Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, these times demand that Congress and the administration do more than one thing at a time, health care, energy, dealing with the economic downturn and near financial meltdown inherited by the new administration. One challenge needs more attention, rebuilding and renewing America. Our fraying infrastructure has been a growing problem for years. The American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our overall infrastructure with a grade of ``D'' and has done so repeatedly. It is one of those rare, important issues that actually unites people rather than dividing them. Water and transportation investments are overwhelmingly supported by the public across the board from coast to coast. And a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents would increase their taxes to get this job done. Rebuilding and renewing America will make a huge difference in both the economy and the everyday quality of life of Americans. The economic recovery package that we passed early in the year was an important step to stop the economic free fall. I would hate to think what my State of Oregon would be facing without the $6 billion for education, health care, unemployment and infrastructure. It was very important for the State of Oregon and for States across the country, important but not enough. The perfect next step is to reauthorize and fund the next transportation bill, which expires in 15 days. Our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been hard at work. They have developed a great outline for the new legislation. But the highway trust fund that would fund that new vision faces a significant shortfall. Our recent stopgap efforts to plug the hole just adds to the long-term deficit without the certainty that communities and contractors require to start needed big projects. In the short term, the House should come together, work with the Senate and pass a short-term extension of 4 to 6 months that will allow us to get the reauthorization and the funding in order. In the meantime, every Member ought to take advantage of this opportunity to involve people back home in this critical discussion. People from the private sector, from their local Chamber, contractors, unions, the local community leadership, all being part of this movement to rebuild and renew America. This is the fastest way to get the economy on track, to improve the environment, put people to work and make our communities more liveable, our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this Friday, we come together as a Nation once again to commemorate those who perished on September 11, 2001, and to renew our commitment to each other and to our Nation's ideals of tolerance and freedom. Though the years have passed, the memory of that day and of the heroism displayed by rescue workers and ordinary Americans is not diminished. I hope you will join me in a day of reflection, as we contemplate how each of us can draw strength from this tragedy and help create the America we'd like to see. Our Nation's strength lies in the ability to welcome dissent, but it is my hope that this day can remind us of our common humanity: that we are more joined than divided. And although we may disagree on the means for how to deal with climate change, health care, and economic recovery, to name but a few of our challenges, these are priorities for us all. Let us remember this day, and let us pledge to work harder and more constructively to build a stronger America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership. If you spend a little time around here and work on a variety of issues, occasionally the various awards and honorary memberships come your way. Well, I am pleased to be an honorary fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Nothing gives me more pride. In the fight to rebuild and renew America, the American Council of Engineering Companies is in the forefront. ACEC provides, as referenced by my colleagues on the floor, the technical know-how to plan, develop design projects and help manage them through construction. These companies are at the heart of the essential building blocks of the built environment, the bridges, roads, water, sanitation, transit, rail, buildings, environmental protection and cleanup. They are leaders in the policy areas as well. We have watched the engineering profession provide leadership and insight, counsel and advice in dealing with the reauthorization of our transportation bill, dealing with the recent legislation we have offered for a water trust fund, and with the reinstitution of the Superfund, the accountability that the ASCE has provided with an invaluable report card on the State of American infrastructure. They have done the study on a repeated basis, most recently issuing a new report that showed that we are still rated about a ``D'' in all the different categories. They do this on an ongoing basis to provide information that policymakers, businesses, the media can rely upon. Nobody else does it as well and as systematically. For years, Congress has ducked the tough questions of accountability and finance. Here again, ACEC is in the forefront. There are lots of jokes about engineers and the pocket-protector crowd, but I am deeply appreciative of how the American Council of Engineering Companies, and their thousands of engineers across the country, are playing a critical role in rebuilding and renewing America and making sure our communities are more liveable, our families are safer, healthier and more economically secure. I hope our Members not only celebrate this 100th anniversary, but maybe use this as an opportunity to take the time to look at the resources that ACEC gives to us to help us do our job better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. As we mark a year of near collapse of the American financial system, we're still trying to sort out exactly what happened and how to ensure it never happens again, to allow reckless behavior to drive our economy into the ditch. With that as a background, it is appropriate for us to commemorate the 75 years of service by one part of the financial sector that didn't add to the problem, America's credit unions. Starting 75 years ago as small scale not-for-profit groups of people joined together to provide essential affordable financial services, we have watched it grow over the years. Personally, I can testify as a satisfied member of credit unions for over 25 years, including two currently, I've had firsthand experience of the personal, high-quality service. While certainly they've grown and expanded their services and membership over the years, we've seen that they still work well, managing to provide helpful competition. When some of the largest banks in this country have stopped lending, not so with credit unions. Indeed, most credit unions have continued to lend to individuals and small businesses around the country, despite the challenging economic climate. Unlike many other lenders, credit unions saw their loans increase by 7 percent to over $575 billion in 2008, up about $35 billion from the previous year. By providing financial diversity, credit unions lend strength to American communities. By providing competition for other financial institutions, credit unions help hold down costs for borrowers and provide greater access to capital, more choices for individuals. And on a small scale, I've watched as they've worked with people who otherwise would have fallen prey to payday lenders to design short-term loans to help people in financial difficulty who may not be particularly financially sophisticated. I thank the gentleman for introducing this legislation. I think it's important to recognize the contributions of the credit unions and to continue to work with them to provide their vital services to American consumers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there are small, common sense steps everyone can take to improve their health, save money, and reduce unnecessary visits to the doctor. Nutritional supplements can significantly improve health, and by making vitamins and supplements more affordable, we can help people stay healthy while reducing medical costs. For that reason, I have introduced the Tax Equity for Meal Replacements and Supplements Act