[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20450-20453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         ISSUES FACING AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  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.

                              {time}  1600

  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.

[[Page 20451]]

  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.

                              {time}  1615

  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

[[Page 20452]]

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

[[Page 20453]]

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.

                          ____________________