[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1340-S1348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep
concerns with the two widely divergent proposals for a continuing
resolution that will be presented to us here today.
Now, I may be just a freshman Senator, but I will be blunt--this
whole process does not make a lot of sense to me, and, I am afraid it
doesn't make sense to a lot of West Virginians or most Americans.
We will likely have votes on two proposals today, and both options
are partisan and unrealistic. And neither one will pass.
The first is a Democratic proposal that does not go far enough. This
proposal, which calls for $6.5 billion in new cuts, utterly ignores our
fiscal reality. Our Nation is badly in debt and spending at absolutely
unsustainable and out-of-control levels. In February alone, the Federal
Government outspent revenues by an unacceptable $223 billion. We must
turn our financial ship around, but the Senate proposal continues to
sail forward as if there is no storm on the horizon.
On the other hand, we could choose a second even more flawed measure:
a House GOP proposal that blindly hacks the budget with no sense of our
priorities or of our values as a country. I did not grow up in an
America that would carelessly cut Hear Start and make the playing field
even harder for kids born into poverty. Our America should not cut
funding for veterans or for border security or for first responders or
especially for our children without at least discussing the
alternatives.
The bottom line, however, is this: Democrats and Republicans are
being asked to vote on wildly different proposals for reining in
spending. Republicans will say Democrats do not go far enough.
Democrats will say Republicans go too far. The truth is both are right,
and both proposals will fail. Worse still, everyone in Congress knows
they will fail.
The more important question is this, Why are we engaging in this
political theater?
Why are we voting on partisan proposals that we know will fail, that
we all know do not balance our Nation's priorities with the need to get
our fiscal house in order?
Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these
negotiations, our President, has failed to lead this debate or offer a
serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to
fight for?
How does that make sense?
The truth is that this debate, as important as it is, will not be
decided by House Republicans and Senate Democrats negotiating with each
other or past each other. This debate will be decided when the
President leads these tough negotiations.
And right now that is not happening.
I know it is not easy. I know that it takes compromise. I know it
will be partisan and difficult. I know that everyone will have to give
up something and no one will want to relinquish anything. But that is
what the American people are demanding.
Respectfully, I am asking President Obama to take this challenge head
on, bring people together and propose a compromise plan for dealing
with our Nation's fiscal challenges, both now and for the future.
For me, when I was Governor of the great State of West Virginia,
dealing with our State's problems required bringing together a diverse
and strong-willed group of legislators. But I did, because that was my
responsibility. By working together, we were able to tackle the tough
fiscal problems that our State faced and we did it while setting our
priorities and protecting the most vulnerable in our State.
The bottom line is the President is the leader of this great Nation,
and when it comes to an issue of significant national importance, the
President must lead--not the majority leader or Speaker but the
President.
He must sit down with leaders of both parties and help hammer out a
real bipartisan compromise that moves our Nation forward and
establishes the priorities that represent our values and all hard-
working families.
And I truly believe that he can do it. And when we finally do come
together and agree to a bipartisan solution, we will not only set a new
tone for our Nation but we can start to focus on what the American
people sent all of us here to do: start working together to create a
more prosperous future for our children and our families, and be the
America we all know we can be.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am going to use leader time. I am
wondering how long Senator Boxer is going to take.
Mrs. BOXER. We have a number of people coming for 30 minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will use leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. REID. Madam President, since the moment Republican
Representatives passed their budget, the now infamous H.R. 1--it was
their No. 1 issue in the House of Representatives--the country has been
waiting to see whether the Senate would repeat the House's mistake in
passing it. The House has passed it.
The plan the tea party pushed through the House is an irresponsible
plan. It is a reckless plan. It is dangerous for the health of our
economy and certainly the citizens of our great country.
In the last few days, I have come to the floor and explained at
length the damage this tea party plan would do in the short term and in
the long term. Let me now again talk, briefly, about a few of the
things I have talked about before--but I will talk about them again.
Here are some of the consequences.
H.R. 1 will fire 700,000 Americans, 6,000 Nevadans. Our budget would
create jobs, not cost jobs. It will kick 200,000 Head Start students,
the poorest of the poor, little boys and girls trying to get started in
life, it will kick them off their ability to learn to read and do
elementary math. Hundreds in Nevada will suffer from that. This is a
very successful early education program. Head Start works.
[[Page S1341]]
It would slash college students' Pell grants, the financial aid so
many rely on to afford to go to school. It will eliminate job training
investment at a time when we need them the most. It would pull the plug
on 600 renewable energy jobs at the largest solar plant in Nevada. It
would fire 600 Nevadans who work at community health centers, which
hurts those workers as well as the neediest Nevadans who need this help
every day.
It would arbitrarily slash programs that fight crime and keep our
neighborhoods safe. It would slash homeland security investments that
keep Nevadans safe and our country safe. We have 55, 60 million people
who visit Las Vegas every year. It is important we keep them safe also.
The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1, eliminates national public
broadcasting. That is saying a lot; is it not? It eliminates the
National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the
Arts. These programs create jobs. The National Endowment for the
Humanities is the reason we have, in northern Nevada every January, the
Cowboy Poetry Festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of
thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.
National Institutes of Health, it whacks that. When we are at a time
in the history of this country, when we are on the verge of
breakthroughs on some of the most devastating diseases known to man,
they are cutting that program.
There are scores of other examples I could talk about. But, in short,
the Republican plan they want to push through the Senate is all smoke
and mirrors. It cuts the deficit in the name of a stronger future but
cuts the most important ways we strengthen our future. It is
counterproductive. It is bad policy. It is going to cost America
700,000 jobs. This is not some figure I picked out of the air.
Economists agree with them, including Mark Zandi, chief economist at
Moody's, who, by the way, worked for the Republican nominee for
President, John McCain. He was his chief economic adviser.
Their plan slashes billions from the budget and hopes no one will
look past the pricetag. H.R. 1 is not just about numbers, it is about
people. It is about programs. It is about little boys and girls at Head
Start. It is about senior citizens whose programs are going to be cut.
Because Republicans know that once the country sees what is in the
fine print, they will run away from that as fast as they can. It seems
Republicans themselves have finally read their own budget in the Senate
because now they are even running from H.R. 1.
In the Senate, it was not we who moved H.R. 1 forward, it was the
Republicans. We have a procedure in the Senate called rule XIV. It
allows bills to move forward.
The Republicans decided they wanted to get to H.R. 1. So they jump-
started H.R. 1. They wanted to make sure they let their buddies in the
House know they wanted to have a vote on H.R. 1.
