Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We look forward to continuing this conversation on the floor of the House. There has been an exciting outpouring of support around the country as people have been invited to look at the facts and to share their opinions. I know that this is making a difference because every Member of Congress is hearing from the men and women they represent about the value of public broadcasting, and if what they are hearing is anything like what is coming into my office, it is overwhelmingly in the support of this vital program and in urging us to do the right thing. I deeply appreciate my colleagues for joining me this evening. I look forward to continuing to spotlight this and to working to make sure that, rather than eliminate public broadcasting, we work to strengthen it so that everyone in America can benefit. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be one of the most pivotal weeks in the history of American public broadcasting. As early as tomorrow, we will be voting on a continuing resolution that would call for the elimination of all Federal government support for public broadcasting. Now, I will admit, this is very personal to me. If this reckless act were to be taken, it would mean that my local award-winning public broadcasting station, Oregon Public Broadcasting, would lose $2.4 million annually, funds that we use to invest serving Oregon and southwest Washington and a little bit of Idaho with programs that keep people informed, inspired, that help educate our youngest citizens. Actually, through the magic of Internet, people enjoy programming online across America because of the quality of Oregon Public Broadcasting. Now, there's no question, as some of my colleagues were just discussing on the floor, that there is hard budget work ahead of us. I look forward to opportunities to eliminate unnecessary agricultural supports and rebalance those efforts. I look forward to dealing with helping rein in spiraling Medicare costs. Not eliminating health care reform, but accelerating opportunities to reform it and make it more efficient. I look forward to looking at the largest area of expenditure dealing with the Defense Department and discretionary funding. Without question, there are a number of areas there, the American people know and understand, that can be adjusted. However, we must do this in a way that is thoughtful and does not disproportionately impact our rural communities, our children, and universal access to high-quality TV and radio programming. Funding for public broadcasting gives our communities a voice by covering local news and events in a way that weekly papers cannot and commercial radio and TV stations do not provide. Today's media is rarely locally owned. Huge corporations send managers to deal with papers and radio programs. Public broadcasting is the only locally owned and managed media in America. I am joined this evening by a couple of my colleagues, and I look forward to engaging in this conversation with them. I note I could start with my colleague from Kentucky, Congressman Chandler, a champion of public broadcasting, as well as a very fiscally conservative Member of Congress. Welcome this evening. I look forward to your thoughts and observations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate your eloquence, Congressman Chandler, your long-standing support for public broadcasting, helping us have a constructive dialogue here in Congress to make it better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Before I turn to my good friend from California, Congressman Farr, I just want to follow up on one point that you made, because this is vital infrastructure that connects Americans, particularly in rural and small town America, people who otherwise would not have access. There is always going to be public broadcasting in New York, Washington, D.C., or San Francisco. But it is rural and small town America that is going to pay the price if we lose the support for this infrastructure. Again, being very parochial, but it is not uncommon for what happens in the Midwest, in Kansas, in Texas. In rural Oregon, it costs 11 times as much to extend the signal to remote Burns, Oregon, in eastern Oregon, than to deal in the metropolitan area. So these 1,300 independently owned and operated public broadcasting stations are going to be severely crippled in terms of their ability to meet the needs of rural and small town America. I am going to speak in a few moments about some of the unique programming, but the point is that the signal itself depends on the type of subsidy we are talking about here. Now, if I may turn to my colleague who has been a supporter of public broadcasting back in the day when he was a local official in dealing in the California Legislature, Congressman Sam Farr.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you for your eloquent statement, your support. And your being with us here this evening is very important. I think your point about how we start the day--how many of us were relying on public broadcasting for up-to-the-minute results of what was going on in Egypt at a time when the large corporate news organizations are cutting back their foreign coverage. Because of the dedication of hundreds of thousands of sponsors, volunteer contributors, public broadcasting has expanded its international coverage extraordinarily so. But before I turn to my good friend from New York, I would just make one reference, however. Although the international is certainly critical, and it's very important for us here in Congress, one of the things that I think is so essential to zero in on is the local programing for rural and small-town America. Lakeland Public