[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 15879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 LOOK FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is slowly dawning on some of my 
Republican colleagues, who were so gleeful about shutting down the 
government 2 weeks ago, that there will be no reward for not ruining 
the economy. Some think they should get a prize when they stop the 
senseless punishment of the American people, paying our employees not 
to work, and inflicting needless disruption on the lives and costs to 
the taxpayers--billions of dollars.
  It appears that the public has had a hard time figuring all of this 
out, but has understandably concluded that most of the blame is due to 
the Republican crusade against health care reform and their reckless 
choice of tactics.
  Is it possible that something constructive can come from the Tea 
Party debacle? Absolutely. Maybe we can do our job and look for areas 
of potential agreement.
  Last week, Paul Ryan and I continued a long-standing partnership on 
agricultural reform. We led a debate showing the will of the House to 
limit subsidy for the terribly flawed and expensive crop insurance 
program by slightly reducing the lavish subsidies to the largest 
agribusinesses. It is not the final answer by any means. There is no 
guarantee the Ag conferees will pay attention to the will of the House, 
but it is a clear area in that we can reduce spending and improve 
programs for most farmers and ranchers.
  Maybe we could find bipartisan agreement that we should not slash 
infrastructure spending even further. Let's have a hearing before the 
House Ways and Means Committee and explore how to fund the 
transportation bill that expires in 348 days and creates a devastating 
infrastructure cliff.
  If people are concerned about the deficit and government spending, 
maybe the House could finish work on its own spending bills. My 
Republican friends shut down the appropriations process more than 2 
months ago. It might be instructive, before demanding more reductions 
in funding services, to see if they can actually pass their own version 
of the budget. If they can't, maybe they would reconsider taking 
government spending down to the levels of 1962, which is what their 
budget program requires, when America had 140 million fewer people, 
when there was one-third the number of senior citizens.
  Regardless, their pleas to negotiate ought to mean that they stop 
refusing to negotiate with the Senate about the budget. If they are 
serious and not cynical, they will appoint their conference committees 
and stop 6 months of stalling.
  Let's debate whether, at a time of retrenchment at the Pentagon, we 
really need to spend two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 10 
years on nuclear weapons we don't need and cannot use for American 
security. Ninety percent of the expensive, dangerous stockpile is 
unnecessary for even the most ardent believer in nuclear deterrence. It 
has just morphed into a grotesque jobs program.
  Should America sign away its mineral wealth to foreign companies for 
free? Before we cut investments in our people and our future, maybe we 
should reexamine the Mining Act of 1872, which remains on the books 
exactly as it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.
  These are areas worthy not just of debate but of real, honest 
negotiation and compromise and action. We can agree on areas to get 
more value for the taxpayer, help those who need it most, not those who 
need it least, and allow the process of government to work. If you try 
in good faith, the American system of government is not as bad as it 
looks.

                          ____________________