[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1352-S1357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the budget 
deficit and what we need to do in order to

[[Page S1353]]

bring our budget into balance to have a credible plan to deal with our 
future growth in this Nation.
  I start off by saying the budget deficit is an extremely serious 
issue for this Nation. We do not have a sustainable budget. You cannot 
sustain a budget that creates debt at 10 percent of our gross domestic 
product and a gross debt that equals 100 percent of our GDP. We need to 
bring down our deficit in order to have the type of economic growth 
that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy a better 
economic circumstance than this generation.
  First, before we talk about where we need to go, we have to 
understand how we got here. I am not going to harp on this, but I wish 
to make sure the people of Maryland and the Nation know how we got to 
these large deficits so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
  During President Clinton's administration, we balanced the budget. I 
might say, we did that--the Democrats did it--without a single vote 
from the Republicans. We were on course to retire all of our debt, and 
that was just 10 years ago.
  Then, under President Bush, we cut taxes twice without paying for it. 
We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and did not pay for it. To date, 
the war in Iraq has cost $770 billion. That is money we had to borrow 
in order to fight that war in Iraq.
  We had chosen, under the previous administration, that it was more 
important to cut taxes than it was to balance the budget, and that was 
a mistake. President Obama inherited a huge deficit and an economy that 
was hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month.
  Well, it is time now to move forward. We have turned our economy 
around. It is growing, but we need to do it in a way that does not 
jeopardize our economic recovery. But it is absolutely essential we 
start to move our budget back into balance and we take aggressive steps 
to do it.
  Today, in the Budget Committee, we heard from Erskine Bowles and 
Senator Simpson from the debt commission, and I think we were all 
impressed. If we are going to get a credible plan--which is critically 
important for our Nation--to balance the budget, we need to follow the 
example of the debt commission. It does not mean we have to agree to 
everything the debt commission did. But the debt commission recognized 
we could not balance the Federal budget by cutting discretionary 
domestic spending alone; that we need a game plan which brings all the 
major components of the budget together: discretionary domestic 
spending, military spending; we need to deal with entitlements, and we 
need to deal with revenues. We are only going to get this done if 
Democrats and Republicans work together for a credible plan. That is 
what we need to do in order to bring back our economy.
  The only specific proposal we have had come over from the House of 
Representatives to date--H.R. 1, their budget--I believe does not 
follow the example of the debt commission. I believe it is extremely 
harmful to the process of trying to work out a plan where we have a 
credible effort to balance the budget with shared sacrifice because the 
House-passed budget, the Republican budget in the House, gets all its 
savings from 12 percent of the Federal budget, from discretionary 
domestic spending, and it jeopardizes our recovery. Mark Zandi, the 
economist from Moody's, said we would lose 700,000 jobs if the House-
passed Republican budget were enacted into law.
  Let me give you some examples as to how it would affect the people of 
Maryland if the House budget became law.
  First, let me talk a little bit about some of the budget cuts 
themselves.
  About 10 days ago, I was at the Greater Baden Health Center in Prince 
George's County, MD. They are expanding that health center to include 
prenatal care. The reason, quite frankly, is that the infant mortality 
rate in Maryland is way too high. We rank 29th in the Nation. That is 
unacceptable. In the African-American community, the infant mortality 
rate is 260 percent of that of the White community. The problem is, we 
have too many low birthweight babies. Some die and become part of the 
infant mortality statistics. Others survive and have complications 
throughout their lives.
  It is in our interest, from every perspective, to bring down that 
infant mortality rate and to provide prenatal care for women so we have 
healthier babies. I hope we would all agree to that. We are doing 
something about that in Maryland, using moneys that were a part of the 
Affordable Care Act. The Republican budget would eliminate that 
funding. That community would not be able to expand with prenatal care 
to do something about the health of our citizens.
  Mr. President, 2,900 community health workers would lose their jobs 
in Maryland--2,900 community health workers would lose their jobs in 
Maryland--if the House-passed budget, H.R. 1, became law.
