[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E389-E390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TRUE COST OF H.R. 1

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. STEVE COHEN

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 1, 2011

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion 
from the budget, the majority is trying to assume the mantle of fiscal 
responsibility. They claim that $60 billion in cuts creates $60 billion 
in savings and deficit reduction. But this claim is simply untrue, for 
many of the underfunded or eliminated programs actually save the 
government far more money than they cost. These cuts are penny wise but 
pound foolish. By eliminating funding for these cost saving programs, 
the majority is not reducing spending; they are increasing it.
  As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, the majority's cuts 
are designed to eat the future by cutting spending in a way that 
undermines the nation's health and long-term prospects. Nowhere is this 
failure in fiscal policy more apparent than when it comes to the 
physical health of the American people. H.R. 1 cuts $60 billion in 
Fiscal Year 2011 spending, but it increases the deficit dramatically as 
a result of unseen healthcare costs associated with the degradation of 
the food we eat, water we drink, and air we breathe. Moreover, H.R. 1 
slashes the National Institute of Health's funding for research to find 
cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and 
cancer.
  I believe that it is morally objectionable to leverage our physical 
health for perceived short-term fiscal and political health. But that 
is exactly what H.R. 1 does. It allows the majority to fulfill a 
political promise made during the last campaign. But in doing so, the 
majority is undermining the long-term health of our citizens and our 
country by:
  Cutting funds for the Food and Drug Administration by $241 million 
below 2010 and $400 million below the Administration's 2011 budget 
request.
  Cutting funds for the Food Safety and Inspection Service by $88 
million below 2010 funding levels and $107 million below the 
Administration's 2011 budget request.
  Cutting appropriations for the National Institutes of Health by $1.6 
billion below FY 2010 and $2.5 billion below the President's budget.
  Cutting funds for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving 
Fund by 56 percent.
  Cutting funds for the Environmental Protection Agency by $3 billion, 
a nearly 30 percent cut from spending in 2010 and the largest 
percentage cut in EPA's overall budget in 30 years.

[[Page E390]]