Broadcasting in Bemidji, Minnesota, the only broadcaster--the only broadcaster--for much of their service territory. In Colorado, KBNF is increasingly the point source of news and public affairs programing, emergency preparedness alert, as the print media continues to shrink and corporations kind of move in and automate small radio markets. I could go on through the list. I won't because I do want to provide time. But there is special coverage in the upper Midwest, in the Northwest, in the Mountain States that is tailored to hard-to-serve areas that no commercial station is willing to invest in this type of quality. And to turn our backs on it is one of the most reckless things that can be done. And, frankly, it's a terrible optic for my Republican friends in their first weeks in power, to turn their backs on 170 million Americans who enjoy and rely on it every month. In fact, if you look at the survey research about what people want to protect, they want to protect our strength in defense. Number two is public broadcasting. Yet this is on the chopping block. With that, may I turn to my good friend from Upstate New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. As only a dedicated volunteer of public broadcasting could come forward with that eloquence and the personal story, I deeply appreciate it. A couple of facts I think that ought to be on the table. We are talking about less than a half-cent per day per American. We are dealing with organizations that have amazing volunteer support in each and every one of our communities. And they take that half cent a day and they leverage it. Each dollar of Federal funding can leverage $5, $6, $7 of local programming and benefit. You said something, Congressman Owens, that I thought was very important when you talked about the programming. In fact, each of you mentioned it. This is the only medium that is geared as programming for our children in order to educate and enrich them, not to sell them something. It's the only area that they have access to.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate tin during the debate on H.R. 1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, I plan to offer the following amendment to amend Page 303 of H.R. 1 by striking lines 3 through 9 and inserting the attached language. This amendment would fully restore all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) that H.R. 1 aims to eliminate. A portion of this funding would provide CPB with the funds necessary to assist with the transition to digital broadcasting, provide for the costly infrastructure and maintenance that connects rural to urban, and assist with radio interconnection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H. Res. 72. I am slightly puzzled about why we used floor time for a resolution that directs committees to conduct oversight, which they already have the power to do and should be doing, but I appreciate this opportunity to highlight how we can change the narrative from good regulations vs. bad or unnecessary regulations to one of better results achieved faster and at less expense. Through my experience as an administrator responsible for compliance, and as a policy maker at the local, State and Federal levels, I have spent a great deal of attention on regulations. Commonsense regulations from food safety, to lead-free children's toys, to environmental protections keep us safe and have saved countless lives. They prevent us from prioritizing short-term gains by corporations over the long-term prosperity of this nation. Indeed it was the lack of regulation in the financial industry that led us into this current recession. I hope we can reframe the regulatory debate to satisfy both sides and better serve the public. I believe we can, and should, move towards the next generation of performance driven regulation. This can reward innovation and increase efficiency while at the same time holding people accountable and achieving better results. The administration has already made great strides in this area by appointing a Chief Performance Officer at OMB. There is a tremendous opportunity between the White House and other Members of Congress in both parties who want to usher in a new era of more effective government. Instead of repealing regulations and continuing to rehash old arguments, which will be to the detriment of our constituents' safety and our nation's long-term interests, I hope my colleagues will join me in thinking about how we change the way we regulate to be more effective and efficient.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this next week we are going to have a very interesting conversation here in Washington, D.C., where the zeal that some of our friends have for both an ideological agenda and an effort at trying to cut government spending wherever they can, will put public broadcasting in the crosshairs. I think it's an unfortunate development, one that's going to be a disappointment to the 170 million Americans who rely on public broadcasting every month. It's going to be particularly unfortunate if this agenda succeeds because it's not going to punish people in New York, or Portland, Oregon, or Seattle, or San Francisco. They will always have public broadcasting, although it will be diminished because of what some of my friends on the other side of the aisle hope to accomplish. But the real losers are going to be people in small-town and rural America. It costs 11 times as much to broadcast a signal to the far reaches of eastern Oregon than it does in the metropolitan Portland area. People should watch this discussion carefully. A lot depends on it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as Congress prepares to consider a draconian continuing