Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask that only so I have some recognition of what the time availability is. I do not plan to take too long.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wonder what the American public thinks about when they see an empty Chamber, hear mutterings about class warfare. What puzzles me is, which class is making war against which class and where are the casualties? As we look around, I ask the question, Are we picking on the poor rich folk, those with abundant wealth, those who earn over $1 million a year, those who have been fortunate enough to have been able to bring their talent, their ability, to the world's most important stage? Are they immune from taking a bit part on the stage of human concerns once in a while because they are being asked to make an extra contribution to the well- being of our country? I don't think so. I don't think so. I am one of those who are fortunate and feel lucky enough to succeed because of a government action. Few of us--certainly not me--who served in the military achieved the status of a hero like our friend, Dan Inouye, who sacrificed so greatly for his country and has the highest medal awarded for bravery America can give. But because I did my duty, I was serious about it, and I served overseas, I was rewarded with the GI bill to pay my college education and even given a little stipend with that. It turned my life around. It enabled me to be one of three founders of a company called ADP, a company employing 45,000 people. Our parents were poor. We worried about meals on the table. We couldn't afford the right kind of clothing. We couldn't afford a bicycle that my mother bought me for my birthday. My father argued about whether it had to be taken back because it was $1 a week and we couldn't afford it. Mr. President, 45,000 people. ADP is one of America's most successful companies. I don't want to dwell on this, but it's one of the companies with the longest growth record in profits, 10 percent each and every year, for 42 years in a row--42 years in a row. A kid from the back of the candy store. So I look at our country, and I look at what it is we are trying to do, and it is hard to figure out. What happened? Why are we looking at these drastic cuts in programs that can help people? Why are we not engaged in ways to help people, to continue to provide help and assistance to help them get along in life and to be prepared to take over the leadership of the future. Are our friends on the Republican side willing to end Medicare as we know it, decimating one of the most successful programs in the history of our country? They are willing to unravel the very fabric of our Nation and critical services that helped families struggling to give their kids a decent education, good health, a future, a job opportunity? What is it they want to take away with these cuts? I can tell you, as a businessman for a long time--30 years before I got here--I am accustomed to looking at business sheets and financial statements. And one doesn't have to be an accountant or executive to understand that on a financial statement there are two parts, two significant parts: one is expenses, costs; the other is revenues. Revenues is the income you have to get in order to be able to afford to pay the expenses. If all you want to do is just cut expenses, then you are cutting the sinew and the flesh and there is not much left. Here is what ought to happen--we should be saying to those who are the wealthiest: living with wealth is a pleasure, but that doesn't mean you don't have an obligation to the country and to have to do something a little different. Instead, they are making the wealthy wealthier, the most privileged more privileged than they have been, and that is true. When you look at the big oil companies pocketing $4 billion a year each and every year, those are tax breaks that are unconscionable. But when you look at this--and I think about a period of time when I was growing up, and I look at a time during the war, World War II, and we had a program called the Excess Profits Tax. We said those companies are making so much money, they have to do their share and be helpful to the country at large and to make certain they pay some share of what the country is going through. I just checked because I wanted to be sure. To date we have lost 4,400 Americans to the war in Iraq. We have lost over 1,600 to the war in Afghanistan. Those are homes that are without a son, a daughter, a brother, a father at home. Where is the sacrifice on the part of the others here? No, no. We have to take care of the rich. We have to make sure they are more comfortable than they are. Whether it is a bigger yacht or a bigger airplane or a bigger house, we have to protect those people. They don't need any protection. What they need to do is share in the pain America is going through, and this is a reminder for me. Make no mistake, greed is the fuel that drives Big Oil, and it is time we end their free ride on the taxpayers' dime. The big five oil companies have made almost $1 trillion in profit in the past decade. That is quite a reward for these folks. BP, $7.1 billion in the first 3 months of 2011 as they ground out the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine, $7.1 billion. ExxonMobil, $10 billion in a quarter. Shell, $8 billion. These are rounding numbers in a quarter. They don't need help. What they need is to help their country work its way through the crisis that we are in now. But then we see what is being asked by those on the other side: They want us to have sympathy, have sensitivity toward the wealthiest among us because they cannot afford extra money. They cannot afford it--no, they cannot afford it because the other people are doing the sacrificial work and they don't want to help those kids get an education. They don't want to help those families to be able to provide a future for their children. They don't want to be able to help the families who need health care for the job market. That is not what they are about. So why should we use some of the money to invest in America, take down our debt, prepare young people for responsibilities for the future. Big Oil's greed is helping to inflate our deficit and every day Americans are footing the bill, going up to the gas station. When somebody has to spend $40 to $50 to fill up a tank of gas, very often it is at a sacrifice for other things in their lives. It is terrible. And you see this all over. We have a Republican Governor in the State of New Jersey right now, who is doing major cutting, and the result is that a family who makes $24,000 a year now, family income, will have to spend over $1,000 a year more for their health services. Mr. President, $1,000 to a family making $24,000 gross. A family who earns $60,000 will have to spend over $3,000 to pay for their health care. Why wouldn't my colleagues on the other side--there are a lot of intelligent people, and I am sure they are sympathetic people--want to put a stop to this madness? Why wouldn't they say: Time to run up the flag, and we are all proud to be Americans, and we are grateful for what has happened to us? Instead they are saying: You have to have more. If you make $10 million a year, you have to have more. If you make $20 million or more--whatever it is--you need