of 2009, which will make it easier for our constituents to make healthy choices and improve their health and well-being. This legislation allows employees to purchase certain dietary supplements and meal replacement products with pre-tax dollars already reserved for health needs. The prevention of disease is a key factor in limiting health care expenditures. A 2007 study conducted by The Lewin Group showed that the appropriate use of select dietary supplements over a five year period would improve the health of key populations and save the nation more than $24 billion in healthcare costs. Among the findings, that report noted that if 11.3 million of the 44 million American women who are of childbearing age and not taking folic acid, began taking 400 mcg. of folic acid on a daily basis, neural tube defects could be prevented in 600 babies, saving as much as $344 million in the first year. Over five years, taking into account the cost of the supplement, $1.4 billion could potentially be saved. The report also highlighted the potential five-year savings in health care expenditures resulting from a reduction in the occurrence of coronary heart disease, CHD, among the population over age 65. Through a daily intake of approximately 1800 mg of omega-3, the occurrence of this disease can be reduced, saving $3.2 billion. Approximately 374,301 hospitalizations and associated physician fees due to CHD could also be avoided. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this commonsense legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it was my hope that this year would mark a turning point in the type and amount of we spend on the Department of Defense. Oregonians know I frequently vote against Defense Appropriations bills as spending too much money for the wrong priorities. I was pleased to see the traditional military pay raise included, as well as an extension of current stop loss compensation to troops extended tours in 2010. I also continue to strongly support provisions that prohibit permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and torture. Yet the bill also includes funding for programs that have been outdated since the end of the Cold War two decades ago, and which even the Secretary of Defense would like to terminate. The list of these programs funded here is long and runs into the billions: $80 million for the Missile Defense, Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program, $369 million for parts for the F-22 and C-17, an extra $3 billion for Navy ships, and $674 million for still more unrequested C-17 planes. These programs come at the expense of other, more worthy projects and investments. I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee for this bill, both of which would have shifted funding to environmental programs. My first amendment would have shifted $100 million from the unnecessary Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Alternate Engine Program and toward the chronically-underfunded Defense Department's Environmental Restoration Program. These programs, responsible for the cleaning of toxic wastes and leftover bombs from all active bases and Formerly Used Defense Sites, will receive less funds than they did last year even though the number of sites needing clean up has increased. My second amendment would have created a small pilot program to fund a practical demonstration of ordnance discrimination technology. Currently over 75 percent of material uncovered during the clearing of leftover and still dangerous bombs and shells is non-dangerous scrap metal. This type of technology, once proven through a live demonstration, would cut cleanup costs by two to three times. These amendments were commonsense ways to reduce Pentagon liability, save money and resources in the long run, and make our lands safer for our communities and military personnel. I was extremely disappointed that these amendments were unable to receive an up-or-down vote. But I will continue to work to ensure the Federal government is a better partner to communities. The Administration is moving in the right direction by being willing to make tough decisions to cut or terminate certain favored, yet expensive and unnecessary, programs. It is my hope that Congress can craft a bill in conference that more closely adheres to this principled and practical stance and that meets the needs of our military and our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the United States Numbered Highway System--from US 1 to US 830--was the first set of nationally recognized highways in the country. During the Great Depression, federal and state governments put people to work improving and extending the nation's roads and highways. The U.S. numbered highways carried the bulk of intercity vehicular traffic and people migrating west. These highways helped our country win the Second World War, allowing great flexibility in ferrying soldiers and materials across the nation, supplementing the nation's fixed rail system. Communities all across America sprung up around these numbered highways, which came to serve as Main Streets in many of these towns. The system reached its apex in 1956, but with the creation of the Interstate System and subsequent growth of suburban communities, many of these once great highways have decayed. As a result, many of the U.S. numbered highways can be characterized as ``orphan highways,'' receiving little or no federal investment. These highways, however, continue to serve local areas with critical connectivity and economic links, and are often the heart of Main Street America. To create an assistance program that is tailored to the redevelopment of community Main Streets which are or were part of the United States Numbered Highway System, I have introduced the Orphan Highway Restoration Act. This legislation creates a new program to provide Federal funds to assist states and local governments in their efforts to rehabilitate or repair the Main Street sections of the orphan highways running through their towns. The bill provides a needed boost to state and local transportation departments by committing important new resources to revitalize local economies and communities. It creates redevelopment opportunities that benefit local businesses and labor, improve safety on our roads, and creates jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation and to reinvest in the communities that make America great.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, few issues are more controversial or contentious than the issue of dam removal on the Snake River system. Some have argued because they don't like certain possibilities that they don't want to know about them. This whistling past the graveyard is both unrealistic and unwise. Things we don't like sometimes are options, and we should know the facts. That is why I am pleased to co-sponsor the Salmon Solutions and Planning Act with my colleagues Jim McDermott and Tom Petri. This is an important piece of legislation that will provide policymakers in the Pacific Northwest and around the country with additional information necessary to aide in the recovery of Columbia Basin salmon. The legislation requires the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, and Department of Energy to study the environmental, infrastructure, and economic issues associated with removing the four Lower Snake River dams. The bill also includes language authorizing the Secretary of the Army to remove the dams. This language is intended to clarify that lower Snake River dam removal is within the Corps' authority. It is important to note this bill contains no ``trigger language'' that would mandate dam removal. Salmon are a significant ecological, economic and cultural resource for the Northwest and indeed the entire country. These fish once supported the world's most productive salmon watershed. Unfortunately, wild salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers have been in decline for decades, with thirteen stocks now listed under the Endangered Species Act. Not only has this decline had negative impacts on the watersheds of the Pacific Northwest, it wreaks havoc on salmon- dependent communities and local economies. Since coming to Congress, I have supported funding for habitat restoration, reforming hatchery