resolution next week that will include painful cuts to important programs, I'm pleased to announce legislation that will save American taxpayers almost $40 billion over the next 5 years. Right now, Americans are subsidizing some of the largest and most profitable oil companies in the world with their tax dollars. This bill, the ``End Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act,'' would end 10 of the most egregious tax loopholes enjoyed by the oil industry--tax loopholes that have helped BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the past decade. In the tax code, we currently subsidize oil injection, extraction, exploration, drilling, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory valuing, by creating price floors, offsetting foreign taxes, providing generous credits and deductions, offering tax shelters, and allowing the valuation of inventories at deeply discounted prices. The well-established and extremely profitable oil industry no longer needs the help of American taxpayers. Their profit margins are enough incentive for them to keep doing what they're doing. As former President George W. Bush said in 2005, ``I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.'' There are many better ways to spend $40 billion. It could be used to deficit or stave off some of the most painful cuts proposed by my Republican friends--such as LIHEAP funds, which help low-income Americans pay their utility bills so they can keep their heat on in the winter. We could also redirect the subsidies in the tax code to level the playing field for emerging technologies like wind and solar. This is where the jobs are: A University of Massachusetts study found that investment in clean energy creates anywhere from two to four times more direct and indirect jobs compared to the same investment in oil and gas production. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 514, another one-year extension of three overreaching provisions in the Patriot Act, which are set to expire on February 28, 2011. I have opposed the Patriot Act since the original, bipartisan version of the bill was hijacked by the Bush administration and significantly expanded without safeguards for the rights of ordinary Americans. This is why it has been consistently opposed by thoughtful members of Congress from both parties. In a country that prides itself on civil rights and freedom of speech, we must maintain a system with checks and balances to ensure that our government works for our citizens in a transparent way. I have no doubt that we can keep America safe without compromising our liberties. By simply extending this policy for another year, we are forfeiting the opportunity and neglecting the responsibility to have a meaningful review that can bring us closer to a more accountable approach that balances individual privacy with our national defense. One of the many provisions in need of reform and left unaddressed in this bill is section 215. This provision fails to provide meaningful protection for library patrons, and library and business records. The burden should be on the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation. After a decade it is past time to review and refine this legislation. The intelligence community already has the tools necessary to keep us safe without compromising our privacy. Another one-year extension is a lost opportunity to make sure we protect the liberties of American citizens.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 519. This bill would direct the United Nations to return $180 million of previously allocated credits to the United States. U.S. citizens who work at the U.N. pay taxes on their salaries-- unlike other nations. To offset this difference in pay and put American employees on an equal level with their foreign counterparts, we pay money into the United Nations Tax Equalization Fund. Over the years, the U.S. has overpaid by $180 million in credits. Since the TEF funds are in the form of credits, not cash, they cannot simply be refunded as H.R. 519 proposes. As a result, the State Department--in consultation with both Democratic and Republican members of Congress--has offset future appropriations by shifting the funds towards areas of spending that ought to be a high priority for everyone: American security and peace keeping operations abroad. $100 million will be directed towards enhanced security at the U.N. Headquarters in New York to better protect the men and women who work there. The remaining $80 million will reduce future spending on U.S. peacekeeping dues, a policy supported by the current and previous administrations. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states that this bill will not save taxpayers one dime. The money has long been allocated for other purposes and should not be taken away. In this protracted recession, Congress should spend its time on legislation creating jobs and strengthening our economy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 359. This bill terminates the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides grants and matching funds during a presidential campaign for primary candidates, general election nominees, and party conventions. Elections are not the problem in America. Our troubles don't stem from a case of too much non-special interest money. Every year, nearly 40 million Americans voluntarily choose to support the public financing system by directing $3 of their Federal taxes to the fund. This program, with little expense to the taxpayer, has played an important role of increasing transparency, ensuring that campaigns are funded at an appropriate and sustainable level, and strengthened the voice of small-donor Americans. While I appreciate