more. It is an outrage. Big Oil is doing everything in its power to protect its subsidies, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to help them. Last month 45 Republican Senators voted against ending these wasteful subsidies and using the money to reduce the deficit. Last week they chose to walk out on deficit-reduction negotiations rather than even considering putting a stop to Big Oil giveaways. Making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes is not going to hurt the industry. It just means Big Oil executives might have to do with a smaller swimming pool or wait a little while longer to buy a bigger yacht. It is clearly offensive, and they are not helping. They are not helping lift the spirit of America. People are discouraged. They are worried about losing their homes. They are worried about their kids not be being able to get an education that they are emotionally, intellectually qualified for because they don't have the money because it is not available to them. When we look at what has happened here--and you have to be fair. When this poor guy, the CEO of Exxon, is earning only $29 million a year, come on. Give him a break. He has to have a chance to preserve more of that income. Why should he pay to help this country weather the storm, weather the wars, weather the recession? ConocoPhillips, he is not doing as good as the first guy. He only made $18 million in 2010. The third one, Chevron, their CEO only made $16 million. You know how the money gets to them? Through nickels, dimes, quarters, and dollars at the gasoline pump. That is how the money gets to them. How else can this CEO pay be afforded except from those who pull up to the gas station and say they have to buy 10 gallons of gas. Mr. President, 10 gallons of gas around here is about $45. It is a lot of money. But instead of being fiscally responsible by ending the Big Oil big windfall, Republicans have another idea. They want to cut the deficit by ending Medicare as we know it, the most successful program in American history, perhaps, next to Social Security. Seniors are struggling, Big Oil certainly is not. I don't think these fellows are struggling. I don't think they are doing without anything. I wish the other side would listen a little more closely to what the American people want. Almost three-quarters of the Americans want us to stop giving billions of tax breaks to big oil companies each year. The American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, ineffective, and basically immoral. We should take the $4 billion we give away to Big Oil each year and use that money to pay down our deficit. That is a good idea. If we can do that, then it starts to make things a lot easier to continue to provide the services that are critical, essential to the average family. We cannot restore fiscal sanity here until we start paying more attention to the revenue column in our ledger. As I said before, I was a CEO for many years, 30 years before I got here, and I know you cannot run a company or a country without a good, strong revenue flow. So I call on my colleagues, please, listen to what your country needs. See what you can do to make the country stronger. If our middle class, our modest-income class starts to fail along the way, we will not be able to conduct business as usual. It is for your own protection. Get with it. Make sure they understand that you cannot just get more of what is coming out; that you have to give something back to this great country of ours. I call on my colleagues: Get Big Oil off the Federal welfare roll. Let's invest in our country's future and not have larger windfalls for oil industry lobbyists and lawyers. We have to make sure our children and our grandchildren inherit a country that is fiscally sound, morally responsible, able to provide health care, able to provide an education, able to guarantee that a child can prepare to be a leader in the future. We have to make sure that everybody sees a chance for themselves to succeed, to not be dependent on government programs, but at least be able to have those programs to get them started in life. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is a distinct honor for me to have the opportunity to fulfill the constitutional commitment that each of us has to assure the public at large that justice is being administered as it should be. We fulfill this commitment by making sure vacancies on the Federal bench are filled with individuals who have the proper experience and will provide the kind of fairness and balance in decisionmaking that confirms America's basic tenets. Mr. President, during a 2-year hiatus that I took from the Senate, I was honored with the naming of a Federal courthouse in Newark after me, and I was so pleased to have that association with the justice administered in our society. Before the building was dedicated, I asked that an inscription that I authored be placed on the wall. It reads exactly as I labored to write it. It says: The true measure of a democracy is the dispensation of justice. As a matter of fact, when I shared that moment with my dear departed colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, who questioned whether I wrote it because he knew I wasn't a lawyer, we joked about it, and I confirmed it. That is the way I saw things. The sentiment behind that quote underscores how seriously I take my role in recommending New Jersey District Court nominees to President Obama. That is why I am so proud to come to the floor today and urge my colleagues to confirm President Obama's nomination of Judge Claire Cecchi and Judge Esther Salas to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. Both are well qualified for the court, having devoted their careers to upholding the rule of law. Throughout her career, Judge Cecchi has demonstrated her ability to navigate complicated legal matters and manage complex cases. During the confirmation process, she showed her temperament and diligence, she let us know something of her candor, and displayed the kind of character that she brings to the bench. For the past 5 years, Judge Cecchi has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey, where she has presided over hundreds of civil and criminal cases. Before joining the bench, Judge Cecchi spent 14 years in private practice, focusing on complex civil litigation. One of her passions is to encourage young people to pursue a career in the law. She has hosted Bring Your Child to Work Day programs in the district court, as well as a mock trial for a local sixth grade class, to let young people have some understanding of what goes into making sure justice is fairly served in the Federal courts. Judge Cecchi's community spirit is pronounced in her activities. She has volunteered for the Junior League, Orphans with AIDS, the Human Needs Food Pantry, and the Salvation Army, to name just a few. She graduated from Fordham University Law School, and cum laude from Barnard College at Columbia University. Before being appointed to the bench, she was a partner at two New Jersey law firms, and she was an assistant corporation counsel for the City of New York. Like Judge Cecchi, Judge Salas has earned the respect and admiration of New Jersey's legal community--first as an accomplished litigator and, for the past 5 years, as a U.S. magistrate