Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And does the chairman agree that this requirement that the foreign subsidiary knew or should have known that they were doing business with Iran relates only to the actual business transaction and does not require that the subsidiary had or should have had knowledge of current U.S. sanctions law in order to place penalties on the U.S. parent company?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my friend, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, regarding HR 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. I want to thank the chairman for crafting a strong sanctions package that includes language I authored to close a loophole in current law that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to continue doing business with Iran without imposing any penalties on their U.S. parent companies. We must close this loophole once and for all, and I am pleased the Chairman agrees with me.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the chairman agree that the language in the bill currently under consideration would apply the same penalties that can be imposed on U.S. companies that directly violate the U.S. trade ban to those U.S. parent companies whose foreign subsidiaries are doing business with Iran?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the chairman also agree that this language subjects to penalties U.S. parent companies if their foreign subsidiaries knew or should have known that the subsidiary was directly or indirectly doing business with an Iranian entity, even if it was the case that the parent companies were not actually aware of the activity of the subsidiary?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the senior Senator from Massachusetts leaves the floor, I wish to commend him for his constant leadership on matters of a better environment, more effective ways to get our energy without spoiling the environment and putting what amounts to toxins in the air. I congratulate him for his constant leadership in this area. Safe Chemicals Act Mr. President, one thing Democrats and Republicans share is a desire to keep our children and grandchildren safe and healthy. Many of us remember the days when we simply counted to make sure our newborns had all of their fingers and toes and breathed a sigh of relief, but parents today face many more threats. As industrial chemicals have more common in consumer products, we have seen an increase in certain birth defects, childhood cancers, and behavioral disorders. That is why I have written legislation to reform our chemical management system and give parents peace of mind about chemicals in household products. My Safe Chemicals Act passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee last week, and I hope we are going to see it on the floor of the Senate this fall. We think of the home as a place where our families are safe. We don't expect the carpet in our bedrooms, the shampoo in our showers, or the detergent in our laundry to pose a threat to our family's health. Many everyday products contain chemicals. Most Americans just assume those chemicals have been tested and proven safe. But for the vast majority of chemicals in products in our homes, safety testing is not required, and we look at the articles that suggest what kinds of things we are talking about. Every morning, millions of American kids wake up in beds that have been treated with chemicals, their breakfasts are cooked on pans coated with chemicals, and their plates are cleaned with chemicals. Today, EPA lists more than 80,000 chemicals in its inventory, many of which are in regular household products--products that our children are exposed to every day. We see here a child getting a bottle. It is made of plastic, and we don't really know what is in it. I think we can all agree that a chemical that comes into contact with a child should be tested to see if it is safe. Many, if not most, chemicals in products are safe, but we know some are not. There have been too many cases of toxic chemicals showing up in our everyday lives that have horrible health effects, and we have found that out only after our families have been exposed. Recently, the Chicago Tribune exposed the latest example of untested chemicals wreaking havoc in our bodies. The Tribune reported that flame retardants are widespread in furniture, electronics, and other items throughout our homes. In fact, the average couch contains 2 pounds of chemical flame retardants. As we see here, a sofa like this looks as if it is all good and no harm could come, but there could be chemical materials in there that are releasing toxic fumes. Chemicals in products don't always stay in products. Many of them find their way into our bodies. It is not clear that we are safe with any of these products because we don't know just exactly what is in there. In fact, the Tribune tragically found that a typical American baby is born with the highest concentrations of flame retardants in the world. And many flame retardants are highly toxic. Children born with high concentrations of flame retardants can suffer devastating consequences for the rest of their lives. Flame-retardant chemicals have been linked to cancer, developmental problems, and other health risks. High levels of these chemicals put newborns at greater risk of low birthrates and birth defects, and then in childhood they face lower IQs and problems with fine motor skills. Even in adulthood, women who were born with flame retardants in their blood can have trouble becoming pregnant. Imagine, we are setting our children back from day one, before they have taken their first breath. Flame retardants are just one example of the problems with our chemical safety system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Americans typically have 212 industrial chemicals-- including 6 that cause cancer--coursing through their bodies. We know these chemicals can have serious health effects. We can see what kinds of health effects. Chemical exposure accounts for as much as 5 percent of childhood cancers, 10 percent of diabetes, 10 percent of Parkinson's disease, and 30 percent of childhood asthma. That is not a very comforting idea. These chemicals are still around and untested because the 35-year-old law that is supposed to assess and protect against chemical health risks is broken. That law, called TSCA, is so severely flawed that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office testified that it is ``a high-risk area of the law.'' I want to repeat that. The law called TSCA is so severely flawed that the Government