provide those services in the outlying areas. Even the most recent flap about the media ambush of a former NPR fundraiser, which produced an 11-minute video that appeared to be very damning as far as Public Broadcasting is concerned, well, it took NPR to do an in-depth study. It reviewed the entire 2-hour conversation captured on tape to find out that the edited 11-minute version was misleading, trying to portray the point of view of the ambush journalist. This is the same guy who was caught by law enforcement officials trying to illegally ``bug'' the office of Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. In the course of 2 hours, it was very clear, reviewing the entire record, that it had been inappropriately edited to suggest that there was an acceptance or that it was amusing that there was somehow an attempt to impose sharia law across the country. It ignored the fact that the NPR employee made it clear that there was a firewall between any contributions and influencing the editorial content. That is why NPR and PBS are the most trusted names in broadcasting, and why 78 percent of Americans in a recent poll said they wanted Public Broadcasting support maintained or even increased. And, indeed, two-thirds of the Republicans wanted support maintained and increased. I hope my Republican colleagues will listen to the public and support this vital resource.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 48, another short-term Continuing Resolution. This is enabling bad Congressional behavior. Continuing to cut specific environmental programs that have meant so much to communities across the country without at least putting it in the context of the broader budget request is irresponsible. It does not make sense to chip away at the Environmental Protection Agency by cutting local climate change and targeted airshed grants or the Department of Interior by cutting the Save America's Treasures program without looking at the rest of the budget to ensure that community needs are still being met. This CR continues to target public broadcasting. It aims to eliminate all funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, PTFP. This program--started before the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967--is the only source of federal revenue for the replacement of aging or damaged equipment. Public broadcasting's programming can't be enjoyed if there's no way to maintain the infrastructure that delivers it to our homes. PTFP is needed because by statute, station funds from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, are to be used for the production or acquisition of programming, not upkeep. Unfortunately, infrastructure needs far outpace recent funding. In FY 2009, stations received nearly $38 million from the PTFP and the CPB Digital Program. However, in that same time period, stations spent nearly $191 million in equipment and infrastructure--reflecting the fact that both programs together have only been able to help stations address roughly 20% of their needs. We should be supporting these infrastructure investments and public broadcasting, not defunding them. On the first CR, I was willing to vote yes in hopes we'd get serious. The problem with multiple short term CRs is more short-term spending authority that cripples the ability of the federal government to manage important functions while it drives up costs. It is expensive to make decisions on a week-to-week basis. I am disappointed that this bill avoids the tough decisions that must be made, unsettles the business climate, and makes the job of our state and local partners harder.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hundreds of cyclists, parents, business people, and especially bike industry leaders who flooded Capitol Hill this week with a message of bike partisanship. They were addressing the issues found on the front page every day in our newspapers about what would happen if we made it easier to use the most efficient form of urban transportation ever designed. It would make a huge difference to the health of our families, dealing with traffic congestion and air pollution, and reduce the tyranny of our addiction to oil if we burned more calories and less fossil fuel. It is also big business. Billions of dollars are made from the sales, service, manufacturing, and bike tourism. And most important, it makes our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. Thank you, cycling advocates, for your positive message of hope. I hope that it found receptive ears here on Capitol Hill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning to participate in a fascinating in-depth discussion sponsored by the National Journal and The Regence Foundation, ``Living Well at the End of Life: A National Conversation.'' It was made possible by the Regents Group, an insurance company headquartered in my hometown, Portland, Oregon, and the deep commitment that its president and CEO, Mark Ganz, has to be able to make sure that families have the information, the tools they have necessary to make sure that they understand their treatment choices and that they are respected. This is an issue that goes far beyond the so-called ``end of life.'' This is key so that everybody knows their health care choices, they understand their choices, and they make their wishes known, their choice is honored and respected. It is a mistake as we have these conversations to confuse the high cost of end of life with concerns about health care reform. When people are seriously ill, they have high health care spending, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is a natural consequence of what happens when people need more hospitalization, more intense activity. But too often, the sickest and most vulnerable have negative experiences in our complex health care system, which creates unnecessary strains on both the patients and the caregivers, and it is a mistake to somehow confuse this with people who are seriously terminally ill. Forty percent of all people who are hospitalized can't make decisions for themselves. This is a real stress on them, on families, and the ones who have been given the responsibility to try and guess what is in their best interests. I have heard countless stories about how our health care system has failed patients during these medically and emotionally complex episodes. Both colleagues on our Ways and Means Committee--and we're dealing with health care reform--friends, and witnesses have come forward time and time again with how a parent, a spouse, a friend ended up on auto pilot in the health care system, in and out of hospitals, confused by all the specialists, decisions being made around them but not