judge. She was the first Latina in New Jersey to serve as a magistrate judge. In a newspaper profile a few years ago, Judge Salas recalled how, when she was 10 years old, her family lost everything in a fire in the apartment building where they lived. The judge's mother said to her: Things are going to be fine. We've gotten this far, and we are going to make it. What determination that showed. I like to tell this story because I believe it demonstrates how Judge Salas's experiences have shaped her life and her career. She has known hardship, but she has also known great success as a member of New Jersey's legal community. Before Judge Salas became a magistrate judge, she served 9 years as an assistant Federal public defender in Newark, representing indigent clients in a variety of cases. In addition, Judge Salas has worked in private practice, handling appellate work for a New Jersey law firm. She is a graduate of the Rutgers University School of Law, and she clerked for New Jersey Superior Court Judge Eugene Codey. Additionally, Judge Salas has served as the president of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, an organization to which she has devoted countless volunteer hours throughout her career. As I shared with the Judiciary Committee when I introduced Judge Cecchi and Judge Salas in March, I am not a lawyer, but I have a deep and abiding respect for the law. I was pleased to recommend Judge Claire Cecchi and Judge Esther Salas because both are unquestionably qualified to serve on the district court, and they will bring honor to the people of New Jersey and our country. I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate will agree and vote overwhelmingly to confirm their nominations. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 5 p.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2011, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise with deepest hope that we are going to be able to defeat the House budget plan on which we are about to vote. This Republican budget is a scheme that would endanger the quality of life for millions of Americans who now struggle to get by. Just look at the gas pump and you will see what I am talking about. The Republicans want to make sure the wealthy get wealthier with a new trillion-dollar tax cut and put the burden on seniors, the middle class, and young people to pay for it. Paul Ryan, the House Republican Member who hatched this scheme, has said, ``This is not a budget; it is a cause.'' If you ask me, it is a cause for alarm. The other side wants to terminate Medicare, one of the most successful programs ever developed in America, and turn it over to private insurance companies where CEOs now make millions. Under the Republican plan, many seniors will have to choose between medication and food to get by, and seniors' out-of-pocket health costs will cost more than double the present rate, to $12,500 a year. The Republicans would hand seniors' health care over to insurance companies, where computers instead of doctors would decide which benefits they will receive. The Republicans also want to reduce Federal Medicaid spending by half, taking away vital services such as nursing homes for seniors and health services for expectant mothers. All told, the tea party Republican budget would rip away health care coverage from 50 million Americans. But health care for seniors and other Americans is not the only place Republicans want to go to punish them. The House budget plan doesn't just protect the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it reduces them to even lower levels at the expense of working families. Instead of more tax breaks for the wealthiest, we should be lifting up the foundation of our country--the middle class. In the past decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of workers has declined while prices for everything escalates, and the top 1 percent saw incomes go up by $\1/4\ million each. Imagine. The average incomes of the bottom 90 percent declined while the top 1 percent saw incomes go up by $\1/4\ million each. This budget also cuts Pell grants which help reduce the cost of back- breaking tuition for millions of college students. I never would have been able to attend Columbia University without government help from the GI bill. It enabled me to cofound ADP, one of America's most successful companies, employing over 40,000 people today. In the post-World War II era, we created the ``greatest generation.'' I say invest more in our people so they can create the next ``greatest generation,'' which cannot be done without our help in education. We need help for a more balanced approach to solving our fiscal problems, including asking the wealthy to carry their fair share of the load. I was a CEO for many years. I learned that you can't create a great company or country without sufficient resources. This is no time, as we fight our way out of a recession, to penalize the middle class, the senior citizens, or the young. This is the time to invest in tomorrow without penalizing those who pay the largest price now for their very existence. Let those who can pay for the rebuilding of an America we all love. That is the way we ought to do it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this Ryan budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as I stand here today, I am trying to figure out what our activities look like to the average American. They know we still have serious economic problems, though we are on a good track, and I think it is fair to say we are feeling a little bit better. But we were cautioned by President Obama the other day--those of us who had a chance to sit in a room with him--that while things are looking up, there is still a long way to go before our people are back to work and before they can afford the basics they need to take care of their families. While this is going on we have seen the most incredible courage, the most well-developed military plan imaginable, and the courage of our people who went in to apprehend Osama bin Laden. Thank goodness, nobody was hurt. It was a job well done, and the execution of a plan to bring to justice a man who helped kill almost 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and hundreds more in other attacks on American facilities--the Embassy in Tanzania, the Embassy in Kenya, the ship USS Cole--taking American lives. That is what they were determined to do. President Obama, after lots of previous administrations looking at things, trying to figure out what to do to stop these terrorist attacks on America, had the courage to make a decision that would have rested so heavily on anyone in that governing position. He decided to take the risk knowing that our people were so well trained, so well committed that the chance of their failure was very slim but very real. Good things have happened in America. Not only did this operation against bin Laden succeed in at least slowing down, if not eliminating, some of the terrorist threats in America, it also lifted the spirits of Americans across the country. We all felt better about it because we fought back against this terror threat. But now I look at where we are and listen to the debate and look at what the House of Representatives has done with their majority. At this point in time, when we are still reeling