[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   EAT THE FUTURE OR LOSE THE FUTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion 
from the budget, the Republican majority is trying to assume the mantle 
of fiscal responsibility. Yes, fiscal. Sometimes we in politics have 
problems with pronunciations, and sometimes we have problems with 
concepts. There are two ``fiscals.'' There is the ``fiscal'' dealing 
with dollars, F-I-S-C-A-L, and there is the ``physical,'' P-H-Y-S-I-C-
A-L. They are trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
  Within the $60 billion, there are certainly some cuts that should be 
made that would be cost effective, and there are other cuts that 
weren't made that should have been made from the Defense Department, 
farm subsidies and other places. Many of the programs that were cut or 
that were severely underfunded are programs that have a significant 
financial return. In fact, many of these underfunded or eliminated 
programs actually save the government far more money than they cost.
  Penny wise and pound foolish.
  So the Republican claims that they are saving the Federal Government 
more than $60 billion is simply untrue. Yes, they are eliminating $60 
billion from the budget, but in reality they are increasing the deficit 
in other areas that do not appear in the budget--or certainly not this 
year.
  As Paul Krugman would say: Eat the future or lose the future. They're 
not concerned about the future. It's about today; and if it's the 
future, it's the 2012 election.
  The problem is that the Republicans' so-called ``budget hawks'' fail 
to look at this holistically. The only costs they see are numbers on a 
page that they want to hold up as talking points.

                              {time}  1020

  This slide shows some of the cuts. The Food and Drug Administration 
received funding $241 million below 2010 and $400 million below the 
administration's 2011 budget request. That's the Food and Drug 
Administration. Remember thalidomide babies? Remember Fen-Phen? 
Remember the problems with meat, chicken, poultry, and spinach?
  Food Safety and Inspection Service: It makes cuts of $88 million 
below the 2010 funding levels and $107 million below the 
administration's 2011 budget request.
  The National Institutes of Health: Cuts appropriations for the NIH by 
$1.6 billion below FY 2010 and $2.5 billion below the President's 
budget. You know the National Institutes of Health--they're trying to 
find cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes and cancer. Oh, 
let's cut them by $1.6 billion.
  Clean drinking water: The Republican bill slashes the Clean Water and 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent. EPA: The bill 
includes an undesignated $300 million recision to EPA.
  Medicare: Cuts appropriations for the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services by $458 million below fiscal year 2010 and $634 
million below the President's budget request.
  However, what they failed to consider are the benefits associated 
with these costs, many of which generally exceed the cost. And by 
failing to consider money saved, the Republicans are increasing the 
deficit and increasing cost.
  Nowhere is this failure in fiscal policy more apparent than when it 
comes to the physical health of the American people. The Republican's 
continuing resolution will increase the deficit dramatically as a 
result of unseen health care costs associated with the degradation of 
the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.
  Now the physical impact of the Republican cuts. The FDA: $241 
million. The Republican majority is working to undo this historic 
improvement and reduce food safety by cutting FDA's food safety 
programs by about $241 million. In the United States, an estimated 76 
million people get sick each year with food-borne illnesses and 5,000 
die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
All of the medical costs and economic losses associated with food-borne 
illnesses add up to a staggering price of $152 billion, says the Pew 
Charitable Trusts. By slashing funding from the FDA's food safety 
programs, more and more people will get sick, and the $152 billion 
annual pricetag is going to climb even higher. That doesn't sound like 
a responsible physical or fiscal policy to me.
  Clean water: Although more than 70 percent of the Earth is covered in 
water, only about 1 percent of all the water on the planet is safe to 
drink. H.R. 1 will reduce that 1 percent by allowing major corporations 
and developers to pump toxins into our water, and by failing to invest 
in the necessary infrastructure to maintain, treat, and deliver safe 
drinking water. It reduces the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 
56 percent, a program that leverages significant private finances by 
providing low and no-interest loans to States to fund drinking water 
infrastructure improvement projects.
  Leaking pipes and deteriorating mains lead to costly bacteria 
contamination and cause chronic health problems to thousands of 
Americans.
  As you can see, the physical health of our Nation is being 
threatened, not just the fiscal health. We need to be concerned about 
the physical health of our children and be concerned about how the 
long-term effects of this will be.

                          ____________________