  I have taken the floor on several occasions, and a little earlier 
today, to talk about the Chesapeake Bay and the Federal partnership. We 
have had a Federal partnership in cleaning up the bay. It is the 
largest estuary in North America. It is a body of global significance, 
and it is in danger because too many pollutants are entering the bay as 
a result of population growth, development, and farming practices.
  Well, we have a game plan to do something about it. But the budget 
that passed the House would cut the Chesapeake Bay program 
dramatically--$25 million--making it extremely difficult for us to move 
forward on our remedial efforts. Making it even worse, there is an 
environmental rider that was put on H.R. 1 that says none of the funds 
made available under this act may be used to implement the bay 
restoration plan now underway.
  What does that mean? It means each one of the States that are in the 
watershed of the Chesapeake Bay--the States of Maryland; Virginia, the 
Presiding Officer's State; Delaware; New York; Pennsylvania; West 
Virginia; and the District of Columbia--they all rely on improving 
their wastewater treatment facility plants in order to reduce the 
pollutants going into the bay under the State revolving fund. Well, if 
that rider became law, the States could not participate in that 
program. They would not be able to implement one of the major features 
of their plan in order to reduce the pollutants going into the bay to 
make it a cleaner body of water.
  I could talk about the watershed grants that go to schools and civic 
associations--eliminated under the Republican budget--or I could talk 
about how the State gets money to operate its water funds--eliminated 
under the House-passed budget.
  The Environmental Protection Agency sees their budget reduced by over 
30 percent. Plus, there are additional environmental riders that make 
it very difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect 
the environment.
  In Maryland, we would lose $150 million toward the Federal 
Government's commitment to the Washington Metro system. This affects 
the entire area, including Virginia and the District. This is the 
Nation's Metro system that allows the Federal workforce to get to work. 
We entered into a 10-year commitment with the local jurisdictions, 
including Maryland, Virginia, and the District, that the Federal 
Government would be a partner--$150 million a year--toward those costs. 
The House budget eliminates those transit funds.
  The Republican House budget would cut Head Start by $1.1 billion. Mr. 
President, 157,000 children would be affected, 2,300 in the State of 
Maryland--2,300. These are children who are getting a better start in 
life because of this program, and the budget passed in the House, H.R. 
1, would eliminate those services for so many of our children.
  Pell grants, to allow families to be able to afford a college 
education, are reduced by $5.7 billion. It affects 9.4 million 
students. What does it mean for the people of Maryland? It means those 
who have Pell grants today could see their grants go down by as much as 
$650. I can tell you, there are many families in Maryland who cannot 
afford that extra $650. Without a college education today, it is 
difficult to be able to be as competitive as you need to be in order to 
take advantage of our economic opportunities.
  The WIC Program that helps women and infants and children is cut by 
10 percent under the House-passed budget. NIH funding is down $1 
billion.
  Research--and not just at NIH, located in Maryland, but also at Johns 
Hopkins University and the University of Maryland Medical Center--would 
be

[[Page S1354]]

disrupted if the Republican-passed budget, H.R. 1, were to become law.
  Our challenge, as President Obama said in the State of the Union 
Address, is that we have to outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild our 
competitors so that America will be able to compete in the 21st century 
globally. That is our challenge. H.R. 1, the Republican budget, doesn't 
allow us to do that. There is a better way of doing it, and, as the 
President said, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. How do 
we do that?
  We need a credible plan to balance the Federal budget--a credible 
plan that will bring in more deficit reduction than H.R. 1, the 
Republican budget, because you need to allow America to grow, yet move 
toward a balanced budget. The only way is to include all sectors, not 
just discretionary domestic spending. You need to include military 
spending, you need to deal with entitlements, and you need to deal with 
revenues. President Obama's budget starts us down that path by freezing 
discretionary domestic spending over 5 years. We have already gone 
further than that in the continuing resolution we have passed. We are 
going to go back to 2010 numbers or even below that.
  We have already put on the table dramatic reductions in the growth 
rate of discretionary domestic spending, but we need to include 
defense. Iraq and Afghanistan need to come to an end; those savings 
will be dramatic. America cannot continue to have a growth economy 
where we spend so much more than any other nation on our national 
defense. We have to protect the people in this Nation, but we cannot 
take on the burdens of the world. There have to be adequate burdens 
among our allies, which will bring savings to the U.S. taxpayer.