from shock, having had perhaps the greatest recession since the Great Depression of the twenties and thirties, instead of trying to figure out ways to solve the problems, our colleagues on the Republican side are trying to figure out ways to punish the public. They would say to them: OK, so you don't have enough jobs--we are going to try to reduce the possibility that we will have enough, to reduce the possibility that a person who can learn but is not well off can get an education. They want to take away those opportunities. They want to take away programs that have succeeded. We look back at our history in the last 90 years and ask: How did we get here? How did we get where we are? Mr. President, 400,000 Americans were killed in World War II. Then we saw growth in our country because of planning during President Roosevelt's days in the New Deal and the planning that President Johnson offered. We had Social Security developed, and then came Medicare, and then came Medicaid--programs that help people. On a personal basis, for me, those years I am talking about were particularly significant. I was born to a poor family. My father found it very difficult to earn a living, as did millions of other Americans. He worked in a silk factory in the city of Paterson, NJ. He was a man very conscious of his health. But the problem was that the environment was such that he contracted cancer when he was 42. He died when he was 43 years old. His brother, working in the same type of facility, died when he was 52. My grandfather, who worked in the mills, died when he was 56 years old. That was life as I saw it. Things were bleak. My mother was a 37-year-old widow, and she had to carry on through my father's sickness. They bought a store to make ends meet. It did not do very well, but it kept her going for a while. When all was over and my father died, I was already enlisted in the Army. My mother had no resources left. She owed doctors, owed pharmacists, owed hospitals. Every penny she had was gone. I looked at this experience and thought: Something is not fair. But I was lucky. I was able to get my education under the GI bill, as did 8 million other people who wore the American uniform during those dark days. What happened? I got an education. I went to Columbia University. I was lucky. My tuition was paid for. I even got some money for books and some things I might have needed along the way were provided. It made a world of difference. I was able, with two friends, to start a business. The company is fairly well known. It is called ADP. The three of us started with nothing, the two brothers with whom I was associated. Their father also worked in the factories of Paterson. They were immigrants as were my grandparents. But along came this educational opportunity, and with that came an opportunity to start a business. Today that company, ADP, is one of the four most creditworthy companies in the United States. They are listed as a three-star company. ADP has 45,000 employees. They work in 21 countries. Most of the operation is in America but some of it is outside. It employs over 45,000 employees and helps businesses by taking over a particular part of their recordkeeping needs. It helps make things operate better in these companies. Every month there is a labor statistic that is put out. It is done by ADP, my old company. The numbers are more reliable than those of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the data is fresher. Every week, some 35 million people get their paychecks and that is where the data comes from. I left the company when I came here 29 years ago. From all these experiences, I saw an America that gave people like me a chance to do things and created what is called the greatest generation in the history of America. Now, Mr. President, I am beginning to see what I believe is a great generation developing--the number of people getting to work, fewer claims for unemployment insurance, more consumer spending, and retail sales are up. The signs are good. So when I look at what is going on in the House of Representatives, I see the stubbornness of our colleagues who refuse to step in and say: Look, we have to keep the government strong, we have to make sure we supply the kind of energy to the government that can move America along. Their response is cut, cut, cut, when all the critical social programs I mentioned were a needed expansion of government services. I am not one of those who want to cut valuable programs. I am one of those who want to reduce the deficit. Mr. President, when you look at a balance sheet, a financial statement, it carries two parts: One part is expenses--costs--and the other part is revenues. You can cut expenses all you want, but if the revenues don't improve, you go bankrupt. It is pretty simple. And that is where we are being asked to put our future on the line. Hold the debt ceiling as ransom? For what? For what? It will destroy the competence in America. It will destroy our ability to be the country we are, the country that still leads the world despite competition. When I left home this morning, I passed an Exxon station that is fairly near my home. There was a sign on the pump that gave the price of their gas--$4.79 a gallon. For people who have any distance to travel, this is painful. This is painful. This is part of the income they can use for basic things that are needed. But what do we see? We see major gasoline companies, and we ask ourselves: Whose side are our colleagues on? It appears they are on the side of the gasoline companies. I think we ought to be more conscientious about this and make sure the public understands we are there for them, for the majority of people in this country who are sick and tired of seeing the price-gouging we have seen from the gasoline companies. There was a Finance Committee hearing today, and I watched and heard the heads of these companies--the five big oil companies--say what they are worried about. Well, they are worried about the prospect of losing $4 billion a year they get in subsidies. And there was even kind of a caustic comment that it might be un-American to take away the subsidies these people get. Mr. President, $4 billion a year in subsidies. When you look at what is going on with these companies, you see astounding results. Make no mistake, greed is fueling their appetite, and the bigger it gets, the more they want. During the years of World War II, there was an excess profits tax that said companies shouldn't be feeding off of the opportunity the war presented and taking advantage of the public. Well, we are at war, in case people have forgotten about it. Afghanistan is a real war. We still have the remnants of the difficulties in Iraq, we have piracy on the seas, and we have all kinds of things we have to keep fighting for. So there ought to be some recompense for our country for the opportunity they have to make this kind of money. These are their earnings during the first 3 months of 2011, which is still part of the recession time: Exxon, their end-of-quarter profits were over $10 billion. Shell, almost $9 billion. BP, $7.1 billion--that is after their foul mistake in the Gulf of Mexico that cost plenty of money. They still made that kind of money. And Chevron made $6.2 billion. Little ConocoPhillips only made $3 billion in that quarter. When