Last Thursday at 4, back in the Vice President's office, there was a
meeting held with me, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, Leader
Pelosi, and the Vice President. The purpose was to move forward on
budget negotiations. We had a very good meeting. Everyone was kind and
thoughtful and considerate. The idea we came up with is that what we
should do to move these negotiations forward is have a vote on H.R. 1
and a vote on our alternative. That was the agreement. It was agreed
upon by the Vice President, Joe Biden; by the Republican leader, Mitch
McConnell; by the majority leader, Harry Reid; by the Speaker, John
Boehner; and the leader of the Democrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi.
That was the agreement we made: We would come here today and have a
vote on H.R. 1 and on our alternative.
After we had made the agreement, the staff was called into the
meeting. We told them what was done. Now over here the Republicans
don't want to vote. They don't want to live up to the agreement.
Last Thursday the leaders of both Houses of Congress and both parties
met with the White House. We decided this was a way to move forward. We
agreed to hold a vote on H.R. 1 that Republicans moved to the Senate
floor themselves. Then we would vote on the Democratic alternative,
which makes much smarter cuts and more solid investments. But that
would be up to the body to decide. Then we would return to the
negotiating table and try again to find common ground.
There is no question that was the agreement made, no question. That
was the deal. Now Republicans are reneging on that deal. They don't
want to vote on their own bill. They want some procedural votes. They
will have an opportunity to vote on H.R. 1. I may have to jump through
all the procedural hoops to do it, in spite of the fact that they made
a deal that we would move to have those votes. We are going to do that.
The Republicans over here are going to have to vote on that terrible
bill, H.R. 1. They will have to vote on it. They don't want to vote on
their own bill.
The budget we outline--and our votes on that budget--reflects our
values, values such as helping our Nation recover and prosper, giving
us strong education for the children, encouraging innovation, keeping
America competitive. But another important value is keeping one's word.
Where I come from people keep their word. I am disappointed that
Republicans now refuse to keep theirs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, could the Chair tell me what the order
is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats control 51 minutes 26 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. How much time do I control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may speak for up to 10 minutes
total. She has spoken for 4 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, my intention is to yield to Senator
Udall. He and Senator Merkley will engage in a colloquy.
I wish to open before yielding by saying that Senator Reid has laid
out the devastating consequences of H.R. 1, which the Republicans have
put forward as their plan to cut the budget. It is a jobs killer. It is
a killer for the middle class. They said they would have a vote on it.
Now they don't want to vote on it. We are going to have a vote on it.
It is important for the American people to understand the various plans
to cut the deficit.
One of the things in H.R. 1, of many, is a huge cut to the
Environmental Protection Agency. There are two points I wish to make in
that regard. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed. The vote in the
Senate was 73 to 0. The vote in the House was 374 to 1. Richard Nixon
signed the Clean Air Act. H.R. 1 destroys the Clean Air Act by giving
the largest cut of any agency to the Environmental Protection Agency.
If that is not enough, it prohibits the EPA from enforcing pollution
laws. In 1977 there were the Clean Air Act amendments signed by Jimmy
Carter. There wasn't even a rollcall vote it was so popular. In 1990,
George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clean Air Act amendments. Two out
of the three Presidents were Republicans. This passed 89 to 10 in the
Senate and 401 to 25 in the House.
The Clean Air Act and the EPA are strongly supported by the American
people. The only place we have a lack of support is in the Congress by
our Republican friends, primarily.
The American Lung Association says 69 percent think the EPA should
update the Clean Air Act with stricter air pollution limits; 68 percent
believe Congress should not stop the EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act
standards, which is what H.R. 1 does; and 69 percent believe EPA
scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.
Our friends on the other side, through H.R. 1, are acting as if they
have all the brilliance in the world, all the scientific credentials in
the world. They don't.
I ask unanimous consent that we continue with our time until Senator
Kerry comes to the Chamber to talk on his particular subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, America's environmental
laws are public health laws. Undermining those public health laws may
protect special interests, but last year the Clean Air Act protected
American families from 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart
attacks and 86,000 emergency room visits.
[[Page S1342]]
In New Mexico, over 170,000 residents suffer from asthma, and over
47,000 of those are children. Thousands also suffer from other
respiratory illnesses. The House bill puts hundreds of thousands of New
Mexicans at greater risk from pollution from powerplants, oil
refineries, mines, and cement kilns.
The Clean Air Act has cut six major pollutants by over 40 percent,
but air pollution still claims 70,000 lives per year, three times that
of car accidents.
If we weaken that act, unfortunately, that number will rise. That is
why the American Lung Association opposes these environmental rollbacks
in the House bill.
The Clean Air Act also protects pregnant mothers and developing
children from mercury, a neurotoxin that creates problems in brain
development, including attention and memory problems. Mercury comes out
of smoke stacks into the air, deposits into our water, and is also
consumed in the fish that we eat.
One New Mexico pediatrician, Dr. K.P. Stoller, notes that ``mercury
is the most toxic non-radioactive element on the periodic table.'' In
New Mexico, over 2,000 pounds of mercury are emitted each year. Clean
Air Act standards are making progress reducing that amount.
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the House bill because it
would allow for more highly toxic mercury than existing law in the air
we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Overall, the House
continuing resolution undermines the Clean Air Act, leading to more
pollution, asthma, hospital visits, and less healthy children.
These efforts run counter to the progress we are trying to make in
New Mexico. At the University of New Mexico, the New Mexico
Environmental Public Health Tracking Network and the National Tracking
Network at the Center for Disease Control work closely with the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide air quality data. We use
that data to better understand how to prevent disease and develop air
pollution standards for our State.
Unfortunately, these State air pollution control efforts are targeted
for cuts in the House bill. The funding is not a lot of money so some
people believe the real reason is to stop public health protections
from going forward.
These standards are designed to reduce pollution, not put industrial
facilities out of business. We have heard from few, if any, businesses
in New Mexico that want these antipublic health provisions in the House
bill.
Instead we are seeing dozens of e-mails from people simply asking
that the Environmental Protection Agency do its job to protect public
health.
Here are some additional facts about the House bill.
It cuts $2 billion in local wastewater and drinking water treatment
funds, costing over 50,000 jobs. Dozens of rural communities from New
Mexico are in desperate need of funds to rebuild aging water treatment
plants and remove septic tanks that are polluting our limited supplies
of groundwater.
It blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the
Clean Water Act to protect wetlands. Wetlands definitions are a
controversial issue, but the Supreme Court has ruled on this twice, and
Federal agencies need to move forward to resolve uncertainty and issue
permits in a responsible way.
It cuts $60 million from the 2010 enacted level and more than $140
million from the President's 2012 Budget for grants to State and local
environmental and public health agencies. Nearly every State is in a
budget crisis.