  Cutting appropriations for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services by $458 million below FY 2010 and $634 million below the 
President's budget request.
  These fiscal cuts have severe physical impacts on the American people 
and jeopardize the health and well-being of our children. H.R. 1 cuts 
funding for the Food and Drug Administration's ability to test and 
regulate medical drugs. It is counterintuitive to think that drugs that 
people take to cure illnesses may actually create more health problems 
than they solve. But that is an unfortunate experience that many 
Americans know all too well. For instance, thousands of Americans took 
the weight loss drug Fen-phen only to find out years later that it 
caused severe heart problems and had killed people who had taken the 
drug for only a short period. The sad truth is that Fen-phen is only 
one example of a drug that did not undergo the necessary FDA testing 
and scrutiny, and H.R. 1 will ensure that many more medical drugs 
receive similar inadequate levels of review. Cutting spending for 
testing and regulating drugs does not seem like smart fiscal or 
physical policy to me. It is eating our future.
  I believe it is important for parents to be confident that the food 
they feed their children is making them healthier and not killing them. 
Unfortunately that is not the case. In the last year alone, we have had 
food recalls for spinach, peanuts, chicken, eggs, and dozens of other 
foods. It was not long ago that millions of Americans were combing 
through their pantries throwing away anything containing peanut butter. 
This feverish action was a result of a salmonella contamination that 
claimed the lives of 8 individuals and poisoned more than 500 Americans 
in 43 states, half of which were children. And it was only a few years 
ago that E. coli in spinach was responsible for 5 deaths and more than 
200 hospitalizations.
  The American people deserve better. They deserve the peace of mind of 
knowing the food they eat and feed their children is safe. But by 
slashing millions of dollars for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, H.R. 1 denies the American people that peace of mind. In 2010 
alone, an estimated 76 million people got sick with foodborne illness 
and 5,000 individuals died because of the food they ate, according to 
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutting spending 
that would prevent many of these deaths and illnesses is not fiscally 
or physically responsible. It is eating our future.
  The irony of H.R. 1 is that not only does it make the American people 
sicker, but it dramatically cuts funding for the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) to develop cures for diseases, instances of which will 
increase as a result of H.R. 1's attack on safe food, water, and air. 
The NIH conducts cutting edge research to cure the diseases that plague 
millions of Americans, from infants to seniors. Nearly every American 
has watched a friend or loved one fight Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or 
cancer or has fought one of these life-threatening battles first-hand. 
For years, Congress has provided NIH the necessary tools to help people 
win these battles. But H.R. 1 stops NIH in its tracks by cutting 
funding for research that would save American lives. That does not seem 
like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future.
  Although more than 70 percent of the earth is covered in water, only 
about 1 percent of all the water on the planet is safe to drink. H.R. 1 
would reduce that 1 percent by allowing major corporations and 
developers to pump toxins into our water and by failing to invest in 
the necessary infrastructure to maintain, treat, and deliver safe 
drinking water. H.R. 1 reduces the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
by 56 percent, a program that provides low and no-interest loans to 
states to fund drinking water infrastructure improvement projects. 
Already too many Americans are suffering from lead poisoning and 
chronic diarrhea as a result of antiquated infrastructure. We cannot 
afford to exacerbate the rate of these serious health threats by 
cutting funding to maintain and repair our water infrastructure. Doing 
so, does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is 
eating our future.
  H.R. 1 eliminates several million dollars of funding for EPA to 
implement revised standards for the amount of mercury, lead, and other 
toxic air pollutants that cement plants across the country can emit 
into the air we breathe. These revised standards will safeguard the 
American people from breathing air that will harm their brains, hearts, 
lungs, and livers. But H.R. 1 strips EPA of any funding to implement 
this life-saving standard.
  Mercury and lead target the developing brains of children and can 
cause devastating brain damage and death. Millions of American children 
already suffer from debilitating asthma and brain damage as a result of 
the dirty air they breathe. H.R. 1 does not try to clean the air; it 
makes the air even dirtier and exposes more children to air that will 
impact their health for the rest of their life or in some cases kill 
them.
  According to EPA, these standards will save more than 2,500 lives a 
year and prevent 50,000 new cases of asthma and respiratory symptoms. 
But H.R. 1 cuts these funds. That does not seem like smart fiscal or 
physical policy to me. It is eating our future.
  H.R. 1 will also increase the number of individuals in hospitals and 
doctors' offices as a result of illnesses related to polluted air, 
dirty water, and bacteria-filled food. And the kicker is that H.R. 1 
will make these medical trips more expensive for these individuals and 
for the government. By eliminating funding for critical components of 
the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans will not have access to 
affordable insurance to cover their respiratory medications to remedy 
the polluted air they breathe. Parents will have to pay out of pocket--
if they can pay at all--for the treatment their children receive thanks 
to the E. coli in the hamburger they had for dinner. And seniors will 
no longer have access to free preventative care visits, which are 
imperative to detect possible ailments caused by inhaling harmful 
toxins with every breath.
  Worse than any of these medical costs is the heartache associated 
with the tens of thousands of deaths that will occur as a result of the 
dirtier air, water, and food every American will be consuming thanks to 
H.R. 1. It is clear that the American people will not be able to afford 
these costs, so this financial burden will continue to increase our 
deficit. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy. It is 
eating our future.
  The Republican majority is touting H.R. 1 as a fiscally responsible 
budget. Sure it looks nice on paper when you take the $60 billion 
dollars in cuts as $60 billions in savings. But by looking a bit deeper 
into the programs being cut, one can recognize that many of these cuts 
will end up costing the federal government billions of dollars. Not to 
mention that H.R. 1 will reduce the physical health and wellness of 
millions of Americans.
  I urge the majority to go back to the drawing board and create a 
truly cost-saving budget that looks at cost holistically. I encourage 
them to create a budget that not only restores the fiscal health of 
this nation but the physical health as well. And I strongly recommend 
that we develop a budget that wins the future rather than eats it.

                          ____________________