Accountability Office testified that it is ``a high-risk area of the law.'' That is a credible government department saying this is a high-risk area of the law. Of the more than 80,000 chemicals on EPA's inventory, TSCA has allowed testing of only around 200 chemicals and restrictions on only 5. That is more than 80,000 chemicals that are being used routinely, in EPA's inventory, that might affect children or adults in a household. Until this law is fixed, toxic chemicals will continue to poison our bodies and threaten our health. This status quo is dangerous, and it is unacceptable. We have heard from parents across the country that we should not wait any longer for reform. We had a demonstration here in Washington just a few weeks ago with people asking for safer chemicals now. They are worried about it. They are parents. They don't want their children exposed to chemicals that might injure their health. It is easy to do. These chemicals should be tested before they are made into products, and then we don't have to worry about whether we are doing something that puts our kids at risk. We have already waited too long. Entire generations have grown up in homes filled with untested chemicals. Every year, more chemicals are introduced, more children get sick, and more lives are put at risk. I was proud when the Environment and Public Works Committee took an important step last week by passing the Safe Chemicals Act. We began working on TSCA reform in 2005. In the 7 years since, we have explored the topic from many angles. We talked to scientists, workers, business leaders, State officials, firefighters, researchers, legal experts, and parents who are concerned about their children's health. We also heard from Senators on both sides of the aisle. Throughout this process, we have listened and we have learned. The result is a commonsense bill that lays out a vision for strong but pragmatic regulation of chemicals. The bill requires the chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their products before they end up in our bodies. We already require this for pharmaceuticals and pesticides, so there is not any reason we should not require the same of industrial chemicals that are found in products in our bodies. The European Union, Canada, other countries require safety testing, but Americans remain unprotected. That is not acceptable. I have received letters in support of the Safe Chemicals Act signed by more than 300 public health organizations--businesses, environmental organizations, health care providers, labor unions and, again, concerned parents. Twenty-four Senators have cosponsored my Safe Chemicals Act and I believe the full Senate should now be given a chance to vote for or against the testing of these industrial chemicals. We want to debate it on the floor of the Senate. We want families to know what we are thinking about as we go through this process. They deserve to know that Congress cares more about their kids' health than the concerns of the chemical industry lobbyists. I come to this conclusion: There is risk out there that we take unnecessarily. It is time to take action to clear this up. It would be a positive act for the chemical manufacturers so they would not have to worry about responding to challenges from laws in 50 States but rather be under one guideline that takes care of them all. It is time to take action. The health of our children is at stake. I hope my colleagues across the Chamber will stand and say yes, you are right, it is time we challenge what we know is an exposure that should not exist. Simply done, it would move the process very quickly, letting us know that everything we have that has a chemical component to it is safe for our use. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is a terrible time in our country. The entire country is in mourning for the 12 innocent people who were gunned down in Aurora, CO, last week. Our thoughts and our prayers are with dozens more still recovering from their wounds. We are mourning with people we never knew, with unfamiliar names, but we have seen pictures of grief-stricken parents, friends, neighbors, and our hearts break with them. We wish we could reach across the country and offer them some comfort while we mourn. We know our mourning alone will not be enough to prevent a future tragedy unless we do something. We in Congress have an obligation to turn grief into action, as we have often done when faced with tragedy. So I come to the floor today to ask a question: When will we wake up? How many of our sons and daughters have to die before we go to work? It is time to sound the alarm on gun violence in our country. It is time for us to gather to talk about commonsense solutions. And I am talking about all of us--all 100. It should not matter which side of the aisle we are on. All of us who serve here have someone we love, someone we know, someone with whom we are in contact, whether it is our child, our sister, our brother, our father, or our mother. The lives of our loved ones depend on us and we should not let them down. Right now, our Nation's lax gun laws make it far too easy for murderers to commit incomprehensible acts of violence and terror. Very early last Friday morning, we witnessed a massacre, and it has become something we have seen far too often. A tragedy with even less deaths, with less wounded, with less hurt is a tragedy of enormous proportion when something like this happens in this great country of ours. There is so much to live for, so much to enjoy, but here innocent people died. This guy arrived at a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and he had an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine, a shotgun, and two handguns. He unleashed a barrage of bullets murdering 12 innocent people and injuring 58 more in a matter of minutes. In the theater at the time there was a total population of 200 people, and 70 of them were wounded or killed in a matter of minutes. Even though the police responded rapidly--within 90 seconds--with his high-capacity magazine, the gunman had more than enough time to carry out his reign of terror. Among those who lost their lives were parents, mothers, fathers, servicemen, a veteran, a recent high school graduate, a college student, and a 6-year-old-girl named Veronica Moser Sullivan. She was the youngest to be murdered in Colorado that night and someone whose tragic death reminds us all too well of the time 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green was murdered in Tucson last year because she wanted to know more about her government. She was part of a group who greeted