  In entitlement spending, we need to bring down costs. We took a major 
step forward in doing this in the Affordable Care Act. One of the areas 
in which I agree with some of our Republican friends who are 
criticizing the CBO is that their numbers are off. We are going to get 
more savings, not less, than what the CBO estimated.
  I am convinced that when you deal with people in preventive health 
care and use better information technology, when you manage people's 
diseases, when you deal with readmissions so people understand what 
they need to do to stay healthy, when you put all that together, when 
you expand our community health centers, as I said earlier about what 
happened at the Greater Baden center on prenatal care, when you do all 
that, it will bring down the rate of health care costs.
  America spends more than any other nation, any way you want to 
calculate it, on health care. We don't have the health care results to 
demonstrate that type of commitment. We can bring down the cost of 
health care, and when we do that, by implementing the Affordable Care 
Act and making sure we get those savings, we will bring down the 
Medicare costs and we will bring down the Medicaid costs, which will 
save taxpayers even more under our entitlement spending. We can get 
those savings.
  By the way, we are going to save middle-income families in this 
country by also reducing their costs for health care. That is what we 
need to do to make our economy stronger.
  We can do something about entitlement spending, and there are other 
areas we need to look at. The farm subsidy programs need to be 
reviewed, and the debt commission made recommendations in that regard 
that I think are worthy of our review.
  Then there is revenue. Yes, I think we need to take a look at 
revenues. Our current income tax structure cannot be justified, as has 
been pointed out frequently. We hemorrhage as much revenue in our Tax 
Code as we raise. If you eliminated all the special provisions, you 
could cut the tax rates in half. Since we had tax reform in 1986, we 
have added so many new loopholes and provisions and special interest 
provisions in the Tax Code. In 1986, we attempted to lower the rates 
and make sure everybody paid their fair share. Well, it is now 2011, 
and we are out of balance, and we need to look at tax reform.
  I urge, in looking at tax reform, that we should look at consumption-
based taxes. I know the criticisms of that, but I will start by saying 
that if we had consumption-based taxes to deal with some of our income 
tax revenues, we would be more competitive internationally. If you are 
an export company and you are choosing whether to locate in America or 
in another country, you pay income taxes here that cannot be taken off 
the price of your product when you put it in the international 
marketplace. If you locate in another country that uses consumption 
taxes at a higher level than we do--we don't use it at all--but a 
higher level than our income taxes, that country will allow those 
exporters to take the tax off when they put their products into the 
international marketplace. That is acceptable under the World Trade 
Organization, putting American producers at a disadvantage.
  We need to save more as a nation. We have heard over and over the 
point made that America, during the height of our economic progress, 
had one of the lowest savings ratios in the world. We need to save more 
as a nation. Our Tax Code should encourage savings much more than it 
does today.
  I want to make it clear that I am totally committed that in tax 
reform we should make our Tax Code more progressive. I don't believe it 
is progressive enough. Progressive means that it is based, at least in 
part, on the ability to pay. Wealthier people will pay a higher 
percentage of the tax than lower income people. Today, under our income 
tax system, many people do not have to pay income tax now. We can 
design a consumption tax, so they won't have to pay a consumption tax 
and there is no new tax burden. There are proposals out there that can 
take more people off the tax rolls.
  By the way, this is a zero-sum game on revenue. Let's decide how much 
we need and then raise it in a cost-efficient way that will allow 
America to grow.
  That is the type of reform I hope we will be able to get. If we do, 
it will mean not only bringing our budget into balance by a credible 
plan that deals with discretionary domestic spending and military and 
entitlement and revenues but does it in a way that allows America to 
grow by investing in our future--in education, in energy, in our 
transportation infrastructure and transit and all those areas that we 
need--so that we can meet the challenges of the future but do it in a 
way that is fiscally responsible.