practices, and re-examining our harvest practices, all measures that can contribute to salmon recovery. However, with salmon populations continuing to decline, it's clear that what we have been doing for the past 20 years has not been working. I have called for an approach that evaluates all science-based recovery options, including dam removal. This legislation represents an important piece of that analysis. Some have equated knowing the facts with actually triggering the process to remove the dams. My support for this legislation is not support for dam removal. My position over the years on this has been consistently to support evaluating all options for salmon recovery. The studies authorized by the bill will help us determine the consequences of dam removal not only for Northwest salmon, and but also for transportation, energy, and irrigation in the region. Like other Pacific Northwest residents, I have a deep interest in coming to a resolution on salmon recovery. The stress and uncertainty created by illegal biological opinions and the involvement of the judicial system not only harms fish, but also the farmers, fishermen, Tribes, ports, union members, and others whose livelihood depends on the Columbia River system. This legislation is an important step in having the facts about our options for restoring self-sustaining, fishable populations of Northwest salmon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support the ``cash for clunkers'' concept, I voted against this legislation to provide the program with infusion of cash. The bill that was rushed to the Floor today tripled the program without any discussion of how it's working administratively or why the money ran out so quickly. I'm concerned that rushing ahead without better understanding these issues will create additional problems in the future. In addition, by bringing this legislation to the Floor so quickly, we have missed an opportunity to make improvements to the program. Cash for clunkers is a much better approach to help both consumers and the auto industry than simply bailing out the automakers by throwing money at them. With this program we are not only helping them to modernize their fleet, but we are taking some of the dirtiest, most polluting cars off the road. The fact that the program ran out of money within the course of a few days shows its popularity and its potential to help rescue and transform our nation's automakers. Consumers have clearly demonstrated that they want to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. Action to extend the program would have been a good opportunity to strengthen and better target the provisions so they do more to improve fuel efficiency, reduce vehicle emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I am also concerned that in order to triple cash for clunkers, the bill takes money away from another important economic recovery program that supports renewable energy projects. We don't know the consequences of this action and how it will impact other Oregon priorities and job prospects in the renewables sector. Cash for clunkers is a program I support and I think it has an important role to play in our economic recovery. However, I don't want this rushed action to weaken both its effectiveness and long-term viability.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I always enjoy listening to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, with whom I have worked on a number of projects. I have the greatest respect for him. But I don't always agree with his analysis. It's interesting to listen to people who are claiming that they're concerned that they've been shut out of the process or that they are irrelevant. I do think there is some real question about the relevance of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, but that is a decision that they and their leadership have made consciously. Now I don't think that my good friend from Ohio falls into the description of what his fellow Ohioan has declared that Republican legislators should be. Minority Leader Boehner has said, They shouldn't be legislators, they should just be communicators, because their job is more of a political one, not being involved with the process. That is why their budget plan was not a budget plan, but it was a press release. In fact, I was kind of embarrassed for them when they announced it with great fanfare and the press asked, Well, where are the details? You're giving us a press release. Sadly, sitting on the Budget Committee, we found that our Republican friends were not involved with a serious alternative that would deal with our Nation's problems. We have enacted, for the first time in history, a significant, comprehensive piece of legislation that's passed the House to deal with carbon pollution, climate change, global warming, and the fact that the United States simply can no longer continue to waste more energy than any other country in the world. The Republican response, the tone has sort of in part been set by the Senator from Oklahoma who has declared that global warming is a hoax. We have not seen a Republican response that puts forth a comprehensive effort. In fact, the previous 8 years of the Bush administration, Republican control, were characterized by global warming denial, interference with States that were trying to do something. Remember the State of California and nine other States who wanted to put in place more effective energy protections for automobiles, higher standards? California has this right under the law. It requires a waiver for the Federal Government, waivers that Republican and Democratic administrations alike have always granted, except for the Bush administration and the Republicans in the latest round over the last 8 years. They denied that right for the people in California to move forward and deal with it. Denied the opportunity to save energy, to create new jobs. It's I think, frankly, embarrassing. Most recently we've had a chance to watch up close and personal the debates that are taking place dealing with health care. Frankly, I have got some personal experience with this because I tried to do exactly what my previous two friends were talking about, and that was to have serious efforts for bipartisan legislation to improve America's health care. You know, you wouldn't know it, listening to some of the rhetoric that comes from leadership; but there are actually areas of broad bipartisan agreement. One deals with the notion that our senior citizens and people and their families who are facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances, dealing with end-of-life situations, that these citizens and their families ought to be able to have their doctor help them understand what they're facing, what their choices are; and most importantly, have them be able to tell their family and their doctor what they want done. Sadly today, Medicare, although it will pay for all sorts of tests and procedures, 7,000 different categories, I think is the count, it won't pay for a senior's doctor or nurse or some other trusted health professional to sit down and have that conversation with them. Madam Speaker, when we worked on the Ways and Means Committee, we found that Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that that was wrong, agreed that this was an area, when we were talking about health care reform, that we should change. We should have Medicare and any reform effort that we brought forward help seniors and their families prepare for the most difficult decision any of us will face. We had bipartisan legislation. I am proud to say that we discussed it extensively in committee. In fact, some of the most heartrending stories for the need for this legislation did not come from our witnesses. They came from members of the committee, including Republican members, who talked about why this legislation was important. Well, that is why I was proud that this legislation we've been working on, that I cosponsored, that I have had Republicans join me in cosponsoring, was incorporated into the House reform legislation, House bill 3200. But, you know, people who've watched C-SPAN and the news over the course of the last week, people who've read news accounts, would see that this bipartisan, humane, important legislation giving more choice to