that this bill has been brought to the floor under a modified open rule, that does not excuse the fact H.R. 359 bypassed committee hearings, silencing a much-needed debate. In an era of half- a-billion dollar--and growing--presidential campaigns, public financing needs reform, not repeal. This system was first used 35 years ago in the wake of Watergate to ease pressure on political candidates, enabling them to spend more time connecting with voters and less time securing large contributions. Before costs outstripped financing, the system helped every candidate from 1976 to 2008, increased the number of viable contenders, and promoted competition in an otherwise restrictive two-party dominated system. The system is broken and has not kept pace with the new campaign environment, but on the anniversary of Citizens United, a decision that upended a century of law that had brought transparency to our electoral process, the last thing we need are presidential campaigns more beholden to private donations. This piecemeal approach of addressing this nation's fiscal woes is wrong and insufficient. You can't right-size the deficit through spending cuts alone. We must change the way we do business by addressing defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Until this happens, we will have a very long and unproductive Congress that fails to address the long-term stability of our economy. H.R. 359 will eliminate the system when we need--more than ever--to strengthen it. Getting rid of the public financing option in Presidential elections would close the path that leads back towards a better, more transparent democracy where the candidate can more clearly hear the voters, not large corporate interests.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I was pleased to cast a vote that would reduce the legislative appropriation as a symbol that no part of the budget should be off limits as we attempt to deal with the issues of government efficiency and deficit reduction. The resolution before Congress today directs the Budget Committee Chairman to reduce non-security spending to FY 2008 levels or less for the remainder of FY 2011. I would hope that having demonstrated that even the legislature itself is not exempt, that the Republican leadership would reconsider its decision to declare off limits the major areas of government spending, particularly the Department of Defense. If we are truly to improve our fiscal condition, no part of the budget should be off limits. The Pentagon cannot be left out. We can no longer separate national security from fiscal responsibility. Speaker Boehner has himself said that there is room to find savings in the defense budget. Even without including the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. defense spending is the highest it has been at any time since the end of World War II. It is greater than at the peak of the Cold War. Yet we continue to spend billions to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union even though both ceased to exist decades ago. Our defense budget accounts for half of global military spending and consumes more than 50 cents of every dollar of federal government discretionary spending. Even under the laudable plan announced by Secretary Gates to cut the Pentagon's budget by $78 billion, defense spending will continue to increase in the near term. There are many thoughtful ways to rein in defense spending. More than $350 billion has been spent by the U.S. in Afghanistan since 2001, a monthly bill for our taxpayers exceeding $8 billion. The U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world, using as much power in one year as the entire country of Nigeria, and spending $17 billion each year on petrol and another $23 billion annually on refueling our bases and units in Afghanistan. Integrating renewable and energy efficient practices into our armed services have already saved lives and money. Finally, we should eliminate unnecessary weapons programs, such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Despite the Marine Corps commandant calling the program unworkable and unaffordable, some lawmakers continue to insist on funding it. While today's resolution fails to address this problem, it is my hope that we'll be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to ``right-size'' all areas of government spending, including the Pentagon. Unfortunately, the proposal put forth by the Republican Study Committee earlier this week has lessened the chance of finding a bipartisan solution. Their proposal would result in cuts of more than 40 percent in education, environmental protection, law enforcement, medical research, food safety, and many other key services. In practical terms, this would include the elimination of nearly 3,000 food safety inspectors--endangering our food supply, dramatic increases in wait times at Social Security centers by slashing that agencies budget, and dumping 389,000 children from Head Start--destroying opportunities for those children while weakening America's competitiveness. The Republican Study Committee's proposal would also destroy thousands of jobs renewing and rebuilding America's eroding infrastructure. For instance, cutting $2 billion from the New Starts program would destroy nearly 46,000 jobs and cutting Amtrak funding by $1.6 billion would destroy 36,000. Eliminating these programs makes it harder for those Americans with work to get to work or to find new work. There are many more examples just like these that hit every community in our country. While we strive to better match our revenues with the cost of services to our constituents, it is important not to destroy the very programs that make our country strong and economically competitive and on which our citizens depend.