  How do we get this done? We get it done by coming together and 
listening to each other. I don't think anybody here has a monopoly on 
what is right. For the sake of our Nation, let's listen to each other 
and try to get this done in a way where we have a credible plan. It has 
to be a credible plan. These are not Democratic or Republican or 
Independent problems; these are American issues. We have to put our 
Nation first.
  I hope we will step back a little and listen to the debate and use 
the debt commission as a model of civility. Again, I am sure we will 
have different views on it, but at the end of the day, I hope we can 
achieve at least the deficit reduction of the commission. I think we 
can. The people of Maryland and the country want us to do this. Working 
together, I think we can accomplish those goals.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have been sitting in my office listening 
to news reports about the Congress and the President arguing about the 
budget and the debate about what we are going to cut. It is interesting 
to think back over the last couple of years, because it is hard to put 
these things together. After 2 years of the largest expansion of 
government, the biggest increase in debt in our history, now suddenly 
we are debating what needs to be cut.
  I think over the last couple of years as the President proposed a 
massive spending plan--which we called a stimulus--and Republicans were 
saying no, that is not the way to improve the economy. But the 
President insisted it would keep unemployment below 8 percent and get 
our economy going again.

[[Page S1355]]

Republicans said no. We were accused of being the party of no. As it 
turns out, we were right.
  Then it wasn't too long until the President insisted we needed 
essentially a national takeover of our health care system, and this, he 
promised, would lower the cost of health insurance. Republicans said 
no, what we need is more freedom for patients and physicians to work 
together, and more transparency, more competitiveness in the market. 
The President said no, that his way of nationalizing health care was 
better. Republicans were again called the party of no for saying that 
was not the way to go. But as it turns out, we were right. Insurance 
premiums are headed straight up. Even the New York Times today talked 
about skyrocketing insurance premiums and less health care.
  Well, it wasn't long after that until the President and our 
Democratic majority wanted more national control of our whole banking 
system, with the financial reform that was supposed to loosen credit 
and help our economy get going again. But I have talked to too many 
bankers back home to believe that worked. Of course, Republicans said 
no, that wasn't the direction we needed to go. We were called the party 
of no. But as it turns out, we were right.
  You might say we were the party of no, but you spell it K-N-O-W. We 
knew this centralization of power, of government control, was not going 
to stimulate our economy, that it was not going to improve our health 
care system, and it wasn't going to improve our banking system. It was 
the time to say no.
  Last November, the American people decided it was time to say no. 
They began to put a stop to what has been going on around here, and we 
know what happened in the House and the elections over here. The 
American people were pretty clear. They instinctively knew we couldn't 
continue to spend more than we were bringing in. They knew when you are 
borrowing 40 cents on every dollar you spend that sooner or later the 
country is going to be bankrupt.
  But it is amazing that since that election, even with the changes 
here, our colleagues on the other side the other day killed a proposal 
to balance the budget--a resolution that called for the balancing of 
the budget. I think most Americans know if you are not willing to 
balance your checkbook or balance your budget, sooner or later you are 
going to be bankrupt. I think that is what a lot of Americans are 
afraid of right now.
  I think we have a different situation going on with our colleagues on 
the other side. From Wisconsin to here in Washington, as we look at the 
budget problems and the debate on how to cut spending at the Federal 
level, we have a party of no show. They are not showing up for the 
debate in Wisconsin. The Democrats headed across the State line. And in 
the budget debate, the President, who had pledged to do something about 
our spending and our deficits and go through the budget line by line, 
didn't even produce a budget. And regarding the budget he proposed this 
year--and promised that it would keep us living within our means--even 
the most liberal commentator said this expands our debt nationally 
probably more than $10 trillion over the next 10 years. We are over $14 
trillion in debt, we hit our debt ceiling within the next month or 2, 
and we are debating how much to cut.

  I want to talk a little bit about this debate because it shows that 
even with the astounding election we had in November, very quickly 
Congress is back to business as usual. The deficit we are looking at 
this year in America--this is just 1 year--is over $1.5 trillion. That 
is going to be on top of the $14 trillion that we are already 
experiencing. The projections are that we will increase our debt over 
the next 10 years another $1 trillion every year. Last month, in 
February--which was a short month--over $220 billion of debt was 
incurred in that 1 month. That is a larger deficit than we have 
experienced in most years our country has been around. It is crazy, 
$220 billion in 1 month.