seniors and their families for being able to make sure that their needs are met the way they wanted, that was hijacked. We saw, sadly, on the Web page of the Republican minority leader that they're claiming that this is somehow leading us down the path of euthanasia. We heard a Republican on the floor this week claim that their approach is better because it would protect senior citizens from the government taking their life. Absolutely outrageous and shameful, inaccurate statements designed to inflame, confuse and, frankly, gum up the works. I find no small amount of irony, because what my Republican friends were claiming they wanted to be involved, they were involved. They agreed with it. And yet we're finding people, for political purposes, trying to mislead and scare families across America. It's ironic, because the only provision that I know that would have been mandatory was actually offered up by a Republican Senator, who's a friend of mine, from Georgia, who had offered the proposal. It wasn't accepted. It was later withdrawn, but the proposal was that before somebody enroll in Medicare, that they have to fill out a form telling people what they want rather than having people guess about it. Not a bad idea to consider. But in this climate where people are trying to poison the discussion, stifle the debate, and prevent us moving towards health care reform, it would have, sadly, been toxic. It's ironic that I had one of my Republican doctor colleagues tell me that he has conversations like this often, but he said that he wishes that it wasn't in the last hours before a major operation or before it was too late; that people ought to think about it, and we ought to do it in reasonable fashion, like we proposed under our bipartisan legislation. Madam Speaker, this is an example of where I think our Republican friends really need to take a deep breath and decide whether they are going to be communicators or they're going to legislate, whether they're going to join us in trying to solve these problems. There are amazing opportunities. One of the things that has been interesting, even the most hardened C-SPAN junkies of late have probably been a little embarrassed when they hear Republicans coming to the floor braying like donkeys asking, ``where are the jobs?'' interrupting otherwise semicoherent speeches with a refrain over and over again, ``where are the jobs?'' like somehow the Democrats and President Obama have taken them and hidden them. But I give them credit for finally asking an important question; although, without any context and without any answer, looking as though they had no clue. Next, to national security and the health of our communities, the record of job creation, how many, what kind, and for whom is one of the most fundamental issues that government will face in tough times of high unemployment and job insecurity. It can, in fact, sometimes feel like it crowds everything else out, and no wonder. Americans want economic security for themselves, their family, and ultimately for the country. If we're not economically secure, we can't deal with cleaning up the environment, with education and health care. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are losing an opportunity, not just to ask themselves a question, but to deal with these critical, long-term economic questions because, in a dynamic, free market economy like the United States, the job creation process is a continuous one. Every day in America jobs are being created and jobs are being lost. The real question is what is the balance between job growth and job loss. What's the nature of the jobs, and how do we improve it for the future. I understand my Republican friends starting to pay more attention to this because, candidly, the Republican record, since 1940, is not exactly stellar in this regard. Since 1940, Republicans have been in charge of the United States more years than Democrats, 36-33. But, despite that fact, in terms of actual job creation, you can go back and look at the Department of Labor's statistics, for those 33 years, Democrats created 64.2 percent of the jobs in this country. Republicans were responsible for 35.8 percent of the jobs. Now, I'm not saying this was all President Kennedy or President Johnson or President Truman, and I'm not saying that there weren't things that President Eisenhower and President Reagan did that were important and useful. It isn't always the partisan makeup that is determinative. But there is a very interesting pattern that should count for something. When my Republican friends come to the floor braying, ``where are the jobs?'' they ought to look at the record, and the record is that Democrats have a better history of job creation. And you don't have to go back to Truman and Eisenhower to look at that. It has, in fact, been a rather dramatic difference just in the period of time that I've been in Congress. We've had 16 years, 8 years of the Clinton administration, 8 years of Bush, where there's a pretty stark difference. The Clinton administration produced 22 million jobs in the period of time. They averaged 237,000 jobs per month, despite the predictions of some of my Republican friends, many of whom actually are still in Congress, that the policies, the economic policies, the tax policies of the Clinton administration were going to destroy the economy. 237,000 jobs per month created. And that's more than the 150,000 jobs that a dynamic American economy needs to sort of keep in balance. What was the record under the Bush administration where the Republicans were actually in control, almost absolute control of Congress, and they were in control of the White House? The Bush, the second Bush administration, created only 58,000 jobs per month. It's the lowest average monthly job creation rate since the Eisenhower administration when the country was almost half as small. It was the lowest average yearly job creation since Herbert Hoover. And it got worse as it went along. The economy lost half a million net jobs in 2008. Now, remember, this is an administration, 5 million jobs in the Bush administration, 22 million jobs in the Clinton administration, and those are just private sector jobs. In the Bush administration, 2\1/2\ million people were added to unemployment, and there were a smaller proportion of Americans who were working when Bush left office than when Clinton left office. But that trend was actually quite disturbing because, for 10 consecutive months as the Bush administration was wrapping up, we were seeing job loss. And they continued early in the new year. Now, I think even my most partisan Republican friends would agree that you don't take a massive economy like the United States and turn it on a dime. The fact that Barack Obama became President January 20 didn't turn around. The jobs that were being shed and lost were a result of the previous 8 years of activity. And so, much of the last 10 months of job loss, plus what has happened earlier in this year is certainly not the fault of the Obama administration. The Obama administration has inherited the worst financial collapse in American history since the Great Depression, with the effects that are still being felt on the State and local level and will continue to ripple throughout the economy even after it's turned around. It would be premature, at best, to render a verdict on the Obama administration, although I am actually pleased that my Republican friends who remained silent in the midst of the anemic job performance of the Republican administration under George Bush and actually went into negative areas, I'm glad that they've found their voice and are starting to speak out. Now it's time to engage their brains in these important long-term questions. The fundamental nature of the job market is, in fact, changing in this country. Employers are slower to replace jobs. Assumptions about guaranteed employment and benefits are being challenged as economic models have been turned upside down. We ought to be working on two different levels. One is to stop an economy in free fall, to strengthen opportunities to avoid future job reductions and strengthen underlying economic activity. The second is to deal with the nature of future jobs. It's even more important than the short-term strategy, because in a large and growing