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as one who is firmly in the camp of not just supporting the benefits but the necessity of government regulation, I nonetheless welcomed the President's recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and his executive order to review the regulations we have in place. This is a unique opportunity to reframe at least part of the regulatory debate to satisfy both sides and better serve the public. The area of opportunity lies in creating a new generation of environmental protections that are performance based. Pioneering efforts to protect the environment, like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, were regulatory based that worked well for their time. Public health requirements, citizen expectations have evolved. Subsequent efforts have become more difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Having these agencies dictate specifics is not necessarily providing the most innovative, timely, nor cost-effective solutions. There is an alternative to rules-based procedures, command-and- control rules process. Such a model would give latitude to parties on how they comply with the standards for protection as long as they met or exceeded the requirement. In Oregon, we were able, some years ago, in partnership with the EPA and the State Department of Environmental Quality, to work with a major industrial presence in our community, Intel, on a plant expansion where latitude was granted for air quality compliance. The company made an enforceable commitment to the requisite clean air and environmental regulations, but the environmental agent regulators did not micromanage how the company complied. The result? Clean air with less cost and time. There are countless opportunities for this principle to save time, money, and create innovation, and importantly, the potential to reduce opposition to the regulatory process itself: building trust and confidence, partnerships between the regulator and the regulated with more control, more flexibility, producing a cleaner, safer environment. This requires first and foremost an administration that can be trusted to act in good faith because too often, regulatory reform is a tactic of those who are simply opposed to the regulation in its first instance. This approach will only invite fierce opposition to watered-down protection. The Obama administration has established its environmental credentials and should be able to avoid, or at least lay to rest, that sort of concern. There are two other necessary elements. The standards must be clear, and the parties must be both responsible and have the capacity to be held accountable. Nothing must allow the protection in question to be undercut. Indeed, it may be reasonable for performance-based approaches to require higher standards and environmental protection. And we certainly don't have to suspend current rules or regulations. Just give an alternative path for compliance that we can always fall back upon if people fall short. Once it's clear that we can produce the environmental or other desired protections on a performance basis, perhaps we can tackle redundant regulatory processes. For instance, California has arguably more stringent environmental regulations than the United States Government itself. Can we figure out a way to apply that single, more stringent standard rather than forcing individuals, government agencies to comply with both? In sum, it's always helpful for an administration to make sure our efforts at government regulation are effective and relevant. By all means, eliminate the unnecessary or the ineffective. What is more important, however, is to usher in a new era of performance-based protections to improve regulations, save money, and protect the public welfare.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, you may miss it in the rhetoric, but both parties agree the current path of Medicare threatens to bankrupt the country. Some parts of America are spending twice as much per Medicare patient as we spend in Portland, Oregon, for example, but deliver inferior care. We know what to do. This is why the reform act can give better care for less cost, but it's not guaranteed. The Republican plan would strip away the reforms, the protections and the cost savings. But this is not just an assault on new health care freedoms. It represents the triumph of politics over adult fiscal supervision. The Republican leadership doesn't just ignore, they discredit, the nonpartisan professionals who, for 36 years, helped keep politicians in both parties honest. Without this impartial referee, the long, difficult road to fiscal health becomes longer, becomes harder, and becomes less likely to be traveled.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. People deserve a serious debate on a serious subject. Unfortunately, while serious in tone, what we are hearing from my colleagues is not serious in content. I have listened to people come to the floor repeatedly, talking about a government takeover of health care, which was judged by Politifax to be the political lie of the year for 2010. Indeed, we instead built upon the current system that is a balance to meet the needs of the American people. We had another serious element that has crept into the approach from my Republican friends--the disregard of Congress' nonpartisan budget referee. It is reckless and unprecedented. It has never happened in 34 years. These are the people who provide impartial information, which is being imagined away by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Yes, it will require Congress to follow through on the legislation to realize the savings, but the