  We are facing $1.5 trillion this year. It is amazing how this place 
can lower our expectations. Do you know what the debate is about right 
now? The Republican House has proposed $61 billion in cuts against the 
$1.5 trillion. The Democrats have told us this is completely 
unacceptable; these are Draconian cuts. The President proposed around 
$6 billion. I think the Democratic leader is coming out with one that 
is about $4.5 billion, which some say is too much of a cut.
  As we are looking at doubling this $14 trillion deficit over the next 
10 years or close to doubling it, and the hard decisions we have to 
make about how to deal with Social Security and Medicare, the big 
decisions about how we economize even in areas like our defense, how we 
possibly deal with this debt, we have a Congress now that instead of 
addressing the issue of $1.5 trillion is debating between $61 billion 
and $6 billion. These are fractional. You cannot even see the line 
here, of what is being proposed by our Democratic colleagues.
  I am afraid that President Obama and Democrats, like we see in 
Wisconsin, are not showing up for this debate. Instead of proposing 
realistic ways to tighten our belts at the Federal level and look at 
how we can balance our checkbook, as so many Americans have to do every 
month in their homes, the President has decided to sit on the sidelines 
and criticize things that have to be trimmed or cut or changed.
  It is amazing. The Democratic leader has called Republicans ``mean 
spirited'' because they are proposing to cut funding for a cowboy 
poetry festival. I love poetry and cowboys as much as anyone else, but 
we are looking at bankrupting our Nation, destroying the future that 
was given to us by our predecessors, and we cannot even get close to a 
realistic debate on how we can stop this rampage toward bankruptcy in 
America. There is not enough there. Even what the House Republicans 
have done is not enough. I realize that politics is sometimes the art 
of the possible, but I am hoping it can become the promotion of the 
principles that make this country great and can secure our future.
  We all have to decide today how we are going to vote. Obviously, this 
$6 billion is not a serious proposal by our Democratic colleagues. But 
I think those of us who realize we are up against a mountain of debt--
how do we deal with even the highest proposal now that is coming 
through Congress? My point is this: There are some hard decisions that 
have to be made in Washington, some very hard decisions. There is a new 
reality that we have to face as a Congress. We have to tell the truth. 
Americans just want the truth. They want fact-based budgeting. They 
want us to do what we need to do to save our country. Obviously, no one 
wants anything that is coming to them to be cut, but I have talked to 
too many Americans who have said: Keep fighting. Do what has to be done 
to leave this country as good as we found it. I think that is a 
reasonable request for us to consider.
  What we are doing is not even within the realm of reality of what has 
to be done to leave America better than we found it. This is not about 
partisan politics anymore, this is about the survival of America. This 
is about avoiding bankruptcy not just for our country, but this country 
has been the bastion of freedom and the model for democracy and freedom 
for centuries. The other countries even today are looking to us and 
wanting to be free as violence erupts around the world. They want to 
overthrow authoritarian regimes so their people can live in freedom. 
But at the time other countries strive to be like America, America 
seems to be determined, at least at the political level, to push our 
way toward being a Third World country that is so in debt and so 
dependent that we can no longer determine our destiny.
  Today America is literally on its knees to China and other countries 
for the credit we need to run our economy. We are also on our knees to 
the Middle East, which is very unstable right now, for the energy we 
need to run our country, to even take our food to market, the 
essentials at home. But instead of addressing the real issues, knowing 
this budget is in front of us, over the last couple of weeks, when we 
knew we just had this 2-week funding bill to get us through, instead of 
debating what we are really up against we have been dealing with a 
patent bill.
  I think it is good to improve our patent system, but the party that 
is leading the Senate has been a no-show on

[[Page S1356]]

the issue that is really threatening our country. And unless they show 
up, it is very difficult for Republicans--who are not in the White 
House; they are not controlling the Senate--to actually take the steps 
that are needed to move our country back in the right direction.