country, we need to be able to provide for the needs of workers, young and old, with a variety of interests and skills all across the country. This suggests that it is time for my friends on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their opposition to infrastructure investment and unyielding support for more and more tax cuts, especially for those who need them the least. That's the same formula that the Republicans were offering which, essentially, helped create the problem. For 8 years, they had unprecedented control, not just of the executive but the legislative branch. They resisted robust infrastructure investment. Even when it appeared a year ago that the economy was teetering, when we were starting to see actual job loss, President Bush and his Republican allies would only agree to a tax cut- only solution. We implored, we begged, put unemployment insurance into the equation, put food stamps into the equation. This is money that all the economists agree will have more stimulative effect. This is something that will help people most in need, and they'll spend it right away. These are people who are living on the edge. And for heaven's sake, work with us to spend a little money rebuilding and renewing America, because these not only create construction jobs, engineering jobs across America, but it also improves our long-term productivity by protecting the environment, by stopping congestion and pollution. They refused. The only thing they would agree to was a package of tax cuts, including tax cuts for many people who, frankly, didn't need them. Well, that changed with the election of President Obama and strengthened Democratic leadership in Congress. We produced an economic recovery package, and it was passed in a few days in the new Congress, that met broad needs across the country. As a gesture to Republicans, as an effort to get Republican support, the largest single portion of that recovery package was tax cuts. Now, we're not hearing, as the Republicans come to the floor asking in a confused way, ``where are the jobs?'' they ignore the fact that an important part of this recovery package is their favorite solution, tax cuts, $288 billion. Now, we limited the tax cuts to the bottom 95 percent. We're not giving it to the wealthiest Americans but to the Americans who need it the most. By the way, it fulfills a campaign pledge of President Obama's. Every working family in America who is in the bottom 95 percent has enjoyed a reduction in their tax rates and a reduction in their withholdings, which is having some effect on the economy. It was a gesture to the Republicans. Ironically, as for the Republicans who come to the floor who say they want to be involved, we put this in to address their concerns and to engage them. How many Republicans in the House voted for the package? Zero. Even though almost half of the package was their favorite prescription and it was going to 95 percent of the American public, there was not a single Republican vote, and there were only three in the United States Senate. We went beyond that. We added $144 billion to State and local fiscal relief. I don't know what it's like in your community, but I'll tell you that, if our State legislature hadn't received several billion dollars for Health and Human Services, a half billion dollars for education, over a third of a billion dollars for transportation infrastructure, the unemployment rate in my State would be even higher, and our legislature would tie itself in knots trying to figure out what to do. You know, it's interesting. Some of the Republican Governors made a big show that they weren't going to accept this money for unemployment insurance. Hello. They had to be forced in States like Texas and in South Carolina by Republican legislators to stop grandstanding and accept money to help the poor and unemployed in their States. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting all of those people who voted against the economic recovery and who voted against the infrastructure. It's interesting looking at a list of them who are showing up to be on the platform when the ribbon is cut when the projects are announced. I find it ironic that the Republican leaders who voted against it are claiming credit in their press releases for important projects that are being funded in their States. They're communicating, but it's a curious communication--claiming credit, blaming Democrats because it doesn't happen instantaneously, not being part of formulating the solution. It is, I think, frankly, embarrassing watching the spectacle. The most embarrassing thing about what's going on in South Carolina is not whether some politician was hiking the Appalachian Trail or not but the fact that it took their legislature to take a State that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation and accept money to help impoverished people. That's what's embarrassing. Well, I am pleased that we actually did enact this. I'm sorry that Republicans decided not to support it. I'm sorry that they are attacking and distorting. I'm sorry that they, in the past, haven't been concerned about job creation. It has not been an issue until recently when they've thought they could make political mileage out of it. Mr. Speaker, this is serious business, and the American public deserves a Congress that will treat it seriously, not one that comes to the floor, braying ``Where are the jobs?'' or one that ignores legislation that they have before them that talks about what investments have been made in health care, in education and in infrastructure. In fact, just this week, we had over 60 Republican legislators vote against filling a hole in the Highway Trust Fund. If they'd had their way, it would have meant that we would have stopped issuing important transportation projects this summer, which make a difference all over America. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by just making some reference to job intensity. We've had a program that speaks to job creation and to trying to keep the jobs that we've got. It speaks to trying to help State and local governments and the private sector move forward. Our energy legislation that passed the House, if it were to pass in the Senate and be enacted into law, would make a huge difference for jobs in the future within the energy business--everything from wind and solar to more energy- efficient construction. It is time for us to use the tools to develop more and better jobs and to think about how we spend dollars that will create the most jobs: job intensity. Many of the smaller-scale projects in transportation, in community livability and in rehabilitation carry multiple benefits. Last Sunday's New York Times was filled with stories of decayed roads in the metropolitan New York area, in Connecticut, in New York, and in New Jersey. Yet these articles could have been written about places all across the country--from Detroit, to Decatur, to Davenport, to Denver-- where investment, if it happens at all, really hasn't been invested in the ways that will create the most jobs. Going out to some suburban area and building a new road in a newly developed area rather than fixing decayed existing infrastructure does not create as many jobs as fixing it first. Fixing it first is a winner because it will help to restore damaged communities. It will not add an inventory of more and more roads that will have to be maintained when we can't even maintain our roads, bridges and transit systems right now. Fixing it first is much more labor-intensive. There are more jobs to be created in fixing existing infrastructure that is falling apart than in making new infrastructure that will have to be maintained in the future. It also strengthens mature cities. Many in America are concerned about the vitality of their inner cities. It's not just older industrial cities that one thinks of, like Detroit or Buffalo, but cities around the country, from Cincinnati to my hometown of Portland, Oregon. People are concerned about what's happening in the inner cities. You know, it's not just the inner city. It's that first and second tier of suburbs around them. We need to be thinking about these metropolitan areas, about making strategic investments that are going to strengthen local economies and are going to create