you think about it, the irony is how well BP has done--a company that spewed 200 million gallons of oil into the ocean last year. Why is our government shoving billions of dollars into the pockets of their executives, their lawyers? Why don't we use the money to invest in a stronger America and pay down our debt? I would like to see us doing that. Big Oil's greed is helping to inflate our deficit. Every day, Americans are footing the bill. You would think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to put a stop to this madness, to step up for the average person. Well, so far we are not doing what I would like to see being done for the public, for the average citizen. Big Oil is doing everything in its power to protect its subsidies, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to help them. The Republicans say that eliminating these wasteful subsidies will raise gas prices. That is wrong. That is plain wrong. Look at the compensation of the CEOs here. Now, they are not selling pretzels or making potato chips; they are dealing with a commodity that is essential to the functioning of our society, of mankind. The CEO at Exxon got $29 million; ConocoPhillips, $18 million; Chevron, $16 million. These are all in 2010, for the year just recently concluded. I want to make certain people understand that companies paying their fair share in taxes isn't going to hurt the industry. It just means Big Oil executives may have to make do with a smaller swimming pool or maybe smaller yacht, but no real pain or punishment there. The fact is, the Big Oil CEOs aren't feeling this recession. But instead of making our government more fiscally responsible by ending the giveaways to Big Oil, the Republicans have another idea: They want to cut the deficit by ending Medicare as we know it. That won't save us any money in the long term. It will simply increase the expenditures, as many are forced to pay more out of their own pockets for their health. Seniors are struggling. The big oil companies aren't. I wish the other side would listen a little more closely to the wishes of the American people. Almost three-quarters of Americans say we should stop giving billions in tax breaks to the big oil companies each year. The American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, ineffective, and immoral. And it is not as if the oil industry is taking its annual $4 billion windfall and investing it in our country's future. No. In addition to going into the paychecks of the Big Oil executives, this money is being used to line the pockets of the industry's lawyers and lobbyists who are seen frequently and obviously around here. I have seen this time and time again during my career in the Senate. I was the first Senator on the scene at the Exxon Valdez when it rammed into the Alaskan shoreline in 1989. Instead of being forthcoming and doing what they should have done, Exxon fought over every penny with the communities in Alaska--the families and the fishermen whose lives it destroyed. Instead of stepping up to pay the court-awarded damages-- $5 billion--Exxon said: To heck with that verdict. We will fight it. We will fight it all the way. And they did, for years. They knocked down the amount from $5 billion in punitive damages to $500 million. I guarantee you they paid a lot of money to the lawyers and lobbyists, but they would rather give it to them than to the American people. That is what that shows. In the end, it took more than 20 years for Exxon to pay for what it had done. Some victims died while waiting for the company to make things right. So we should not be giving Big Oil $4 billion in tax breaks each year. Their profits, which last year exceeded $100 billion, are larger than lots of countries. We should be investing in ways to break our dangerous addiction to oil. We should be investing in innovative approaches to moving people and goods, including increasing funds for transit, creating a world-class high-speed rail network, and expanding the number of electric cars on our roads. We should also boost our country's promising clean energy industry, making sure we lead the world in the export of environmental products that are proudly stamped with the ``Made in the USA'' label. Don't be fooled--drilling will not, in the final analysis, get us out of our energy problems. We use almost a quarter of the world's oil, but we sit on less than 3 percent of the world's reserve. So drilling is going to just quickly bring the end of our ability to produce oil. That will be the conclusion. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, even if we open every offshore drilling area in the continental United States, the average price of gasoline would drop by just 3 cents a gallon by the year 2030. Here, we see it: The benefit of increased drilling will save us 3 cents a gallon in two decades. That is not very promising for people who have to rely on the automobile for all kinds of things in their lives. Continuing to subsidize oil companies only increases our dependence on dirty fuels. And even as our children pay a heavy price--with asthma victims and other respiratory problems--it keeps us on a dead-end road to sky-high energy bills, more oil spills like the one we saw in the gulf, and dangerous pollution levels. Investing in clean alternatives to oil, cars that go further on a gallon of gas, and smart transportation, such as mass transit, are the only realistic solutions to our energy challenges. Beyond clean energy investments, we should take the $4 billion we give away to Big Oil each year and use that money to pay down our deficit. It is pretty clear that we cannot restore fiscal sanity to our government unless we start paying more attention to the revenue column in our ledger. I was a CEO for many years. I know you cannot run a company or a country without a strong revenue flow. Ending the government's wasteful oil industry subsidies will not be enough to erase our deficit, but it is a good place to start. I call on my colleagues, have a citizen's heart. Look at this as you would any other obligation you have in your life. Make sure our country is strong and that our middle-class and our modest earners can look ahead for a decent life for themselves, educating their children and protecting their parents with proper health care. Get Big Oil off the welfare rolls. Let's end the industry's tax breaks and end our country's addiction to oil and other dirty fuels. Let's invest in clean energy and smart transportation--and cut the windfalls for the oil industry lobbyists and lawyers. I want to make sure--and I am sure all of us do, down deep--our grandchildren and children inherit a country that is fiscally sound and morally responsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are going to be voting sometime today. I am concerned about the tea party Republican assault on the health of American women because that is what we are going to be deciding. The focus on this has little to do with deficit reduction because better health automatically saves money. This assault is an attempt to change individual behavior to a standard that the tea party people see as proper for others exercising their own free will. It contains an element of unfathomable hypocrisy for those voting to kill Planned Parenthood. As Members of Congress, we all have immediate