answer is not to turn our backs on reform; it is to make reform work. The current bill builds on the current system. It incorporates elements of reform that have been supported on a bipartisan basis for years. Now all of a sudden there is the disregard we heard for a proposal signed into law by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Instead of repealing reform, we should be focusing on strengthening it. Americans deserve a serious debate about a serious subject, hard work to make reform work, not a ritual of going through the motions of repeal which everybody in this Chamber knows will still be in effect at the end of debate, at the end of the year, at the end of the Congress. The American people deserve better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are having debates about health care because Americans are nervous about changing something so important to their families, and that, of course, makes politicians nervous about reform. This skepticism is understandable. Attempting to adjust policies and programs that comprise now 17 percent of our economy, the biggest driver of the Federal deficit that literally touches every American family, poses daunting challenges. Yet, as people begin the analysis, the appropriate comparison is not some idealized, magical state but the comparison to the path we are on, which everybody agrees is unsustainable. Medical costs, left unchecked, will literally bankrupt the country. The Department of Defense will spend more on health care this year than China uses to run its entire military operation for 7 months. Every objective, independent expert acknowledges and laments the fact that the United States is the world's health care underachiever. We pay more for health care than our major allies and competitors in Europe, Japan, and Canada, but our people get sick more often; they die sooner, and unlike any other country, people are bankrupted by medical costs--about 2,000 people per day. All the while, we have a record number of uninsured Americans--now over 50 million. Sadly, we are getting exactly what we paid for: more procedures, multiple providers, an emphasis on specialty care rather than someone who can help us with our own efforts to negotiate this complex, fragmented health care system. America actually spends more administering our health insurance system and finding ways to deny care than any other country in the world spends on providing care. Starting from scratch, we could give better care for less money, but we are not starting from scratch. We are starting with an economic and structural behemoth, encompassing, as I said, 17 percent of the economy. It is the largest employer in most communities, and it has evolved over two-thirds of a century of public and private investment and government legislation. Today, our hybrid system is largely administered through hundreds of agencies, programs, and large providers, with the Federal Government paying half the bill directly. The good news is that we have proven that we can get better results for less than we are spending, and the health care reform legislation provides this framework. First, we don't need more money. In fact, if we implement the existing legislation, it can be a source of savings in the future. The good news is we don't have to deal with unproven techniques or technologies. We know what to do. We don't even have to look at foreign models that are more successful than ours. We can look right here in the United States. My community of Portland, Oregon, delivers better health care for Medicare, for instance, to its recipients than other communities where costs are twice as high. It's not just Portland. This can be found in areas in the West and the upper Midwest. There are also innovative health care practices in the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and Gunderson Lutheran. The government, itself, has proven how to be more efficient. The Veterans Administration has a practice model for older citizens with complex health problems that face our veterans. The VA has automated its medical records system. It pays its doctors for performance, not procedures, and they figured out a way to get better prescription drug costs for millions of our veterans. Many of the techniques for reducing the number of unnecessary hospital admissions, for bundling services, for having accountable care organizations are known and actually supported by my Republican friends. They've been embraced by Republican Governors. This is not foreign territory. We know it can work. The path forward is clear. It is important not to lose 2 important years in reforming our medical system, giving better health care, and starting to reduce these massive future deficits. After having identified weak spots in the implementation, let's work to hold people accountable. Don't attack the CBO for scoring the bill as written, which is their job. Attack efforts to undermine the cost- saving elements of the bill. If States can more creatively provide health care envisioned in the exchanges, let them do it. Give them the waivers, and encourage them to experiment as long as they meet minimum national standards. Absolutely allow people to purchase insurance across State lines to improve competition and choice, but only after everybody agrees to provide insurance according to the same quality standards of accountability. That prevents gaps in coverage. We don't want massive marketing budgets while denying the money for essential treatment. We need not to have long protracted battles over if we understand and agree upon the terms. We've reached a critical point where we cannot continue on the path that we've been headed. We do have reform legislation that encourages much of what has bipartisan support. We are spending more money than we need to and there are huge opportunities to improve the quality of service. I would hope that this exercise would be the last of the political ritual on health care. Instead let's turn to working with the Administration to figure out how to achieve the objectives, so critical for our citizens.