Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. As we're winding down, I would like to turn again to my colleague, Congressman Hall.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. This $3,100 figure that has been cited by Republican leadership, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and referenced, I thought the gentleman from California would talk about it coming from MIT. That's where it came from, and his colleagues have referenced it repeatedly on the floor. This is from research by MIT professor John Reilly, done in 2007. Republican staffers at one point, since they were citing it, called him and he said, and I quote, ``called me March 20 and asked about this. I had to explain why the estimate they had was incorrect, and what they should do to correct it. But I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.'' He pointed out that it actually was one-tenth of that figure, it was a net welfare that was going to be $300 per person, that the Republicans are intentionally misrepresenting the research from MIT. Now, I would suggest that it's further flawed because we have, in the budget, left this element to be worked on by people who want a legend. But this canard ought to be rejected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to clarify that the professor who's being referenced by your leadership said that it would be one-fortieth of that amount.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. In this budget that we are going to be offering up, there are no tax increases. The House of Representatives, in its wisdom, did recently approve a tobacco tax increase that provides health care for 4 million American children, something that the last Congress passed, and there were bipartisan votes who supported that because that's good for Americans. What we are seeing in paychecks this month across America is that 95 percent of the people are witnessing the promise of a reduction in taxes being delivered by President Obama and this Congress. This is for 95 percent of the American people. I find it interesting the rhetoric about bureaucrats running health care. In fact, my friend from North Carolina just pointed out that they protect the bureaucrats running health care for veterans. They protect the veterans with the program.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. My friends on the other side of the aisle--and I attempted to claim the attention of my friend from Arizona when not once but twice today he talked about somehow a $600 billion tax on the American people. I was trying to get his attention to refer to the reserve funds on page 53 for him to look at to find where that number is. Where is that number in the budget proposal before us?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The point is, the people ought to look at the budget, at the reserve fund.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And find that it is deficit-neutral, and that the opportunity is here for us to address the climate change. I strongly urge that people refer to it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I only have a few seconds.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. It is interesting listening to my other friends because, when they had their hands on the levers of power--of the Presidency and of Congress--they engineered the massive debt that the President inherited with a combination of tax cuts for people who needed it the least and with a rate of spending increase that was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great Society. Not only was it greater than Bill Clinton's spending, but it was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great Society. Now, all of a sudden, when they're out of power, they're suggesting that they're going to do something that they never did when they had control. They're proposing a massive, across-the-board cut of about $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, this is serious money, dealing with serious programs that the American people count on, and they count on them today more than ever before: Pell Grants, food stamps, nutrition activities, health care for low-income people, Medicare. Madam Chair, the range of activities that would be subjected to the budget knife--again, that they never did when they were in control but that they propose to do now--would have the impact of scaling down our growth and our activities, and it would put the burden on those who can least afford it. When it comes to taxes, well, they're back to the same old story. They want to make permanent tax cuts that we found out were not affordable in the form that they passed them, and worse, they would increase taxes on about a quarter of the Americans who are lower income Americans. Madam Chair, in the Democratic budget, there are no tax increases this year. We understand that it's not appropriate to raise taxes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time only. I have very few minutes left.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, health care is one of these critical areas. There is nothing in the Democratic budget that suggests we're going to turn over to some shadowy, bureaucratic influence a bureaucratic mechanism that's going to control Americans' health care. What President Obama has suggested and what we've been discussing in our Ways and Means Committee, for instance, is having an opportunity for more choices for Americans, including some that are subsidized by the Federal Government to help fill some of these gaps. It's interesting that, on one hand, they'll talk about something that isn't true--the shadowy bureaucratic control of health care--while they kind of conveniently forget that some of the best health care in America is provided by government, itself, by government bureaucrats, if you will, in the Veterans Administration. It's a little embarrassing to watch this schizophrenia that our friends are engaged in. One of the most insidious portions of both of these budgets is to be found in taking back the recovery funds that States across America are counting on for economic recovery. I suggest that's a mistake as well and another reason to reject the Republican alternative.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out to my good friend from Georgia that he confuses the marginal rate with the rate that corporations actually pay. Thirty-five percent is the marginal rate. If he looks at how much American corporations actually pay, because almost nobody pays the marginal rate because of the loopholes, it is down to about 5 percent. It's the second lowest of the top 20 economies. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the real State of Washington, not Oregon, and a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Larsen.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a distinguished member of our leadership.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is interesting that my friend from Louisiana didn't vote for those budget deficits in the past because he wasn't in Congress. But if he had been here and joined with the Republican majority, he would have voted for them. That is what got us into this fix. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a new Member who wasn't a part of this in the past, but is working on solutions in the future.