access to first-class health plans. We never have to think about health coverage for ourselves or our spouses or our children--it is all in the package. There is no decision to make between paying a medical bill or paying the rent; no decision to make between buying medicine and buying groceries; no decision to make between going into a hospital or going into bankruptcy. Yet the Republicans here are trying to take health care away from women, children, and families across America. They want to completely defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been serving women and families in America for more than 90 years. Today Planned Parenthood operates more than 800 centers that serve 3 million women each and every year. For many women, Planned Parenthood is a critical source of medical care. To women who cannot afford coverage, Planned Parenthood says don't worry, your health is more important. They do not just offer counseling on family planning, they also offer lifesaving breast exams and cervical cancer screenings. Look at this. Eighty centers nationwide serve 3 million patients each year, provide 800,000 breast cancer screenings, provide 1 million cervical cancer screenings. That is so important. Cancer screenings save lives. Since the 1950s, cervical cancer screenings have cut mortality rates by more than 70 percent. Remember, treating cancer and other diseases early enough saves health care dollars in the long run. But this is not just about sound fiscal policy or better accounting. No. No. They want to tell women, millions of them, if you cannot afford it, tough luck. Tough luck. This is about the tea party Republicans remaking America in their own image. Their real goal is to impose their radical ideology on American women. They want to come into our homes, tell the women in our families how to live their lives. This issue is deeply personal to me. My wife and I have five daughters and eight granddaughters, and nothing is more important to me than their health, their well being, and their freedom to make choices that suit their needs. If we kill funding for Planned Parenthood, millions of women will lose access to essential care. Those tea party Republicans claim that will help close our deficit of dollars. But it will leave us with a deficit of decency. It is not just women's health the tea party Republicans are after, it is also health care for middle-class families across America. They want to stop the landmark health reform law dead in its tracks. This is the law that adds 32 million Americans on the rolls of the insured. So here is what I say to colleagues on the other side: If you do not want ordinary people to have affordable coverage, then show some sincerity and throw in the coverage you have. Be honest. Vote no, and tell your constituents why you are doing this, and say you mean it when you say no, and I am giving up my coverage to prove it. I am talking to Senators on the side of taking away the funding, and talking to Members of the House of Representatives to say no and mean no. The health reform law makes health care more affordable, more accessible, and more sustainable, and holds insurers more accountable. It makes medicine more affordable for seniors by closing the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug benefit program. The new law also allows young adults to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26, and it gives small businesses tax credits to help them provide their employees with medical coverage. Without this law, insurers could once again restrict benefits, rescind coverage when people get sick, and refuse care to children with preexisting conditions. I do not think we want to return to the days when insurers could turn their back and turn away sick children. Life for me was upfront and personal when it came to my family's health care needs. I grew up in a working-class family in Patterson, NJ. My father worked in the local silk mills, and he died of cancer at age 43, leaving my mother a widow at age 37. Our family struggled in bankruptcy as my father's life ebbed away. My mother owed doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, money we did not have. After my service in Europe in the Army, because there was a government program, I was able to get my education through the GI bill. I joined two friends and built a company so successful that it is hard to imagine. It employs 45,000 people today, operating in more than 20 countries. Three of us from poor families. For me the GI bill made the difference. It is government stepping in when it was needed, and has put 45,000 people across this world to work. That is what government is about. It is there to be helpful. This is not just an accounting office. It is not just a fiscal policy problem. Because of my success in business, I never had to worry again about whether I could provide health care for my family. I never forgot what it was like to be without health care. We need the health reform law, because no American should ever have to make sacrifices to afford health care. Americans are beginning to experience the benefits of this law. Why now would we want to put the progress on hold? I agree, we have serious economic problems in our country. But we are not going to solve them by taking health care away from American women and families. Do not take away this critical assistance for people who cannot afford the care they need. If we have fiscal problems, if we have debt and deficit problems, there are ways to solve them. But one way is not to take health care away from people who need it. It is an injustice, and we should not permit it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now in morning business. I ask if there is a time constraint when making speeches.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. We are facing a moment in the issue that all Americans are looking at and wondering: What is happening here? What is going to come about? What are we going to do? But I wish to remind everyone, in 1773, a tea party was held in Boston Harbor. It was to protest a yoke of oppression that hobbled the start of freedom in our new Nation and that new Americans wanted removed. Those here then wanted the liberty to choose their own customs and their way of life. While that was 238 years ago, we again struggle to keep a fringe group from taking away the rights of a majority of American citizens who treasure choices they are free to make in our democracy. Although these attacks are marked in the cloak of fiscal responsibility, it is very clear that this group, unlike our forebears, is determined to restrict the freedoms most Americans choose to protect. So while we are not latter-day Paul Reveres, we sound the alarm for the American people to beware. I come to the floor to warn every parent and grandparent to beware for the well-being of your loved ones. If you want your children and your grandchildren to have the best health care American research can produce, beware. If your chest swells with pride when your 2-year-old repeats numbers or words learned at a Federal Head Start schoolhouse, beware. If your child suffers when toxic air overwhelms them and they are gasping for a breath of fresh air, beware. Look at your family, and if you have a son or a daughter anxious, ready, and able to go to college and you