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the opportunity to come together to express our sorrow and support for our friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, and the 19 other victims of this senseless rampage. I cherish the time I spent with Gabby in Tucson to promote the livability of her community. There I've seen firsthand the respect Congresswoman Giffords commanded from the entire civic leadership. I witnessed the emotional connection between Gabby and her political supporters. They knew that she was somebody special, and you could see that she treated each and every one of them the same way. Then there is the bond between Gabby and her terrific team. It makes it so jarring, the loss of Gabe Zimmerman, the wounding of Rod Barber and Pam Simon of her office. Her outstanding staff is representative of the amazing men and women, over 10,000 in all, here on Capitol Hill and back home, who make the government process possible. They are like family, not just for Gabby. We must do all we can to protect the safety of staff and the employees who serve our country every day. Finally, this is about our relationship with Gabby and our responsibility to heal and repair. The path forward is illustrated by Gabby herself, the best example I know of someone who uses her intelligence, charm, passion, and commitment to bring people together. Then they can sort out the difficult issues that way, and move forward with the same good humor, skill, and results as Gabby. As she recovers, I hope we can honor her service and sacrifice by doing all that we can to restore that spark, that civility, and that commitment to civilized discourse. Madam Speaker, that's a tall order. Can we beat the odds? Our dear friend Gabby will show us how, as she is beating the odds right now. I am confident her recovery will be a triumph of her spirit, will, and intellect, and be a further inspiration to us all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. ``The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the Rules package assembled by my Republican colleagues. In their campaigns, they promised to improve transparency and to reduce the deficit. These Rules break those promises. Under these Rules, the new Republican majority will enact a draconian budget without a single hearing, without any input from the Budget Committee, without any outreach to Congressional Democrats, and without a direct vote by the House of Representatives. Merely by entering a statement into the record, the Budget Chairman can subject all spending beyond whatever levels he deems appropriate to a point of order. This level of concentrated authority runs contrary to the premise of transparency that Republicans campaigned on, and, given its disregard for scrutiny, runs the risk of greatly damaging our economy and the welfare of millions. The rules themselves make a mockery of prudent budgeting. While the Republican rhetoric has been laudable in some instances, their ``Cut- as-you-go'' rule is riddled with loopholes. For instance, it allows tax cuts for corporations to be deficit financed, while programs like child tax credits must find offsets. In fact, these rules forbid eliminating even the narrowest special interest tax loophole to find revenue for effective government programs. The most casual glance at the origin of this country's debts illustrates the fallacy of their approach. Without finding a dime to offset the cost to our Nation, these rules make it possible to both make permanent the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the highest-income taxpayers and to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which not only saves nearly $150 billion during the next 10 years, but reduces healthcare costs by nearly a trillion dollars during the following decades. In no way do these rules result in the type of prudent budgeting that my Republican colleagues campaigned on, nor does it resemble anything like what any hardworking American family must do. At a time when the Republican majority is pledging greater openness, the Rules are also anti-democratic by depriving 600,000 taxpaying D.C. residents of their ability to have their voice heard in the Committee of the Whole. The Rules package also undermines opportunities to continue investing in America. By eliminating the point of order guarding Highway Trust Fund balances this Republican majority threatens investments in communities large and small across the country. Historically, this point of order ensured that Congress delivered on the transportation investments promised in the transportation authorization, and that States and communities could count on the long-term commitments made in that legislation. By removing this point of order, and allowing Highway Trust Fund balances to accrue and mask the actual deficit, the Republicans are engaging in budget gimmickry that undermines our economy and the safety of our communities. Organizations from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials have expressed their strong concern about destabilizing transportation funding, and have urged the Republican Conference to make changes. I join with these organizations in expressing my concern and disappointment. At a time when the need to invest in our communities is higher than ever, these rules will make it possible for the Republican Congress to decrease