America's leading public health professionals have responded to
efforts to block clean air safeguards. For example: 1,882 Doctors,
Nurses and Health Professionals:
Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all
Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the
Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or
block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans.
From the American Lung Association:
The House of Representatives also adopted amendments that
would block implementation of the Clean Air Act and its
lifesaving protections . . . These provisions and others
adopted by the House of Representatives in H.R. 1 would
result in millions of Americans--including children, seniors,
and people with chronic disease such as asthma--being forced
to breathe air that is unhealthy. Breathing air pollution can
cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and
shorten lives.
From the American Public Health Association:
Attempts to remove protections already in place must be
stopped. The public health community is very concerned about
the long-term health consequences of global climate change.
Blocking EPA's authority to reduce carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases could mean the difference between chronic
debilitating illness or a healthy life.
From the Trust for America's Health:
The potential consequences for public health are grave
because the Clean Air Act protects the most vulnerable
populations--those with asthma and other lung disease,
children, older adults, and people with heart disease and
diabetes--from the dangers of pollution . . . The science
says carbon pollution is bad for our health. Rolling back
EPA's ability to protect the public from this threat
literally has life and death stakes.
From the American Thoracic Society:
The Clean Air Act is one of the best public health success
stories of the past four decades and has saved thousands of
American lives. Any effort to revise the Clean Air Act should
be carefully considered and focused on enhancing the public
health benefits--not on granting big polluters a free pass to
increase the amount of carbon pollution they release into the
environment.
The American Lung Association has said the health of 137.2 million
Americans--including as many as 29.8 million children under the age of
14 and close to 2 million children suffering from asthma attacks--are
potentially exposed to unhealthful levels of smog, air pollution.
Scientific evidence increasingly shows that air pollution plays a
major role as a trigger for asthma episodes. Specifically, fine
particles, sulfur dioxide and ozone have been linked to increases in
patients' use of asthma medication, emergency department visits and
hospital admissions.
Powerplant particle pollution is estimated to cause more than 603,000
asthma episodes per year, 366,000 of which could be avoided by cleaning
up the power plants.
Estimates of the annual human health costs of outdoor air pollution
range from $14 billion to $55 billion annually.
Each year, pollution claims 70,000 lives in the United States.
In 2010, the United States will save a projected $1,100 billion in
health benefits--i.e., avoided illness and death--associated with
reductions in air pollution due to implementation of the Federal Clean
Air Act.
Let me thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senator Boxer. She has done an excellent job in terms of
outlining in committee the real issues facing us. The big issue is, as
we have heard today from Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer, H.R. 1, or
what we call the House Republican budget, is not only a budget bill, it
is loaded with all these environmental riders that attack public health
by repealing public health laws.
I wish to reflect, as Chairman Boxer did, on the history. We used to
have tremendous bipartisan support in terms of public health and
environmental laws. I remember the glory days of the Senate in the
1960s and 1970s. It was the Senate that passed the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, created the Environmental Protection Agency, passed
the Endangered Species Act. All of those were passed and created with
significant bipartisan support. In fact, anywhere from 8 to 12
Republicans believed these were strong laws that needed to be passed.
We don't need to look further than the majorities.
In 1967, the Air Quality Act passed 88 to 0. In 1970, the Clean Air
Act passed 73 to 0, championed by a number of Republican Senators. In
1990, the Clean Air Act, championed by President George H.W. Bush and
his EPA Administrator, William Reilly, passed 89 to 10. So there was
broad bipartisan support.
What has happened to the Senate and to the Congress in terms of
protecting public health? I suggest what we have seen with this House
Republican budget is very strong powerful special interests weighing
in, and those folks on that side kind of catering to that kind of
mentality rather than looking out for public health and the American
people.
[[Page S1343]]
I rise to talk about the impact of this bill on Americans and on
public health and on New Mexicans.
At this point, I wish to engage in a colloquy with Senator Merkley on
some of the damaging aspects he sees in terms of public health and the
environment in H.R. 1, the House Republican budget.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, it is a pleasure to join my colleague
from New Mexico to discuss both the general environment, the
environment in which we no longer have strong bipartisan support for
clean air and clean water that we once had, and some of the specifics
of the House Republican budget and the damage that would do to American
citizens.
Just to give a small sense of this, in 2010 the Clean Air Act
prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000
emergency room visits. That is why leading public health experts oppose
these cuts, groups such as the American Lung Association, which said:
``H.R. 1 is toxic to public health.''
Why is that the case? I will give a couple examples and then turn
back to my colleague. One example is that it would prohibit standards
for toxic air pollution, including mercury, lead, arsenic, dioxin, and
acid gases coming from coal-burning powerplants. A second is that it
would prohibit standards for toxic air pollution coming from industries
burning coal and oil. A third is that it would prohibit guidance on how
to protect clean drinking water from mountain top mining. A fourth is
it would prohibit standards for handling hazardous waste from burning
coal just 2 years after a disaster in Tennessee caused 1 billion
gallons of coal waste to spill into people's neighborhoods and homes.
I have a longer list, but I will stop there and note that these
impacts on water and air occur to citizens in every State under H.R. 1,
the Republican budget.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, if the American people knew
what was happening here I think they would be out in the streets in
Washington, as we are seeing in Wisconsin where people are turning out
and are energized, because the rollback of these environmental laws is
a rollback on public health.
As Senator Merkley has discussed persuasively, we are talking about
preventing heart attacks, preventing emergency room visits. In New
Mexico alone over 170,000 residents suffer from asthma. Over 47,000 of
those are children. Thousands suffer from respiratory illnesses. With
the rollbacks in the House Republican budget, those folks will suffer a
lot more. It is going to impact vulnerable populations.
The House Republican budget puts hundreds of thousands of New
Mexicans at greater risk from pollution, from powerplants, oil
refineries, mines, and cement kilns. The Clean Air Act has had a very
positive impact over the years that it has been a law. It has cut six
major pollutants by over 40 percent. But air pollution still claims
70,000 lives per year, three times that of car accidents. So if we
weaken that act by these riders and this approach in the House
Republican budget, that number is going to rise. The number of lives
claimed each year is going to rise. That is why one of the major
organizations that monitors this, the American Lung Association,
opposes these environmental rollbacks in the House bill.
The Clean Air Act also protects pregnant mothers and developing
children from mercury, a neurotoxin that creates problems in brain
development, including attention and memory problems. Mercury comes out
of the smokestacks into the air, deposits into our water, and is also
consumed in the fish we eat.
Just to give a little example, in New Mexico--and Senator Merkley may
have this up in Oregon too--we have these coal-fired powerplants that
are emitting mercury. It gets into the streams. We now have a warning
on every stream in New Mexico--every stream in New Mexico--that if you
are going to catch fish and eat them, do not do it more than about once
a week. They actually warn pregnant women to not eat the fish from New
Mexico's streams at all. I do not think people realize how much
pollution there is out there.