cannot afford to help, beware. If you are a woman dependent on Planned Parenthood, where every year women receive tests for breast or cervical cancer that could endanger their health and maybe their lives, beware. If you are a retiree who believes Medicare is freely available to help you live longer or function better, beware. Watch out. Tea party Republicans have seized control of the House of Representatives and will use their power to eliminate current services to children, adults, and retirees from the government, as promised. They are continuing to brew a toxic tea, a sleight of hand trick to push pain on America's most vulnerable citizens, as we look at this placard: ``House GOP Brewing a Toxic Tea for Americans.'' Across our country, millions are worried sick about losing jobs, losing homes, and losing an established way of life for their children's futures. What do the tea party Republicans propose? Cut their programs to protect the wealth of the richest among us. But tea party Republicans do not want to solve problems. Instead, they are trying to use the budget process to push an extreme ideology that they believe is the only way others should live their lives. Do it their way or no way. They are willing to shut down the government to prove a point, to change the condition we have operated so well under for many years. They are willing to sacrifice America's financial standing to impose their extreme views on millions who do not agree with these radical extremists. They refuse to step up, compromise, and move ahead, so America can continue leading the world as it has been. The President and the Senate Democrats have come to the negotiating table with a responsible plan that protects our country's fragile economy, economic recovery, and invests in our future. But the toxic tea Republicans in the House would rather recklessly shut down the government than budge off their foul scheme. Last week, they stood outside the Capitol and chanted: ``Shut it down. Shut it down.'' That was their mantra, shut down the government. When Speaker Boehner told them to prepare for a shutdown, they gave him an ovation. That is where they stand: Cut it off. Cut off the health America needs to maintain some financial leadership. These are elected lawmakers who are supposed to guard our government, not kill it. They want to deceive our people, talking about arithmetic and accounting, but that is not their real aim. Their aim is to have the government decide what is right or wrong in people's homes and families so they can govern others' behavior. Make no mistake. They do not care if their cuts hurt children. They have shown that all along. They want to chase more than 200,000 children out of Head Start, where children learn how to learn, and modest-income families have no other way to provide that education. We see it on this placard: ``House Republicans Hold Back 218,000 Head Start Kids.'' That is not going to help our country in the future. Tea party Republicans ignore the fact that children who attend Head Start have higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school and go on to college. They should visit Head Start classrooms to see those little ones. Maybe their tough hearts will mellow instead of just saying: No. Sorry. With American wealth, we cannot help you. But Head Start is only a beginning. Look at what tea party Republicans want to do to higher education. They want to reduce Pell grants, which help millions of Americans go to college. Do they not understand they are not just saying no to hard-working young students, they are also saying no to American employers, telling them: Too bad our country does not have the skilled workers. Ship those jobs overseas or bring foreigners here. They will work for much less anyway. They are saying no to the millions of hard-working parents who dream of seeing their kids living better than their parents because they received a college education. This chart tells a tragic story about the opportunities for smart kids who depend on Pell grants to afford college. Look at what it says: ``As College Costs Rise, House GOP Slash Pell Grants.'' We can see it here. Rising tuition and less help is the way they would like to see America go. Do we want to force students to take on more debt in order to attend college or kick them off our country's campuses altogether? I learned the value of a government investment in college education firsthand. I attended Columbia University on the GI bill after serving in the Army during 1944 and 1945. Later, I cofounded ADP. That is one of America's most successful companies, now employing 45,000 people. America built the ``Greatest Generation'' by enabling 8 million veterans to attend college free for their service in wartime. Even as we currently continue losing lives in wars that have also injured thousands, they are willing to shut down the government, no matter what, if it takes away a payday for soldiers on the battlefield. The assault on our children's future does not end there. The tea party Republicans want to cripple our ability to provide the clean air our people need to breathe without fear by eliminating the Clean Air Act, putting polluter's profits ahead of our children's health. It is an outrageous assault on a landmark law that the Supreme Court ruled on in 2007, that it is the government's responsibility to protect children from toxic chemicals in the air and illnesses such as asthma, lung cancer, among other life-threatening diseases. I wish our GOP colleagues would be straight with the millions of parents who are concerned about their children's health and explain why tea partiers are asking families to be patient and maybe their children will outgrow asthma. One of my grandsons suffers from this disease. He is an athletic child, and every time he goes to a soccer game, my daughter first checks to see where the closest emergency room is. No parent should have to worry about their children playing outside. Look at this picture. Soot is ugly when it is pouring from a smokestack, but it is even uglier inside a child's lungs. Tea party Republicans say you can not restrict polluters with regulations because it is too cumbersome. By their logic, we should rid ourselves of traffic signals, too. Those red lights are a real inconvenience. And while we are at it, maybe our Republican colleagues would like us to get government bureaucrats out of the air traffic control towers. Can anyone believe the Republicans are going after medical research, at the same time? The National Institutes of Health are making strides in fighting childhood diseases. But the Republicans want to reduce NIH's ability to do research by taking $1 billion of their budget. That is funding that could find a cure for childhood cancer or just maybe identify the cause of autism or other autoimmune diseases. If the government shuts down, NIH will have to stop admitting new patients for 640 clinical trials, 60 of which involve children with cancer. And what about the toxic tea Republicans are trying to serve to women? Willing to put women at risk with their health. They want to wipe out Planned Parenthood, one of the Nation's leading providers of health services for women. Disadvantaged women turn to Planned Parenthood for family planning services, breast exams and cervical cancer screenings. And