[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3391-3400]
[From the U.S. 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 Head 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.
  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

[[Page 3392]]

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

[[Page 3393]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3394]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3395]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3396]]

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 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

[[Page 3397]]

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 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

[[Page 3398]]

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 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

[[Page 3399]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 3400]]

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.

                          ____________________