With that, I yield back to Senator Merkley for any additional
comments the Senator has. I see our good friend, Senator Cardin, is on
the floor and also has been a real leader on this issue. I know he
wants to speak also.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I will say that one key aspect is that
the House Republican budget would cut $2 billion from EPA's clean water
and safe drinking water infrastructure loan programs. As I am going
around my State, holding a townhall in every single county, I hold a
meeting with the city and county leaders in advance of the public
meeting. At virtually every one of these gatherings, I hear stories
from mayors and chairs of county councils who talk about the challenge
they have with their aging infrastructure, both on their water supply
and on their wastewater disposal; and that aging infrastructure needs
to be upgraded as plants wear out and as we discover more challenges we
need to address. So cutting the loan program that supports our
communities--our rural communities, our suburban communities, our urban
communities, all of our communities--in providing clean water to the
residents and of helping dispose of and treat wastewater would be an
enormous mistake. That partnership is absolutely crucial to communities
that cannot otherwise afford this infrastructure. That would mean more
sewage and other pollution going into our water ways and less treatment
of water we take out to drink.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, in conclusion, from my
perspective, I think it is most important at this point in our history
in America that we take actions on the Senate floor that are going to
create jobs, that are going to try to move us forward in terms of our
economic development.
This House Republican budget is devastating in terms of creating
jobs. Leader Reid, I think, said 700,000 Americans are fired as a
result of this job-killing bill, this House Republican budget. It is a
devastating--devastating--thing to the fragile economic recovery we
have going on right now.
I am very happy to hear--very happy to hear--that Senator Reid says
we are going to bring the House Republican budget here to the Senate
floor. We are going to have an up-or-down vote on that budget. And it
will be out there. We are going to have lively debate until we have
that vote, and it will be out there for the American people to see the
devastating consequences it could have if we adopted it.
With that, I say to Senator Merkley, I know you have some concluding
remarks.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to the Senators, if I could take
back my time. I want to thank both Senators. We have only 10 minutes
remaining, and we have three more speakers. So I thank you very much.
Before I yield to Senator Cardin--I thought it could be for 5; now I
am told there are two more speakers; it will be about 3 minutes--let me
put two charts up here in the Chamber and then yield to him for 3
minutes.
Look at this picture, I say to my colleague from Maryland. These are
the most difficult times on these children when the air is dirty. This
is a beautiful child. She cannot breathe, and she has asthma. The
reason we passed the Clean Air Act is because of kids like her, and
others who are gasping for air, literally.
The other thing I want to show you is this chart. This is an
incredible chart that shows the significant drop in smog-related health
advisories in southern California, the most polluted area, since we
have put the Clean Air Act into place in the 1970s. Look at this. We
have gone from 166 days where there were warnings for people to stay
indoors to zero days in 2010. The Republicans, in H.R. 1, devastate the
EPA's budget, plus they tell them they cannot enforce the Clean Air
Act.
Let me say this: If my Republican friends want to repeal the Clean
Air Act, just bring it on, and we will have a debate here. Do not do it
through the guise of deficit reduction.
Now I see I have three colleagues in the Chamber for the remaining
time. I ask unanimous consent that we have until 20 after before we
turn it over to Senator Kerry, and that I am going to yield 3 minutes
to the following: Senators Cardin, Lautenberg, and Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S1344]]
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me thank, first, Senator Boxer for
her leadership on this issue in bringing us together to point out what
harm the House-passed budget bill would do to our environment.
I start off by saying, when you look at the Republican budget plan in
the House, it not only devastates important investments in our
environment, it does not bring us to a balanced budget because all the
savings they get in these Draconian cuts to our discretionary domestic
spending are offset by extending the tax cuts. We lose all the savings
through their tax policy.
But today I want to talk about a nonmoney issue, at least a rider
that was put on the House budget. Let me read what it says. The bill
says that ``none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
. . . implement'' the Bay restoration plan now under way. I am talking
about the Chesapeake Bay program, a matter I have talked about on this
floor many times.
What does that mean? That means none of the funds in the budget can
be used in the six States that are in the watershed, including Maryland
and the District of Columbia, to implement their plan. Each of these
States is relying and getting Federal funds under the State revolving
fund to deal with wastewater treatment plants. Those funds would be
denied. None of the money could be used for the State water programs.
None of the funds could be used for watershed groups to restore local
streams.
We have school groups and civic associations participating with us to
clean up the Bay. Those programs would come to an end. It is estimated
this one rider alone will cost the Bay restoration effort in Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
District of Columbia more than $300 million.
What does that mean? It means job loss in our areas, by far. We are
talking about jobs here. It also puts our citizens at risk as far as
their health is concerned. More and more health-related illnesses are
coming as a result of the poor quality of water in our communities.
Let me mention one other issue; that is, the House-passed budget--the
Republican budget--will slash the EPA budget by 33 percent below the
fiscal year 2010 level. That is a one-third reduction in the EPA's
budget.
It threatens Clean Water Act protections for lakes, streams, and
rivers across our country by cutting $2 billion from the EPA's Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.
I mention that because in my State and around the Nation we are
seeing more and more disasters occurring as a result of water main
breaks. We saw what happened in Prince George's County, MD. That was
within the last year. We saw what happened in downtown Baltimore when a
water main broke and turned our downtown into unpavable streets. We saw
what happened in Montgomery County, MD, where River Road became a river
and people had to be rescued from their cars. This, once again, is
about jobs. It creates jobs. But it also provides us with safe drinking
water in our communities.
For all these reasons, Madam President, it is important that we do
not allow the House-passed budget to become law.
I thank my colleagues for participating in this debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Jersey.
The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg are printed in todays Record under
``Morning Business.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank Chairman Boxer for pulling
us together. I want to make three quick points in the time I have.
The House bill cuts $2 billion out of the clean water and safe
drinking water infrastructure loan programs at a time when EPA
calculates we have a $600 billion water infrastructure deficit. We are
behind on rebuilding America's clean water infrastructure, and yet they
cut it. We need the infrastructure. We could certainly use the jobs.
This is a very misplaced cut.
From a clean air perspective, the bill cuts $60 million from State
and local grants that ensure clean air and clean water and attacks
clean air programs. In 2010, the Clean Air Act is estimated to have
saved 160,000 lives, compared to where things would have been without
it.
Physicians for Social Responsibility says that U.S. coal plants alone
cause about 554,000 asthma attacks each year. Why do I talk about
asthma? Rhode Island has a 10-percent rate of asthma, despite not
having a single coal-fired powerplant.