make no mistake: Cancer screenings save lives. Since the 1950s, cervical cancer screenings have cut mortality rates by more than 70 percent. So why would we want to take cancer screenings away from women? But it is not just women's health at risk, health care for America's seniors and retirees is also on the tea party Republicans' chopping block. They just revealed a scheme to end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program. The problem is, when your voucher runs out, you will have to dig into your own pocket to pay for health care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office could not have been clearer this week when it reported ``Under [this] proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.'' Is this what America wants, forcing seniors to spend more on medicine and treatment, and get less in return? The bottom line is the Republican leaders in the House should stop the toxic tea lawmakers from hijacking the deficit debate. We cannot allow them to ``ransom'' Head Start, the Clean Air Act, Planned Parenthood and Medicare. We cannot negotiate away the health and well-being of America's children, women and seniors. This is not how we solve our financial problems. I was a CEO for many years, and I know that you cannot run a company, or a country, without sufficient revenues. I voted last year to end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of wage earners because I know windfalls for the wealthy will not guarantee jobs, reduce the deficit or help us invest in our future. I am one of the most fortunate people on Earth, and it is time for those of us who have been fortunate to pay our fair share. So I call on every Member of Congress to reject the toxic tea that the House Republicans want to serve America's most vulnerable citizens. Let's protect the future of our country, not poison it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this afternoon, this Chamber is going to face a clear question: What matters more, children's health or polluters' profits? We will be voting on amendments that would cripple the government's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act. This is a landmark law that protects our children from toxic chemicals in the air and illnesses such as asthma and lung cancer. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million cases of childhood asthma and more than 160,000 premature deaths. The numbers are big, but numbers do not mean much unless it is your child. If it is your child, there is no number that is too large to take care of that child's health. If you want to know the real value of clean air to American families, talk to parents who live in fear of their child's next asthma attack. It is a fear my family knows very well. I have a grandson who is a terrific athlete, who is very energetic. He suffers from asthma. He is an athletic child. Every time he goes to play soccer, my daughter--his mother--will check first to see where the nearest emergency room is. She knows very well that if he starts wheezing, she has to get him to a clinic in a hurry. No parent should have to worry about letting their children play outside. The fact is, the Clean Air Act has improved life for millions of young people. The Supreme Court and scientists agree that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This picture demonstrates so clearly what it is like with smog in the air, and it permits us to imagine what it looks like inside a child's lung. This picture shows what toxic skies look like. It is an ugly scene, but it is much uglier when it is inside the child's lungs or a child's body or anybody who is sensitive to polluted air. That is the picture coming out of the smokestacks, and the picture turns into reality when it is in the lungs or the body of an individual. Allowing companies to reduce pollution, they say, would cost too much for polluters. Too bad. What is a life worth? What does it mean to someone who is sensitive to polluted air not to be able to get out or stop coughing or stop wheezing? Allowing companies to continue polluting does not eliminate the costs. It simply shifts the costs to our families, our children, and all of us who breathe that air. The American Lung Association and five other health groups sent a letter opposing all of these amendments. They say: The Clean Air Act protects public health and reduces health care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, including: cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. I am aware of the threat asthma can be. I had a sister who was a victim of asthma. If our families traveled together, she would have a little respirator that could be plugged into the cigarette lighter hole and enable her to breathe more comfortably. One day she was at a school board meeting in Rye, NY, where she was a member of the school board. She felt an attack coming on. Her instinct was to try to run to her car so she could plug in the machine to the lighter hole. She collapsed in the parking lot, and she died 3 days later. We saw it upfront and personal. It was a terrible family tragedy. She had four children at the time. When we hear talk about how threatening it is to control pollution, we say, no, the threat is to family health and to our well-being. That is what we are about in families with young people across this country and across the world. It does not matter what the cost is. There is not a family in the world that would not dispose of all of their assets to protect and continue the life of a child. History shows that the cost of cleaner air is very low compared to its enormous benefits. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, fewer parents miss work to take care of children suffering from asthma. More families avoid the crushing health care costs associated with a heart attack or stroke. People live longer, more comfortably, and have more productive lives. Simply put, weakening the Clean Air Act puts the profits of polluters ahead of the health of our children. To see what the United States would look like without the Clean Air Act, we only need to look at China. On a visit there, I was scolded by the minister of environment that the United States was using too much of the world's oil, creating difficulties in the air. When I was in the minister's office, I invited him to join me at the window 23 stories up in the air. We looked outside and we could not see the sidewalk. That is how thick the polluted air was. The air in China is so polluted that many people wear masks when they walk outside. We do not want to be doing that in America. This poison must not be the future. I do not want it for my grandchildren, and I do not want it for anybody else's children or grandchildren. In our Senate, in our Congress, our goal must be to take care of our obligations to protect our families. And the strongest obligation anyone has, anybody we know who has children does not want to endanger their health. I ask all of my colleagues: Stand up. Vote down these dangerous efforts to destroy the Clean Air Act. It belongs as part of our environment. It protects our children, it protects the environment, and we must not let this opportunity be misunderstood and say: We have to vote no to give polluters a preference before our children. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.