more jobs, which will enable us to revitalize the neighborhoods that Americans live in. There is also a question about what we're going to do with jobs for the future. Even if we're able to get the auto industry back on its feet--and some of my friends have heard our colleagues recently talking about their concerns about whether or not the auto bailout was effectively targeted. Well, I think we don't want a collapse of the American automobile industry in the United States. It would not just affect the upper Midwest. It would send a ripple effect across the country, affecting all of those dealerships and the many auto suppliers. Even if it works, it's very unlikely that we're going to have the high level of automotive activity that we've had in the past. We've got a lot of inventory. Things are being scaled down. What will be the source of new job growth in the future if we're able to hold onto the auto industry that we have? Another area that we've had has been the homebuilding and development industry that, since World War II, has been a source of dramatic growth and activity, especially in the last 20 years. Its construction, finance and home sales have employed all sorts of people all along the food chain, which has propped up the economies in southern California, Florida, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. Now these same boom areas are in a collective swoon, and look to have significant development over supply for years to come. We're going to see a rebalance in the future in the type of housing. Smaller families are going to be the norm. By 2040, there will be more single-person households than families with children. With another 100 million Americans, who will be here by the mid-century, we are going to be changing dramatically--where we live, how we live, how we move. We're going to move forward in restructuring communities. We also need to think differently about job creation. We need, as I say, to be looking at the job density for the rehabilitation and for the location of infrastructure. There's going to be an explosion of needs to upgrade our infrastructure for sewer, for water, for the smart grid. Future jobs will focus on enhanced efficiency, on new energy supplies, on being able to clean up after ourselves. Tens of millions of acres that the United States owns have been polluted by unexploded ordnance and by military toxins because of years--actually, centuries-- of military training and activity in the United States. Maybe we should start cleaning that up and putting people to work repairing the environmental damage and then recycling that land for park and open space, for housing and industrial development. We've got lots of opportunities, Mr. Speaker, to be able to redirect the economy--to deal from health to energy. That is what the administration and the leadership in Congress are attempting to do. The bottom line is that we are going through a major restructuring. It's hard. The administration has inherited the most damaged economy since the Depression. It's not going to turn on a dime. It's going to be a struggle for the next year or two, but it's going to be redirected faster. We're going to recover faster, and it's going to be sustainable if we are able to move in the right direction for the future. I've talked about energy, about renewable resources, about using Federal resources more wisely, about being able to invest in critical infrastructure. I'm hoping that this is one area in which our Republican friends will join us to reverse the policies of the Bush administration, which have, frankly, prevented us from passing the transportation reauthorization for 2 years. We had 12 short-term extensions, and we were forced to accept a funding level that even the Bush Transportation Department said was almost $100 billion lower than what we needed. We have got an opportunity to rebuild and to renew America. We have got an opportunity to work together. I am hopeful that the American public will weigh in on these issues. Nothing is more critical, and nothing will bring about, I think, a little more grown-up behavior here on the floor of the House than if the American public indicates that they're watching and if they ask the hard questions. As Members of Congress return to their districts this next month for meetings and for townhalls with business, with media, with students, with churches, and with civic organizations, having Americans asking these pointed and direct questions will help us get on track. I am convinced that, ultimately, with the help of the American public, a new administration and a Congress that is focusing on what is most important, we will be able to deliver on this promise: That we will have a better Federal partnership, that we will strengthen the livability of our neighborhoods and that we will make our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate the leadership of the chairman. And it's great to see food safety receive the full attention that it deserves. I am especially concerned about the language regarding interaction between wildlife, livestock, and farming practices. Biodiversity is a prerequisite for a healthy farm. We should not penalize farmers for utilizing techniques such as naturescaping, floodplain restoration, and natural hedgerows to encourage crop health, control pests and invasive species, and enhance soil quality. We should target reform and safety efforts towards practices which have been directly linked to food disease outbreaks rather than limiting approaches that farmers have used for centuries to reduce their dependence on pesticides, herbicides, and other carbon-intensive farming techniques. I would like the assurance from the chairman that he will work with us as Food and Drug Administration develops these criteria so that they will consider the needs of small farms and the practices of organic farmers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. Thank you, Mr. Farr, for permitting me to participate in this colloquy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I submit the following regarding H.R. 3200: Physicians ``As a geriatrician who specializes in care of older adults, the more power and choice we can put in the hands of patients the better! My patients are afraid of being over- taken by the health care system. Advance care planning restores the focus to where it belongs--on the patient's goals, the patient's wishes, and putting the patient--not the system--in the drivers seat.''--Diane. E. Meier, MD, Gaisman Professor of Medical Ethics, Director, Center to Advance Palliative Care, Mount Sinai School of Medicine. ``Patients and families have suffered too much and for too long and needlessly. Adjusting the system so that providers know what the patient's goals for care are allows us what we all want: the chance for every person to live by our values-- including when sick. With palliative care we can live life to its fullest till the very last drop--including while curative treatment continues. People make the best decisions when the decisions are their own. When that happens, as individuals and as a nation, we will be paying for what is right, not for what is wrong. This bill gives us the right to do what is right.''--Linda L Emanuel, MD, PhD, Buehler Professor of Medicine, Director, Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society at Feinberg School of Medicine. ``As a physician, I strongly believe in advance planning for life threatening illness and end of life care. Patients deserve the opportunity to have voluntary yet candid conversations with their physicians about who they want involved and how they want their care managed during a serious illness. A provision in H.R. 3200 encourages and supports physicians to open the door for these important discussions as their patients deal with unexpected illness and anticipate natural life cycles. Thoughtful planning can only help bring peace, comfort and healing to patients and their families during a difficult time.''--Glenn Rodriguez, M.D., Chief medical officer, Providence Health & Services-- Oregon. ``Understanding patient preferences for care at the end of life is a key component of patient centered care. Substantial literature indicates that discussing care preferences improves quality of life for patients and reduces caregiver grief. These conversations require skill and time. The Advanced Planning provisions in H.R. 3200 provide training and reimbursement to deliver these essential care components.''