Why is this? Because out in the Midwest, they are pumping their
pollution up into the sky, where it falls down on our New England
States.
Average smokestack height increased from 200 feet tall in 1956 to
over 500 feet tall in 1978. In 1970, there were only two U.S.
smokestacks over 500 feet tall. By 1985, there were 180 smokestacks
taller than 500 feet, and 23 were over 1,000 feet tall--so tall that
they had to be put on air traffic control maps.
Why? Because it exports their pollution to us. A State such as Rhode
Island has no shot at controlling the pollution that is dumped on us
that originates in other States if there is not a strong national EPA
to do this. So it is very vital to us. And asthma is a real threat.
Lastly, on carbon pollution, we hear a lot of talk about this, and
there are certain things that are just factual at this point. It is a
fact that over the last 800,000 years, the atmosphere has been in a
range between 170 and 300 parts per million of CO2. That is
a measurement, not a theory. In 1863--a long time ago, during the time
of the Civil War in this country--an Irish scientist, John Tyndall,
determined that carbon dioxide has a blanketing effect in the
atmosphere and increasingly warms the Earth. That has been textbook
science for more than a century. It is not a negotiable or debatable
proposition. We have burned 7 million to 8 million gigatons of carbon
dioxide every year, and it is having an effect. We are now at 391 parts
per million--well outside of a benchmark that has lasted for 800,000
years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I understand I have 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27\1/2\ minutes, I am told.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent to use the full 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from
California and other colleagues, who have been involved in an important
discussion here. I will say a few more words about that in the course
of my comments.
Let me begin by observing that last week, like a lot of colleagues
here, I voted in favor of a 2-week continuing resolution in order to
avoid a government shutdown. But I will say that I did so extremely
reluctantly, and I am not inclined to continue to do that in a series
of hatchet budgets that continue to make cuts without regard to the
larger budget considerations we need to be considering. I know
colleagues on both sides of the aisle voted reluctantly. Frankly, it is
insulting and frustrating that we are reduced to passing incremental
allowances just to keep the government functioning. This is just the
work of this year's budget--something that should have been passed for
an entire year last year.
The impact of this kind of staggered, stop-and-start, keep-them-
guessing budgeting on programs and projects that, frankly, need to do
some long-term planning actually costs Americans money and costs
Americans long-term competitive capacity. Run a business the way we are
running these kinds of programs, and you would go under if you had a
month-to-month, week-to-week, 2-weeks-to-2-weeks budget process. No
department head can plan for the long term because they don't know what
they are going to have, how much they are going to spend. Projects that
need to begin don't begin, and that costs America leadership. It costs
us money. No wonder Americans are frustrated. All we do
[[Page S1345]]
is bounce from one short-term, stopgap solution, band aid approach to
another, always deferring the tough decisions and the adult
conversation, which is exactly what the American people sent us here to
engage in.
I come here today to appeal to the common sense and conscience of our
colleagues. This is not the time to create a fundamentally political
budget document, steeped in ideology. It is not the time to put forward
a set of choices, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with
reducing the deficit or debt but everything to do with ideological
goals long sought by some, now cloaked in the guise of deficit crisis
in order to achieve what they have never been able to achieve to date.
Everyone here knows--you have private conversations with colleagues,
and they will nod their heads and acknowledge to you how serious this
budget situation is. We need a serious conversation about our fiscal
situation. It begins with a comprehensive discussion about
discretionary spending. Yes, that has to be on the table. But what
about entitlements? What about revenues? Everybody here knows we have
to work toward a long-term solution in order to reduce the budget
deficit and the staggering debt of our country. We are going to have to
reduce some Federal spending and make appropriate changes in
entitlement programs in order to do that. When we are honest about it,
it means you have to talk about everything--revenue, tax reform,
spending, and entitlements.
A lot of Americans appropriately ask: What are we doing with 57,000
or 60,000 pages of a tax code? How many Americans have their own page?
You can run through it and find an awful lot of big interests, big
business, folks who can afford big lobbyists--they get their own pages.
But the average American appropriately feels left out and abused by
that process. That ought to be on this agenda--the simplification of
the code and the fairness of the code.
In addition, we obviously need to talk about Medicaid, Medicare, and
Social Security. Social Security, frankly, is easy to fix. We fixed it
in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. I was here then. We can do this again.
That is not challenging. We can make that safe and whole throughout the
century so that our children and grandchildren and their children have
the opportunity to trust in the Social Security system. That is doable
with minor tweaks.
What is far more complicated and challenging is Medicaid and
Medicare. I assure colleagues who are out to undo the health care bill
passed by President Obama, if that is undone, those Medicare costs are
going to soar and the medical choices before our country are going to
become even more complicated.
Back in December, a number of our colleagues understood and embraced
exactly what I am saying right now. Senators, Republicans and Democrats
alike, including Senators Durbin, Conrad, Coburn, and Crapo, had the
courage and willpower to put on the table the whole set of choices when
they embraced the debt commission's report, which was appropriately
entitled ``The Moment of Truth.'' Nobody liked every proposal set forth
by the commission--not even the Commissioners themselves--but they did
it in order to put everything on the table for a discussion by us.
The Congress is responsible for making these choices. Unfortunately,
the budget sent to us by the House is an unbelievably irresponsible
exercise in avoidance, and includes a set of choices that will take
America backward. I am not exaggerating about that. I will go into that
in a moment.
Let me cite what the commission said to remind us about our
responsibility. They said that throughout our Nation's history,
Americans have found the courage to do right by our children's future.
Deep down, every American knows we face a moment of truth once again.
We cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer. Without regard
to party, they said, we have a patriotic duty to keep the promise of
America to give our children and grandchildren a better life. Our
challenge is clear and inescapable. America cannot be great if we go
broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow and create jobs, and our
workers will not be able to compete successfully for the jobs of the
future without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our backs. I
think every Senator probably agrees with that, but is every Senator
prepared to do something about it? Certainly, this budget sent to us by
the House is an avoidance of that kind of discussion and the
responsibility the debt commission placed on our heads. So we ought to
get serious.
For fiscal year 2011, the administration's budget projects a deficit
of $1.6 trillion. Without changes in our current policies, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that our Federal debt will be 95
percent of GDP the gross domestic product of our Nation. Today, as we
are here, we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar we spend--
borrowing 40 cents. We borrow a lot of it to be able to afford to buy
the source of our energy from other countries, and much of the dollars
we borrow in order to go into debt to buy energy from other countries
winds up making us less secure. This is not a smart cycle, not a
virtuous cycle. Certainly, it is not something we are locked into. We
have a whole set of other choices.
Let me point out to my colleagues that spending is at the highest
level as a share of our economy than it has been in more than 60 years.