with them. We can do better. We know how to do better. There are successful models of comprehensive, patient-centered care that leads to better quality and greater patient satisfaction, and it's interesting that the new polling by the National Journal and The Regence Foundation makes this abundantly clear. These results affirm that health care is deeply personal and that people want to know their options, stay in control of their care, and be in a position to help their loved ones. This poll indicates that 97 percent of Americans polled believe that it is important that patients and their families be educated about palliative care and care options available to them when they're seriously ill. Over 80 percent of Americans polled believe that discussions about palliative care and other treatment options should be fully covered by health insurance, including Medicare. By a more than three to one margin, people identified that it's more important to enhance the quality of life for someone who is seriously ill rather than just simply extend life. It pointed out that as a result of some of the, I would think, bizarre conversation that has surrounded this issue, including the 2009 PolitiFact's Lie of the Year about death panels, that elected officials and political candidates, according to this survey, are actually the worst source in people's minds for information. The good news is that they trust religious leaders, health care providers and doctors, insurance companies. And the most trusted are friends and family, which illustrates why we need to work aggressively in educating all Americans about the choices that are available to them and how those choices are respected. It's time to start now. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH8MR11.010

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. . . .

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the previous statement.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the opportunity, because I want to be very clear about what I intended, what I thought I said and I think a review of the tape would reveal. I am not calling anybody a liar. What I intended to say, and I will ask unanimous consent to put in the Record, is that as we have repeated talking points about a government takeover of health care, this has been judged by an independent journalistic undertaking as the political lie of the year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I apologize if the person who said ``government takeover of health care'' was not you. It is repeated so often by my Republican friends, including the Speaker of the House, time and time again, that sometimes I get confused because it is a litany that is used. It is in fact, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to put in the Record the PolitiFact article.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Levin, I appreciate that. It's a little interesting when we hear our friends come to the floor with the same talking points. My good friend from California talks about the government takeover of health care--which of course PolitiFact called the 2010 political lie of the year. Allowing 33 million additional Americans to have access to---- Point of Order

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Because those words are still echoing in the Chamber. It has been said by somebody on the other side of the aisle earlier: ``PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen `government takeover of health care' as the 2010 Lie of the Year. They chose it as the year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin. The label `government takeover' has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a `takeover.' '' They point out: ``The law that Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, rely largely on the free market. Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies. Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health insurance. The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. The law does not include a public option. It gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers. It relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing health system of coverage provided by employers.'' Mr. Speaker, part of what we're seeing here, though, is this drama that is pulled out where talking points are repeated in an effort to obscure the facts going forward. The majority knows that the Democrats have attempted to adjust the 1099. We don't want it in there. We voted for fixes. It will be fixed between the House and the Senate. What's killing small business is the crushing burden of health care, where they are trying to provide for their employees. What is killing small business is that they can't compete with big business. They have a system that has provided a downward spiral. What's providing the driving force for the government deficit is increasing costs of providing health care, for example, through Medicare. This used to be an area of bipartisan cooperation. The Health Care Reform Act includes every significant area of reducing health care costs as either a pilot or a demonstration. It points a path towards saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Those used to be bipartisan.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Those used to be bipartisan; but instead of working with us to refine and accelerate the provisions, people are trying to put sand in the gears. And as my friends from Michigan and from New York have pointed out, there are going to be some--we hope they are unintended victims--but there are going to be innocent victims, people in the middle class and the near middle class who don't have the control of billionaire hedge funds to control their income. There are things that can happen that will adjust it up or down. There will be a significant penalty. We have worked to fix that cliff. We've approved it. We don't need to reinstate the cliff, the tax on honest mistakes. As has been pointed out, there are provisions to deal with fraud. This is part of the drip, drip, drip to try and undermine health care reform, not accelerate it. It's a part of misrepresentation politically that the American public frankly doesn't deserve. It's a lost opportunity for us to reduce the deficit, improve health care, and lower costs. This is very personal to people like me. I come from an area of the country that provides high-quality health care at a low cost. My people are penalized. Health care reform is moving to try to help people like that as we overall improve health care around the country and protect the deficit. I am sorry for any ambiguity or misunderstanding from my comments, but I am frustrated when I