  My invitation today is to my Democratic colleagues, that after 
listening to them call us the party of no, I will say that we were 
right, and our hope is they will listen to what we are saying and show 
up for the debate on our budget and do what we need to do to change the 
role of the Federal Government, to devolve functions back to the States 
and back to individuals so this country can continue to survive and 
thrive and succeed in the future.
  This is within our grasp. It is something we can do. This is not a 
doomsday scenario because many of the solutions are not in what the 
Federal Government can do but what the Federal Government can let go 
of. As we look at the problems we have, it is not a matter that freedom 
has failed. The problem is we have failed to let freedom work. We have 
tried to take control of education, of health care, of transportation, 
of energy, of retirement programs. The fact is, we have not done it 
well and now we are spending so much that our country is threatened 
with bankruptcy. There are good solutions if we are willing to look at 
letting things go.
  As we consider this massive debt hill we have to climb, we need to 
realize we can and we must balance the budget. That is probably what I 
would consider the No. 1 goal of the Republicans right now is to 
produce a budget that shows within 5 years that we can balance the 
budget and leave America better off than before we started. I believe 
with real freedom solutions we can do that.
  We need to go back to where we started. This political system, this 
Washington establishment has brought America to the brink of 
bankruptcy. The debt in 1 year--even 1 month--and we are talking about 
not even addressing for maybe a few days and we cannot even agree on 
this $61 billion.
  I hope the American people who were so instrumental in changing 
things in November will rise up and let Washington know that it is time 
to get serious about reforming the way we spend money in Washington. We 
have had reports in the last week that show over $100 billion of 
outright waste that we could cut immediately if we would just address 
it. But when one party will not show up for the debate it is very 
difficult to do.
  Let's make this more than partisan politics. Let's cooperate. Let's 
look at the real problem and let's address it. I believe we can 
succeed.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I inquire of the Parliamentarian: My 
understanding is, we are in morning business with Senators permitted to 
speak for 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk these days 
about dangers posed to our national security from far away places: 
revolution in Libya, the war in Afghanistan. They get our full 
attention. But what about the dangers that lurk inside our Nation?
  We have a domestic situation, a danger that is directly visible, and 
we are about to stoke that fire. House Republicans are going after 
something as fundamental as the air our children breathe.
  The budget they recently passed calls for the gutting of the Clean 
Air Act, which is a clear and present danger, as they fail to solve a 
major fiscal requirement. That includes the expansion of revenues to 
balance the budget rather than simply the slash-and-burn policy we are 
now undergoing.
  The Clean Air Act protects our children from toxic chemicals in the 
air and illnesses such as asthma and lung cancer. Last year alone, that 
law prevented 1.7 million cases of childhood asthma and more than 
160,000--160,000--premature deaths, according to EPA. Those numbers are 
big, but they loom a lot larger when it is your child. As we often say 
here, what goes around can come around.
  If you want to know the real value of the Clean Air Act to America's 
families, talk to the millions of parents who live in fear of their 
children's next asthma attack. It is a fear my own family knows all too 
well. One of my grandsons suffers from this disease. He is an athletic 
young man, and every time he goes to a competitive game, my daughter 
first checks to see where the closest emergency room is, if she hears 
him starting to wheeze.
  The House Republican budget says to these families: We are sorry, we 
are here as accountants and we are not here to worry about these 
humanitarian things--as ridiculous as that sounds. But that is the 
result of the work they have done over there with their budget.
  They say you cannot restrict polluters with regulations because it is 
too cumbersome. If you do not like regulations, get rid of traffic 
signals. Those red lights slow traffic down. It is a terrible 
inconvenience. Think of the outcome if you had no red lights. Or maybe 
they would get rid of the air traffic control system--pilots having to 
wait for some governmental bureaucrat to tell them when and where they 
can fly, land, or take off.
  The House Republican budget does not even allow us to control mercury 
emissions. Mercury is brain poisoning for children. The Centers for 
Disease Control has said mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can--and I 
quote here from their statement--``permanently damage the brain, 
kidneys, and developing fetus.'' Yet the House Republicans want to 
return mercury to our Nation's air.