We are spending more than we have spent as a share of our economy at
any time in 60 years. But we are also collecting less revenue than we
have ever collected in the last 60 years. There is something wrong with
that equation.
It seems to me clear--and many of us objected and opposed the tax cut
that wound up putting us in this predicament--that we have been on a
binge of political sloganeering. It has been appealing to the easiest
instinct of every American. Who doesn't feel they don't pay too much?
The fact is that the burden we pay is far less than many other
countries. It is at about the lowest level in our history--the least
amount of revenue in the last 60 years. That is part of what
contributes to our debt. It also robs us of a whole set of other
choices in terms of American competitiveness.
Let me point out, to listen to the Members of the House and some of
our colleagues, you would think the President didn't do anything about
this. In fact, the President is the only person who put a realistic
budget before us. The President is the only person who really put in a
plan to reduce the overall debt, not just a CR on a temporary basis but
an overall budget with a plan for how you grow America and reduce our
deficit. The President's budget does significantly reduce deficits.
I remember in the 1990s when we faced this very question. I remind my
colleagues that we did balance the budget. The last President and party
to balance the budget was President Bill Clinton and the Democrats. We
did it jointly, working together in a responsible way. It wasn't just
that we increased revenues and reduced spending. What was critical
was--they all met within 1, 2, or 3 years--that we sent a message to
the marketplace and the American people that we were serious about
turning our deficit into a surplus.
I believe that as we go forward we have a responsibility to
understand that we need to have a responsible set of choices put in
front of us. We are locked in a debate that is not actually trying to
find common ground right now. Ask this question: Is everything on the
table in a serious effort to create jobs and advance America's economic
leadership? Is it really impossible for us to sit down together across
the aisle and come to an agreement as to what helps us grow and what
doesn't? Is it really true that American Senators have the inability to
be able to agree as to where the benefit comes to the economy in the
multiplier effect with respect to science research or technology
research or other kinds of things we can excite in the private sector?
Completely absent from this debate is an honest discussion of what
actions only the government is actually equipped to take in order to
bolster our global competitiveness. Every CEO in America knows there
are some things that only the government can do. Look at President
Eisenhower's National System of Interstate Highways in the 1950s. By
today's standards, we could not build it. It would not happen by
today's standards. But the fact is, more than 30 or 40 percent, maybe
50 percent, of America's productivity increases came as a consequence
of the building
[[Page S1346]]
of the Interstate Highway System, not to mention billions of dollars'
worth of spinoff jobs and tax revenues to our communities. We are still
living off that inheritance. We are living off the infrastructure
investments of those who went before us.
Today, China is investing 9 percent of its GDP into infrastructure.
Europe is investing 5 percent of its GDP into infrastructure. The
United States, just about 2 percent, slightly less. We have a $2.2
trillion infrastructure deficit.
What we have not been discussing in this debate is what we need to
invest in, a coherent strategy, a policy to make certain we are not
held hostage to oil and instability in the Middle East.
The United States could become the first country to have 1 million
electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and ensure that 80 percent of our
electricity comes from clean energy sources and with that comes jobs.
We need a cutting-edge, high-speed wireless data network. We still do
not have one. We are going backward. We invented the technologies. We
used to be No. 3 or No. 4. Now we are drifting back to No. 16 or No.
21, depending on whose measurement we look at. By any measurement and
any standard, we are going backward, while other countries are going
forward, and it is because we are not investing and making it
attractive for the private sector or private citizens to achieve this.
America has always been a competitive country. Our DNA is innovation
and creativity and entrepreneurial activity. The fact is, we are not
doing the things we could do in joint venture with the private sector
to attract the best jobs and create the best opportunities. We have to
become that nation again. That is what our budget ought to be
discussing, and we ought to be able to agree across party lines as to
how we do that.
The budget passed by the House of Representatives not only does not
present a realistic set of choices with respect to how we make America
competitive and create higher paying jobs and grow our economy, not
only does it not do that, it actually strips away the opportunities to
do that. It takes us backward.
The House budget is going to lower the deficit by only 6 percent
because they are focused only on domestic discretionary spending. They
do not focus on defense spending. They do not focus on Medicaid,
Medicare, entitlements. They do not focus on some of the waste and
duplication within the system. They just strip away at a whole bunch of
programs that many of them have opposed for their entire life in
politics and voted against in the first place. They are using the
opportunity of this budget to press an ideological agenda. That is why
only 13 percent of the budget is being focused on in what they are
doing.
They have sworn off any discussion of the very hard choices. Here we
are 3 months after the Commission put forward its important proposals,
and the Senate is trapped in a political moment when what we need is a
moment of truth.
We have to find a way to make these tougher choices. I wish to be
clear about what I think they are. I ask my colleagues: Do we want a
government that is too limited to have invented the Internet? A lot of
people do not think about that, but the fact is, the government
invented the Internet. It was a spinoff from DARPA, from research into
how we might be able to communicate in the case of nuclear war. We were
creating this communications network which became the Internet. Then
the private sector saw the opportunities and took those opportunities
and translated them into what we have today, which has revolutionized
the way people communicate and do business. But it came from the
government, just as digitalization came from government research, the
space program, which also produced Gortex and microwave and Teflon and
a host of other products that are now out in the marketplace where we
have created millions of jobs. The Internet created more than a million
jobs and has added greatly to the gross domestic product of our
country.
We want to have a country that is so limited that we do not do those
kinds of things? Taxes so low that everybody feels good, thinks they
are better off, but we do not do the research that is necessary to
create jobs and new industries and fill the Treasury with the revenue
that educates our children, cures to diseases and provides
opportunities for poor people to break out of poverty and touch the
brass ring of America.
We have to get past the slogans and the sound bites. We have to
reason together and talk about the things America does best.
If we are going to balance the budget and create jobs, we cannot
pretend we are going to do it by eliminating earmarks and government
waste. We have to look at how we did it previously.
In the early 1990s, our economy was faltering because deficits were
too big and debt was freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the
market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. Guess what.
We did it, and we did it without a reckless assault on a whole series
of things that make a difference to the quality of life of our country
and to our ability to create jobs. We saw our economy turn around in
the 1990s, and we created 22 million jobs. We created unprecedented
wealth in America. Every single income level in our country saw their
income go up in the 1990s. We created more wealth in the 1990s than we
created in the 1920s and 1930s with the great barons of wealth of that
period--the Carnegies, Mellons, and so forth. We did it by committing
the country to a disciplined path, where we spoke to the potential of
the American people.
Working with the Republicans--it was bipartisan--we came up with a
framework that put our country on a track to be debt free by 2012, for
the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration. The fact is, Alan
Greenspan was warning America and the Senate that we were paying down
our debt too fast and that could have implications on the marketplace.