hear the Republican side of the aisle continue to repeat this political lie of the year. It doesn't help the debate, it doesn't help us move forward, and we are going to have to move forward to solve the problems of this country. [From PolitiFact, Dec. 16, 2010] PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: `A Government Takeover of Health Care' (By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan) In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call it a ``government takeover.'' ``Takeovers are like coups,'' Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. ``They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.'' The line stuck. By the time the health care bill was headed toward passage in early 2010, Obama and congressional Democrats had sanded down their program, dropping the ``public option'' concept that was derided as too much government intrusion. The law passed in March, with new regulations, but no government-run plan. But as Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a great punchline. And few in the press challenged their frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going to take over the health care industry. PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen ``government takeover of health care'' as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections. Readers of PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times' independent fact-checking website, also chose it as the year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin. (Their second-place choice was Rep. Michele Bachmann's claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to India, a falsity that still sprouts.) By selecting ``government takeover'' as Lie of the Year, PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health care law is good policy. The phrase is simply not true. Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: ``The label `government takeover' has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a `takeover.' '' An inaccurate claim ``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market: Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies. Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it. The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. The law does not include the public option. a government- run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers. The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine. PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers. It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market. Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a government takeover say that characterization is justified because the plan increases federal regulation and will require Americans to buy health insurance. But while those provisions are real, the majority of Americans will continue to get coverage from private insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance industry: People who don't currently have coverage will get it, for the most part, from private insurance companies. Consider some analogies about strict government regulation. The Federal Aviation Administration imposes detailed rules on airlines. State laws require drivers to have car insurance. Regulators tell electric utilities what they can charge. Yet that heavy regulation is not described as a government takeover. This year, PolitiFact analyzed five claims of a ``government takeover of health care.'' Three were rated Pants on Fire, two were rated False. Can't do it in four words Other news organizations have also said the claim is false. Slate said ``the proposed health care reform does not take over the system in any sense.'' In a New York Times economics blog, Princeton University professor Uwe Reinhardt, an expert in health care economics, said, ``Yes, there would be a substantial government-mandated reorganization of this relatively small corner of the private health insurance market (that serves people who have been buying individual policies). But that hardly constitutes a government takeover of American health care.'' FactCheck.org, an independent fact-checking group run by the University of Pennsylvania, has debunked it several times, calling it one of the ``whoppers'' about health care and saying the reform plan is neither ``government-run'' nor a ``government takeover.'' We asked incoming House Speaker John Boehner's office why Republican leaders repeat the phrase when it has repeatedly been shown to be incorrect. Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman, replied, ``We believe that the job-killing ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health care. That's why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.'' Analysts say health care reform is such a complicated topic that it often cannot be summarized in snappy talking points. ``If you're going to tell the truth about something as complicated as health care and health care reform, you probably need at least four sentences,'' said Maggie Mahar, author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much. ``You can't do it in four words.'' Mahar said the GOP simplification distorted the truth about the plan. ``Doctors will not be working for the government. Hospitals will not be owned by the government,'' she said. ``That's what a government takeover of health care would mean, and that's not at all what we're doing.'' How the line was used If you followed the health care debate or the midterm election--even casually--it's likely you heard ``government takeover'' many times. PolitiFact sought to count how often the phrase was used in 2010 but found an accurate tally was unfeasible because it had been repeated so frequently in so many places. It was used hundreds of times during the debate over the bill and then revived during the fall campaign. A few numbers: The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner's website, GOPLeader.gov. It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican campaign platform ``A Pledge to America'' as part of their plan to ``repeal and replace the government takeover of health care.'' The Republican National Committee's website mentions a government takeover of health care more than 200 times. Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, ``government takeover'' was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77 times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV transcripts showed ``government takeover'' was primarily used as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy details. In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he challenged about it. In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were rare. An effective phrase Politicians and officials in the health care industry have been warning about a ``government takeover'' for decades. The phrase became widely used in the early 1990s when President Bill Clinton was trying to pass health care legislation. Then, as today, Democrats tried to debunk the popular Republican refrain. When Obama proposed his health plan in the spring of 2009, Luntz, a Republican strategist famous for his research on effective phrases, met with focus groups to determine which messages would work best for the Republicans. He did not respond to calls and e-mails from PolitiFact asking him to discuss the phrase. The 28-page memo he wrote after those sessions, ``The Language of Healthcare 2009,'' provides a rare glimpse into the art of finding words and phrases that strike a responsive chord with voters. The memo begins with ``The 10 Rules for Stopping the `Washington Takeover' of Healthcare.'' Rule No. 4 says people ``are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care--so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It's not an economic issue. It's a bureaucratic issue.'' The memo is about salesmanship, not substance. It doesn't address whether the lines are accurate. It just says they are effective and that Republicans should use them. Indeed, facing a Democratic plan that actually relied on the free market to try to bring down costs, Luntz recommended sidestepping that inconvenient fact: ``The arguments against the Democrats'' healthcare plan must center around politicians, bureaucrats and Washington . . . not the free market, tax incentives or competition.'' Democrats tried to combat the barrage of charges about a government takeover. The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly put out statements, but they were drowned out by a disciplined GOP that used the phrase over and over. Democrats could never agree on their own phrases and were all over the map in their responses, said Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee. ``It was uncoordinated. Everyone had their own idea,'' Dean said in an interview with PolitiFact. The Democrats are atrocious at messaging,'' he said. ``They've gotten worse since I left, not better. It's just appalling. First of all, you don't play defense when you're doing messaging, you play offense. The Republicans have learned this well.'' Dean grudgingly admires the Republican wordsmith. ``Frank Luntz has it right, he just works for the wrong side. You give very simple catch phrases that encapsulate the philosophy of the bill.'' A responsive chord By March of this year, when Obama signed the bill into law, 53 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg Poll said they agreed that ``the current proposal to overhaul health care amounts to a government takeover.'' Exit polls showed the economy was the top issue for voters in the November election, but analysts said the drumbeat about the ``government takeover'' during the campaign helped cement the advantage for the Republicans. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat whose provision for Medicare end-of-life care was distorted into the charge of ``death panels'' (last year's Lie of the Year), said the Republicans'' success with the phrase was a matter of repetition. ``There was a uniformity of Republican messaging that was disconnected from facts,'' Blumenauer said. ``The sheer discipline . . . was breathtaking.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I am hopeful that instead of cutting transportation, which is envisioned in the CR, that would cost us 200,000 or 300,000 jobs at precisely the time that we need economic activity, that we can have a truce on the budget wars. Let's acknowledge that we will have a tight and focused reauthorization meeting the wide range of transportation needs, deal with how we build and renew America, get the economy started again, strengthen the quality of life in our communities, and make our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. It starts by approving this extension today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor to support this extension. I appreciated the comments from Chair Mica talking about the involvement with the Senate and the House working together and the listening sessions that are taking place around the country. I am absolutely convinced that my friend, Mr. Mica, is sincere in his interest in infrastructure. I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Rahall, Mr. Duncan, Mr. DeFazio. There is a team in place, people who are interested in moving this forward. It's absolutely imperative that we extend the reauthorization through this construction cycle. And making the decision now, setting it to work, so people can plan and act. It's not as good as a reauthorization by any stretch of the imagination, but it gets us through this construction cycle and it avoids another unfortunate situation. We are 7\1/2\ years into a 6-year reauthorization. No one is happy about that. It's sort of the tenor of the times, however, because I was on the committee when we were struggling with 12 extensions in the last reauthorization. We need to do better. I am all for looking at squeezing out any inefficiency, examining programs to focus them, make them work better. But the simple fact is we need to spend more on infrastructure, not less. Those commissions, the nonpartisan independent commissions that my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) referenced with business leaders, environmentalists, government leaders at other levels, organized labor, are very focused on this. They documented the need to do more. The fact is that the American public is already paying a huge cost in addition to their road fees by wasting their time in damage to their vehicles and interrupting the flow of commerce. We're already paying the price. My personal goal as a member of the Budget and Ways and Means Committees is to work with the authorizing committee so they have the resources. We have people from the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor, local governments, AAA, truckers, bicyclists, the Women's Federated Garden Club of America, all coming together to provide support for the resources. We need to work this dance out between the House, the Senate and the administration to be able to have the resources so that the committee can put forth a robust bill for our future. It's true we're not going to reauthorize this bill in this week. We're not going to reauthorize it this spring. It will be a stretch to reauthorize it before this extension expires. But the time to get busy is now. I appreciate the approach that's being taken by the committee, bringing people together.