--Robert A. Gluckman, MD, FACP. ``As a palliative medicine physician and geriatrician who cares for healthy older adults and those living with serious illness and their families, I wanted to express my unqualified support for efforts to promote advance care planning and palliative care in the House health reform bill [H.R. 3200]. These provisions will help ensure that older adults get the care that they want and need by supporting physicians' efforts to identify their patients' goals for medical care and by allowing them to help their patients to select treatments that meet those goals. Too often, my patients are not aware of their options, receive treatments that will not meet their goals, or do not receive treatments that they want and need. The result is unnecessary patient and family suffering. These provisions will make a real difference in addressing this problem.''--R. Sean Morrison, MD, Mount Sinai--School of Medicine. ``. . . Conversations with patients and their loved ones that clarify goals of care, surrogate medical decision makers, and resuscitation preferences help physicians develop plans of care that offer only therapies that will be beneficial and consistent with a patient's wishes. These help tremendously in ``focusing'' therapies on what the patient would want, reassuring loved ones that care is consistent with that desired, and limiting inadvertent application of unwanted precious medical resources. They are win-win experiences for patients, providers, and payers.''--Jeanne Lewandowski, MD, Director of Palliative Medicine, St. John Hospital and Medical Center. ``We cannot change that people for whom we care will die, but we can give them the choice of how they wish to live at the end of their life. Some prefer the support of a hospital, some prefer the comfort of the familiar in their home. Some tolerate extreme discomfort in order to be alert while others will compromise their alertness for relief of pain. We cannot know what people will choose without having the discussion about their choices. Further support for these discussions only improves the care we can tailor for each individual. Thoughtful consideration of these issues takes time. Patients deserve our full attention when we address these issues.''-- Elizabeth Weiss, MD, Bangor, Maine. ``Most Americans will live for some years with a serious chronic condition such as heart failure or dementia before dying, and most of that time will be covered by Medicare. The responsibility falls to Medicare to ensure that this phase of life is rewarding, comfortable, and meaningful by making sure that citizens get the information to make choices that serve us well--and making sure that the services we need then are reliable and efficient. For far too long, Medicare has paid attention mainly to the issues and treatments that matter most earlier in life--Medicare has to take the lead in good care for the last years of life. Only one American in five dies before becoming eligible for Medicare. We have the opportunity to build the care system we can trust to serve us well in the last years of life, and we should seize it.''-- Joanne Lynn, MD, Author of The Handbook for Mortals. The focus of health care should be what is the best care for patients as related to their life values and personal goals. As a physician, I often find that evidenced-based clinical care falls short of the dignity and comfort when the disease is non-curable and in time, result in death. Empowering people to make the best decisions related to their health care requires much discussion about their diseases. It is, in fact, allowing people to make their own decisions, to be heard, to be respected, and to be cared for to the best of our abilities regardless of disease treatment and or symptom management. I support the advance care planning provisions in H.R. 3200 because health care decision-making is American. It is the patient's right to make an informed decision and not for the government to decide what choices to make.--Mark A. Fox, MD, Florence, South Carolina. It takes a great deal time to discuss advanced directives with patients. This time spent should be compensated through the Medicare program. Euthanasia is never part of the discussion. Most physicians are ethically opposed to euthanasia, either active or passive. It is also illegal in 98% of the states.--Martin A. Grossman, MD, New York. Nurses ``As trusted patient advocates, the nursing members of the Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association witness the suffering experienced by patients and family members during difficult times when advance care planning does not occur. We are, therefore, very pleased to see the specific language of this bill [H.R. 3200] assuring the patient's right to express their wishes through open discussions and know this change will indeed allow for improvement in patient care.''--Judy Lentz, RN, MSN, NHA, CEO, Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association. ``As an advanced practice nurse working in palliative care I know we improve lives of patient and families daily. I can not emphasized how critical advance care planning and palliative care is to the American health care system and fully support the provisions of H.R. 3200 that provide for Medicare coverage of these important conversations between patients and their health care providers.''--Patrick J. Coyne, MSN, APRN Richmond, Virginia. ``What is important for health care reform and for the ninety million Americans living with serious illness is that care is focused on quality of life, management of the symptoms that accompany chronic disease, and facilitation of care that reflects patient goals and values. As a geriatric nurse practitioner and palliative care program director, I strongly support inclusion of advance care planning and palliative care--the medical specialty that focuses on preventing and treating the debilitating effects of serious and chronic illness--as a solution to achieving quality health care.''--Lyn Ceronsky, APRN, MS, Director, Palliative Care Program at the Fairview Palliative Care Leadership Center patient advocates ``This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed. To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion--especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives. AARP is committed to improving the quality, effectiveness, and affordability of health care for our 40 million members and their families. We will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and their doctors from making their own health care decisions. We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo.''--John Rother, Executive Vice President, AARP. ``The goal of this measure is to honor an individual's choice to have or to limit life-sustaining treatments. By developing tools to help people with Medicare and their families make educated decisions about treatments, we can assure that an individual's preferences for care are respected.''--Paul Precht, Director of Policy and Communications, Medicare Rights Center. ``In La Crosse, health professionals taking time to fully inform their patients and their patient's family about future choices better assures that the patient receives the best care possible in light of that patient's health condition, religious and cultural values and that these decisions are really known by the family. Such a process benefits everyone involved and better assures that our utilization of health resources are actually matched with patient goals. This is a far better method of distribution of resources than the society deciding what is best for the patient.''--Bud Hammes, Ph.D, Director of Medical Humanities, Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation. ``The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship supports the advance care planning provisions of H.R. 3200, which will help patients make well-informed decisions about the care they want and need at the end of life. A first step toward patient-centered care is productive dialogue between patients and their caregivers, communication that is not adequately valued in the current health care system. The practice of advance care planning gives patients more control over their health care than currently exists.''