We know how to do this in a responsible way. How we got off track
from that is a story I am not going to go back into right now. It is
pretty well known. But the truth of how we generated the 1990s economic
boom is a story that has to be retold again and again.
Let me point out the difference. We are not going to do this process
in 2 weeks. We know that. We ought to have a responsible CR that allows
us to go forward and give ourselves a proper amount of time to tackle
these larger issues and put something serious on the table with tax
reform spending, entitlements--all those issues on the table.
What we have in this House budget--let me point out, rather than say
it takes us backward. I believe there are reckless cuts in this budget
that would do great harm to our country because it strips away our
ability to create the future. Research and development in technology,
research and development in science, the National Institutes of
Health--a host of these things are cut in a draconian way.
I had lunch the other day with the Secretary of the Navy. He was
telling me how the House budget has cut ARPA-E program. It has cut it
from about $250 million down to $50 million. The House bill effectively
shuts off all the projects.
Do you know what some of those projects are? One is our military's
ability to have greater capacity in the field, to have solar or wind or
battery storage so they do not have to run convoys of fuel to keep
vehicles and supply our troops with the administrative support they
need.
They say the military has done a study. For every 24 convoys for
fuel, we lose one marine or soldier--one marine or soldier for every 24
convoys. They are looking at ways to reduce having those convoys, and
they are cutting the money so our military will be more dependent on
the fossil fuel that comes from unstable countries in various parts of
the world.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, China is racing ahead with respect to these
kinds of investments. The fact is, they are sending their students to
the United States for degrees in math, science, and engineering, but
the House is cutting Pell grants so there is a 15-percent cut below the
maximum level, which would affect over 100,000 students in college,
making it less affordable, less accessible for low- and moderate-income
students. That is not a
[[Page S1347]]
budget that helps our economy. It does nothing with dealing with the
deficit and jobs.
They tie the hands of the Consumer Product Safety Commission so they
cannot launch a database for consumer products. If you are an average
American, you do not need to know if the products you buy are safe or
will harm you. That does not matter anymore, even though it has nothing
to do with dealing with the budget problem.
They reduce Federal funds from being spent for Planned Parenthood,
for doctors and nurses to conduct 1 million lifesaving screenings for
cervical cancer and more than 830,000 breast cancer exams. I guess it
is much more important that millionaires, people earning more than $1
million a year, get their tax cut than 830,000 women to have breast
cancer screenings. This value system is something that I think is
absolutely essential for us to examine.
The House cuts almost $2 billion from the clean water and drinking
water State funds that allow us to capitalize on low-interest loans and
no-interest loans so we can build and refurbish clean water systems.
All across our country, we have communities that are under court
orders to clean up the water for our citizens. The House is cutting the
ability of those communities to be able to provide for that because
most of them do not have the tax base to do it on their own.
The House bill prohibits the EPA--that discussion took place, and I
will skip over it. It has nothing to do with deficit reduction. It just
prohibits the EPA from enforcing clean air laws, after the American
people decided in 1970 they wanted clean air, and people's lives have
been improved because we have provided it. We are going to go backward
there.
I mentioned the ARPA-E cuts. The House bill cuts $780 million below
the current level for energy efficiency and renewable energy, which is
going to cut critical programs that advance our job base.
I met yesterday with the CEO of a major solar company. They are going
to create a huge number of jobs in the Southwest of our country. The
largest facilities are going to be in Arizona and California. But by
cutting the loan guarantee program, we are going to lose 1,200 jobs
just on the California project, and that does not include the $\1/2\
billion of equipment from U.S. suppliers in nine States, including
Arizona, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Kansas. That is a loss of
jobs in every single one of those States.
The House bill reduces funding for the National Institutes of
Standards and Technology, which is going to reduce research and hurt
job creation. It slashes funding for the National Science Foundation by
more than $300 million. That is 1,800 fewer research and education
grants.
The House bill provides $787 million below the current level for
energy efficiency and renewable energy. It would significantly delay
needed investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D,
demonstration and deployment programs critical to the transition to a
clean energy economy.
The U.S. stands to be the world leader in concentrated solar with the
addition of these two projects, but this title is in jeopardy thanks to
more irresponsible and irrational cuts in H.R. 1.The proposed
elimination of the DOE loan guarantee program for clean energy cost
jobs, American competitiveness, and immediate economic benefits. For
example, yesterday I met with Abengoa Solar, a company trying to help
the U.S. become the world leader in concentrated solar with two of the
largest facilities in Arizona and California. But by cutting the loan
guarantee program we stand to lose 1,200 jobs from just the California
project. In addition this doesn't include the $\1/2\ billion of
equipment from U.S. suppliers in nine States across the U.S. including
Arizona, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Kansas.
The House bill slashes $1.3 billion from the National Institutes of
Health, NIH, which would force NIH to reduce support for more than
25,000 existing research grants and scale back clinical trials and
research projects. These drastic cuts will devastate biomedical
research; cures will be delayed, jobs will be eliminated, and American
leadership and innovation will be jeopardized. NIH is the primary
Federal agency responsible for conducting and supporting medical
research, most of which is done at medical schools, hospitals,
universities and research institutes distributed in every State in the
country. NIH-funded research drives scientific innovation and develops
new and better diagnostics, prevention strategies, and more effective
treatments. NIH-funded research also contributes to the Nation's
economic strength by creating skilled, high-paying jobs; new products
and industries; and improved technologies.
They do that even as we know that continued commitment to NIH is
essential for securing a strong national economy and for maintaining
our leadership as the global leader in research and development.
Everyone applauded when President Obama said in his 2011 State of the
Union Address that ``one key to future growth in the U.S. economy will
be to encourage American innovation and job creation by investing in
research and development--including biomedical research at the NIH.''
And Massachusetts received more than $2.5 billion in NIH grants last
year alone. But here we are gutting the NIH because we are afraid to
look at the things that need to be addressed that yield real savings.
Folks, this is killing our economic competitiveness in the cradle--
and in the laboratories. Investment in the NIH produces a steady stream
of talented researchers who lead the way to treatments and cures for
some of the world's most devastating diseases. In fact, a report by
Families USA estimated NIH awards to the States results in over 351,000
jobs that pay an average annual wage of more than $52,000, and results
in $50.5 billion in increased output of goods and services to the U.S.
The jobs, the spinoff industries, and the local development that are
sustained by NIH awards will disappear or relocate to more competitive
nations--such as China or India--without continued and stable funding
for the NIH.
The House bill reduces funding for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology by $223 million which will reduce research and
hurt job creation. The House bill slashes funding for the National
Science Foundation by more than $300 million below current levels
meaning 1,800 fewer research and education grants.