our investment in infrastructure, undermining efforts to rebuild and renew communities across the country. In addition to the new rule regarding the Highway Trust Fund, these Republican rules also limit the ability of the House to raise revenue for the Highway Trust Fund. At a time when our needs are greater than ever, and individuals and organizations across the country are calling on Congress to upgrade our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems, limiting our options--as these Rules do--is shortsighted and foolhardy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for H. Res. 22, to cut the House operating budget by 5%. It is important for the government to lead by example, especially during these tough economic times. I would hope that having demonstrated that even the legislature itself is not exempt from budget cuts, that the Republican leadership would reconsider its decision to declare off limits major areas of government spending and savings. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would be inconsistent with these efforts to reduce costs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that repealing health care would cost the American taxpayers $240 billion over the next 10 years. This is in addition to raising the average cost of health care for most Americans and leaving 32 million uninsured, and is something our economy cannot afford. This is especially important when looking at defense spending. The Pentagon budget, growing at a rate far above inflation, is also the source of the greatest waste and inefficiency. GAO studies have documented tens of billions of dollars of waste, inefficiency, and in some cases, money that can't be accounted for at all. Even the Pentagon itself is making commitments for budget reduction and efficiency. Just today, Secretary Gates reached out to members of Congress to outline how he intends to trim $100 billion from within the Pentagon over the next five years. I hope these conversations don't fall on deaf ears. Every part of the budget deserves careful attention. I'm pleased that we're starting with the legislative budget; I hope it will serve as a symbol that no part of the budget should be off limits, making the Defense Department the next source of inquiry, and not the last. I look forward to working with all members, on both sides of the aisle, to help the government lead by example, improve efficiency and improve our fiscal standing.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for permitting me to speak just as I appreciate my colleagues coming to the floor to spotlight something that each and every American needs to be deeply concerned about. I listened, for example, for the last 4 years, as a member of the Budget Committee, to my dear friend and colleague Mr. Ryan talk about the skyrocketing problem of escalating entitlement under Medicare. Absolutely right. There are 79 million of the geezer baby boomers like me who are going to start collecting Medicare--10,000 a day starting this week and continuing for 19 years--and because of the development of more improvements in health care, not only are there more of us, but we are going to want more complex and expensive care. My Republican friends were talking about an entitlement crisis. The irony was--and we all heard it on the campaign trail--they talked about slashing Medicare, which they want to repeal starting next week. A great deal of irony. As the independent scorekeeper--the Congressional Budget Office--has pointed out and as you have repeated on the House floor, the legislation will, in fact, save several hundred billion dollars. More important than that, it puts in place reforms that will further reduce entitlement spending. I know my good friend from Vermont is well familiar with the Dartmouth Atlas in dealing with health care disparities around the country. I come from a part of the country where one of the problems we have is that Medicare needs to be reformed, which is what we started in this legislation. They're relatively modest steps, but they're going to save a couple hundred billion dollars. We need to do more. Rather than repealing these reforms, like stopping unnecessary hospital re- admissions--just that item costs over $12 billion a year--these reforms could enable us to bend the cost curve. If everybody practiced medicine the way it's practiced in metropolitan Portland, Oregon, which is half the price of McAllen, Texas, or Miami, Florida, there wouldn't be an entitlement crisis for decades to come. I appreciate my colleagues focusing on the hypocrisy and on the recklessness of trying to repeal health care reform that makes a difference for 32 million uninsured Americans and that provides more benefit for the seniors with their prescription drugs. Most important and under-appreciated is that it would reform Medicare so that, instead of driving us off a cliff over the next 20 years, it would, in fact, help us change how medicine is practiced to provide incentives for value, medical value, rather than just volume.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, due to an illness, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, for votes on December 21, 2010 and December 22, 2010. Had I been present for the votes on Tuesday, December 21, 2010, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 662: I would have voted in favor of the Motion to Concur in the Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment on H.R. 3082, the Continuing Appropriations Act for 2011. Had I been present for the votes on Wednesday, December 22, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 663: I would have voted in favor of the Motion to Concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.