  The House Republicans also, in their budget, prevent the EPA from 
strengthening air quality standards for soot pollution. Soot pollution 
reaches deep into the lungs and causes serious health problems, 
especially in the very old or the very young. As shown in this picture 
I have in the Chamber, you see how ugly it looks. It is much uglier 
when it reaches inside a child's body.
  Studies have linked soot with aggravated asthma, heart attacks, and 
premature death. Why would we want to weaken our clean air laws and 
allow polluters to pump more smog, more soot, and more toxic substances 
into the air our children breathe?
  It is pretty simple: The tea party Republicans in the House 
apparently do not care about protecting our children's health. They 
only care about one thing: cutting the budget no matter the real cost, 
the long-term pain that can follow by cutting these budgets.
  The question we have to ask here is: Do we want our children to be 
able to play outside in clean air that allows them to grow and be 
healthy? Or should we keep them indoors all the time?
  If you want to see where the House Republicans will lead us, look at 
China. China has no clean air act. The air is so polluted that many 
people wear masks when they walk outside. During the Olympics in 
Beijing, some U.S. athletes delayed their arrival to avoid the polluted 
air.
  On a trip I took to China some years ago, I went to visit the 
Minister of the Environment, and he complained. He said: Look at how 
the United States fouls the air with their burning of fuel. I asked him 
to join me at the window. We were on the 23rd floor. You could not see 
the sidewalk--that is how heavy the pollution was in the air.
  We do not want to be like that. We want to make sure we take care of 
our obligations. And the strongest obligation anybody has in America is 
to their children. Interestingly enough, what is happening now is: The 
phone calls that came to my office in New Jersey at first seemed to 
support these irrational budget cuts; and now they have turned around 
and they do not like what they see.
  We would rather make sure our children are taken care of, that we try 
to balance the budget in more efficient ways. The one I talk about on a 
regular basis is revenue. I ran a pretty good-sized corporation before 
I came to the Senate and I know something about financial statements. I 
knew one thing: that we had to continually improve the revenue so we 
could, in that corporation, increase the profits and not cut

[[Page S1357]]

staff needlessly or endlessly while the company got weak. We cannot do 
it in this country of ours.
  So we face a very difficult task because people are feeling the 
squeeze on their incomes, concerned about job protection, concerned 
about being able to stay in their houses. We still face a lot of 
foreclosure possibilities for homeowners. They cannot educate their 
children, cannot take care of their health. We cannot say to them, as 
we used to say, that we know our children will do better in the future 
in their lives than we did in ours. We cannot say it and be honest 
about it. We do not know that is true. If we continue along the path we 
are on, we are going to be looking at fairly bleak things to tell our 
children about as they grow, if we do not work harder to balance the 
budget, educate our kids, make sure their health is good, with America 
being what it is always thought to be: a golden opportunity to bring 
your families up and make sure life is acceptable or better than they 
otherwise might have had.
  Madam President, how is the time here?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator used 9\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I will take that half minute, and I 
ask unanimous consent that if I go over the half minute that I get 2 
more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I served in World War II a long time 
ago, but I have been around a long time. When I went into the Army--I 
enlisted when I was 18--my father was deathly ill with cancer. My 
mother was 37 years old. The prospects for life for our family were 
grim. I went to the Army. My father, with a condition, arranged with 
the recruiters that I would be allowed to stay home till my father 
passed away. He was 43 years old. My mother became a 37-year-old widow, 
and things were tough. Money was owed to doctors and pharmacists and 
hospitals.
  Why do I talk about this now? It is because I was given the benefit, 
as were 8 million others who were in uniform, to get my college 
education. I went to Columbia University. It was so far distant from my 
vision when I graduated from high school and enlisted in the Army. It 
turned out to be the greatest generation America has ever seen. It was 
because the government intervened at the right time and made sure that 
education was abundantly available for those who could learn. That is 
what we ought to recall about America, and not this kind of a gloomy 
picture that says, OK, we are growing, but so are the threats to health 
and well-being.

                          ____________________