Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 34 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)

[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.

____________________