--Ellen L. Stovall, 37- Year Cancer Survivor and Acting President & CEO, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. ``Make no mistake. Living wills and proxies (advance directives) ensure that we--as opposed to just the doctors-- have a clear voice and a choice in our care should we reach that most vulnerable stage where we can't advocate for ourselves. This is why I've chosen to have a health care proxy, and I applaud [Representatives] Levin and Blumenauer's efforts on this matter.''--Joseph Rickards, Patient Advocate, New York City. faith community ``The Supportive Care Coalition is a nationwide collaborative of 20 Catholic health care organizations that assists Catholic health ministries in addressing the physical, emotional, psychosocial and spiritual needs of those suffering from life-threatening and chronic illness, as well as those approaching the end of life. We have long supported measures that improve palliative care and end-of- life services, eliminate barriers and build a more connected health care experience across the continuum of care. Central to achieving patient-centered, quality care is strong communication between patients and their health care providers and for these reasons, we strongly support the advance care planning provisions in H.R. 3200.''--Sister Karin Dufault, SP, PhD, RN, Executive Director, Supportive Care Coalition: Pursuing Excellence in Palliative Care. ``Reflection about the end of life, including elements in medical care, is important for all of us. Such discernment and discussion with loved ones can be enhanced by conversations with thoughtful and caring physicians. Actual decisions are always our own informed by our values and moral perspectives.''--Msgr. Charles J. Fahey,

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, each year, long-duration idling of truck engines consumes over 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel and emits 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, 200,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen, and 5,000 tons of particulate matter into the air. Also, idling can increase engine maintenance costs, shorten engine life, adversely affect driver well-being, and create elevated noise levels. Some surveys show that trucks idle anywhere from 6-8 hours a day for as many as 250 to 300 days each year. This legislation provides an important incentive to protect our environment, reduce fuel consumption, and ease the burden of compliance on the trucking community. The Idling Reduction Tax Credit Act of 2009 provides a 50% credit for the purchase of an idling reduction unit, capped at $3,000. These units are part of the Environmental Protection Agency's ``Smartway'' program, which is geared toward improving energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and improving energy security for our transportation system. According to the EPA, idling reduction units can reduce fuel consumption by 8% each year and generate additional air quality savings by eliminating up to 2,400 hours of idling time each year. Unfortunately, these units can cost up to $8,500. While there are loan programs available for some truckers to help defray this cost, most are unable to take advantage of those programs. The Idling Reduction Tax Credit Act would make the federal government a full partner in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, if you wonder why health care reform is so hard, look at the rhetoric surrounding efforts to help senior citizens and their families cope with end-of-life decisions. It has morphed into something that has been, I think, rather sad. I was both angry and put off, I must say, in the references to section 1233. Today in the Washington Times they cite a misrepresentation by Republican leadership that talk about this leading the path down to government-encouraged euthanasia. Yesterday, we heard one of our Republican colleagues talk about actually having the government--I want to be careful about this--that ``seniors being in a position of being put to death by their government.'' Mr. Speaker, looking at this legislation that is a result of a bipartisan effort to allow senior citizens and their families to know the choices that face them, nothing mandatory, no government bureaucrat, simply giving them the choice to have information. Shame on people who use senior citizens as a prop to try to scare people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule. This is serious business, one of the most important bills that we will be examining. I wanted to call attention to two items that I had hoped to be able to be debating here on the floor dealing with restoring the environmental restoration funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force and defensewide accounts for fiscal year 2009 levels to increase the much overlooked, formerly-used defense sites by $49 million. Environmental restoration, formerly used defense sites, are areas that simply get overlooked. The committee, in its wisdom, accepted levels that were recommended by the administration, but that doesn't make them right. We are in a situation now where we are looking at not just decades, but far into the future to be able to clean up the toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances and military toxics. I am concerned that we are going to be losing money in the long run. It is my intention to work diligently with the committee in conference to see if we can make the adjustments, if we can work with the administration that they make this a higher priority because every State in the Union is burdened with this toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances and environmentally dangerous items. The military wants to clean it up. We need to give them the resources to do so. I have been listening to the colloquy here about process with my good friends on both sides of the aisle. I am hopeful that we will be able in the months ahead to be able to roll up our sleeves and work together. There is never really a good time to fix this, but I hope that we will be able to return to a more regular order in the next cycle. I will look forward to working with friends on both sides of the aisle to make sure that this is smooth, everybody has their voice, and that we are working to respect one another.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to things yesterday that were deeply disturbing on the floor of the House as, ironically, I was in the Chair, and I heard things that I thought were, frankly, over the line. But I understand frustrations build on both sides.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to finish.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. With due respect, I would like to finish my thought and then I will yield to you on your time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. What I wanted to say was that I am hopeful that we can sort of take a little air out of the balloon. One of the first things I did when I came here right after the government shutdown in a special election was to be part of an effort to have----

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. It was a part of an effort where we had sort of a bipartisan civility caucus where we had conferences and we worked to try and lower the temperature here. I don't think it's something that's going to happen today or tomorrow, but I want to say that I am hopeful that we can pull out of this nosedive that we're hearing with some of the heated rhetoric on some of the health care issues. I heard the gentleman talk about open rules as it relates to appropriations. I think it's part of a great big package. I think we all need to be working together to cooperate on this. And it's something that I care deeply about and look forward, after we get out of here and get back home, to be grounded at home, as we come back in the fall, that there are things that we can work on to make progress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Does the gentleman want a colloquy?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I understand the gentleman's frustration, but I sat on the other side and listened and had things that our people----