Earlier this month, 300 of America's leading economists, including
Alan Blinder and Laura Tyson, sent an open letter to President Obama
and Members of Congress concerning these cuts, and they said it is
shortsighted to make cuts that eliminate necessary investments in our
human capital, our infrastructure, and the next generation of
scientific and technological advances. They said: Republican-planned
cuts threaten our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and the
strength of our current economic recovery. The letter goes on to say
that we need to look and sustain the critical investments in the
productive capacity of the United States.
Mr. President, you are a farmer, and there ain't a farmer in the
country who doesn't know you don't eat your seed corn. But that is what
we are doing here. We are eating our seed corn. We are stripping away
America's already challenged ability to compete against a China, India,
Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and countless countries that are
indicating far more seriousness than we are about their desire to build
out and build a future.
We have a train that runs from Washington to New York called the
Acela. It can go 150 miles an hour. But it only goes 150 miles an hour
for 18 miles of that trip between here and New York. Why? Because if it
goes too fast into the tunnel in Baltimore, the tunnel may cave in;
because if it goes too fast over the bridges of the Chesapeake, they
may fall down. But you can go to China and ride on a train that goes
200 miles an hour and the water in your glass doesn't even move; or 300
miles an hour in the Maglev train from Shanghai airport to downtown
Shanghai. Go to Abu Dhabi, go to Dubai, go to Paris, or any major
airport in Europe and you will find an airport that outshines the
airports of the United States and you will find public transit systems
that outshine the public transit systems of the United States. Because
once again, we are living off what our parents and grandparents built
because we are not willing to pay for anything, which is why revenue in
the United States is at a 60-year low.
[[Page S1348]]
We need to be smart about where we are going here. The GDP of our
country is measured by our total expenditures of consumption of the
American people, it is measured by our investments, it is measured by
government spending and investment, and by our exports minus our
imports. That is the GDP. That is how you measure GDP. How can these
folks sit here and say if you cut the government spending you are not
going to cut the GDP, which is what every major economic analysis has
said?
So yes, we have to cut waste; yes, we have to cut some spending; yes,
we have to be responsible. But let us be responsible in a responsible
way, by looking at the overall budget and the places we can reduce, at
a tempo that doesn't do injury to our ability to invest in America's
future, to create the jobs for the future, but nevertheless send the
right message to the marketplace and to the American people.
We have done that before. We saw the longest expansion in America's
history. Staring us in the face is the largest economic opportunity of
a lifetime. The energy marketplace is a $6 trillion market with 6
billion potential users today, rising to about 9 billion over the next
30 years. But we are not engaged in that. Two years ago, China produced
5 percent of the world's solar panels. Today, they produce 60 percent,
and the United States doesn't have one company in the top 10 companies
of the world's solar panel producers. What are we doing? The biggest
transformational market staring the United States in the face is the
energy market, and we should be here putting an energy policy in place,
an education policy in place, an infrastructure investment policy in
place, and a research policy for technology and medical that soars,
that takes America into the future, creates the jobs we need for the
next generations, and reduces the deficit in responsible ways, not in
this unbelievable reckless, meat axe, hatchet budget that is being
presented to us by the House of Representatives. We need to find common
ground.
The minority continues to criticize President Obama about the lack of
progress in creating jobs. Last month, the economy added 192,000 jobs
and the unemployment rate declined from 9 percent to 8.9 percent. This
is one of the best job reports since the recession began more than 3
years ago. It shows that the economic recovery is beginning to gain
momentum. However the unemployment rate is still too high and we need
both small and big businesses to increase jobs if we are going to see a
meaningful decrease in unemployment. The House continuing resolution
will make that more difficult.
Republican economist Mark Zandi says that now is not the time to
implement the cuts included in the House continuing resolution. In a
recent report, Zandi said. ``The economy is adding between 100,000 and
150,000 per month--but it must add closer to 200,000 jobs per month
before we can say the economy is truly expanding again. Imposing
additional government spending cuts before this has happened, as House
Republicans want, would be taking an unnecessary chance with the
recovery.''
Zandi estimates that the cuts included in the Republican continuing
resolution would lead to 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012. Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week that the Republican
continuing resolution would reduce growth and cost our economy about a
couple hundred thousand jobs.
Last month, a Goldman Sachs economist warned that the Republican cuts
could reduce economic growth in the United States by 1.5 to 2
percentage points this year.
Additional spending cuts would also go against the thrust of our
economic policies. The Federal Reserve is holding short-term interest
rates close to zero and purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars in
long-term Treasury bonds, in an effort to hold down long-term interest
rates. The tax cut agreement we made last year is also helping to
create jobs and boost our economy. It doesn't raise taxes, includes a 2
percent payroll tax holiday, extends emergency unemployment insurance
benefits and allows businesses to expense their investments this year.
The American people deserve better than the approach taken by the
House of Representatives that cuts critically needed research funding,
eliminates jobs and reduce economic growth, hurts our competitiveness
and could push our economy into a ``double dip'' recession.
There is a better way for us to resolve our budget problems. Let's go
back to what worked before and can work again if we are willing to bite
the bullet. In the early 1990s, our economy was faltering because
deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the
market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just
that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history,
created more than 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth
in America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making
tough choices.
Now is the moment for America to reach for the brass energy ring--to
go for the Moon here on Earth by building our new energy future--and,
in doing so, create millions of steady, higher paying jobs at every
level of the economy. Make no mistake: Jobs that produce energy in
America are jobs that stay in America. The amount of work to be done
here is just stunning. It is the work of many lifetimes. And it must
begin now. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but instead of coming
together to meet the defining test of a new energy economy and our
future.
There is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and
our future if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it
real. The President's fiscal commission made very clear that our budget
cannot be balanced by cutting spending alone. The American people
deserve a serious dialogue and adult conversation within the Congress
about our fiscal situation, discretionary spending, entitlements, and
revenues. We need to work together in a bipartisan process to develop a
long-term solution to reduce both our current budget deficit and our
staggering debt. And, yes, we will need to reduce Federal spending and
make appropriate changes to our entitlement programs to meet the fiscal
challenges facing our country. But everything everything--tax reform,
spending and entitlements--needs to be on the table.
Mr. President, this is one of the moments the Senate was intended to
live up to to provide leadership. To find common ground. To level with
the American people and be honest with each other. We will no doubt
continue to be frustrated and angry from time to time, but I believe
that more often than not, we can rise to the common ground of great
national purpose. A lot of us like to talk about American
exceptionalism. But now we need to get beyond the permanent campaign
and the ideological agenda--and instead do the exceptional things that
will keep America exceptional for generations to come.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
____________________