Representative Giffords. The victims of these horrible tragedies deserve more than words of solidarity and mourning. They deserve our attention, our action. What we do to prevent these tragedies in the future will be the real test of character of this body. The best way to prove we are concerned is to take the action necessary to protect young lives because on that score now we lose. I have been in the Senate a long time, and I have seen too many Americans murdered by guns, too many lives cut short because of the easy availability of guns, and too many times Congress has sat back, cowered before the gun lobby and done nothing to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future. We can't wait any longer, Mr. President, without the public at large challenging our effectiveness, wanting to know what it is we are doing to protect the next group of children and parents and loved ones. The murderers in Colorado and Arizona both had something that enabled them to bring about the mayhem they did. They had a mega-magazine capable of shooting dozens of rounds without having to reload. They bought them legally. Here we see a picture of what this man had--a semiautomatic rifle and a 100-round drum magazine. These magazines were originally designed for law enforcement and military people. These magazines were banned from 1994 to 2004, a period of 10 years, but under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress let that ban expire in 2004. It wasn't an accident. It didn't happen without complicity. Just think about it. The Colorado shooter carried a 100-round magazine, and if he hadn't had that magazine, maybe the shooting toll would have been substantially lower. Maybe more lives would have been saved. Maybe more loved ones--husbands, wives, and children--would be alive today. Maybe there would be fewer people suffering from bullet wounds. In the Arizona shooting, the shooter was only subdued when he paused to change his 30-round magazine, and if he had to stop sooner, obviously precious lives could have been saved. These magazines are the tools of mass murderers. No matter what the gun lobby would have you believe, nobody needs a mega-magazine to go duck hunting. These high-capacity magazines put all of our families in danger, and they endanger our law enforcement officers as well. We send them into the line of fire to defend us against mass murderers such as the Colorado shooter, who legally bought 6,000 bullets and a gun magazine that holds 100 bullets over the Internet. The safety of our families is too important to let this continue. There are too many bullets, too many deaths, and too many funerals. But not enough people are saying: Stop it. Do your job. Protect my family. Protect my kids. Protect my parents. Here are the facts. Guns have murdered more Americans here at home in recent years than have died on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. More have been murdered on the grounds of the United States than have died in far-off battlefields. It is shocking. More than 6,500 American soldiers have died in the service of our country in support of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the same period, guns here were used to murder about 100,000 people. Americans deserve a Congress that makes the safety of our families a priority. That is why I urge my colleagues today to help our people. Bring back the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines such as the one used in Colorado on Friday and the one used in Arizona last year. That was the law from 1994 to 2004. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested that it may be appropriate to reinstate this ban. It is time to work together, all of us, to ban high-capacity magazines. Don't do it for me. Do it for your family. Do it for your constituents. Stand and say: I don't want your family hurt. I don't want your children to fall prey to a gunman. It is time to begin a national conversation once more about taking commonsense measures to prevent gun violence in America. And to those who are fearful about the power of the NRA, understand that we bested them before and we will do it again. We beat them in 1996 when an effort that I began to ban the sale of guns to domestic abusers passed, we have stopped over 200,000 of those people from getting gun permits since that time, and a lot of lives could have been saved in there. We stood up to them again in 1999 when the Senate came together after Columbine and passed legislation to close the gun show loophole. Unfortunately, after passing in the Senate, the House refused to do anything about it. If we show resolve and if we stand with courage, I know we can do the right thing once more. There are no more excuses for inaction. I say to my colleagues, look at your children. Look at the pictures that may be on your mantelpiece. Think about the happy days with your kids, think about the enjoyment you share together, and think about what we want to do to be able to continue those lives we enjoy so much. The stakes are just too high. We have to intervene while the memory, unfortunately, is still fresh. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who always has things of relevance to talk to us about and he has done that again today and we thank the chairman.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday we witnessed quite a sight. Not a single Republican was willing to stand up to oppose secret money and elections. Today they will have another chance to announce their support and tell their constituents whether they would prefer that secret money buys the politicians or does it take their constituents' votes to get people in place who care about where this country is going. Republicans will have a chance to show Americans where they stand: with millions of individual voters or the few billionaires who seek to drown out the voices of our citizens by using secret money. Yesterday, I came to the floor to present the identities of two of the biggest supporters of secret money in politics, David and Charles Koch. They are joined by somebody we read about yesterday in the papers and heard on the news by the name of Sheldon Adelson, whose brain money was earned from Chinese gamblers in Macau to buy American politicians. That is some deal. The Koch brothers are putting together a secret group of wealthy friends who will spend $400 million to manipulate the upcoming election. This effort is one of the egregious examples of the flood of big, secret money into our politics, and this unaccountable money is spent with a clear goal of determining our laws and deciding our elections and the policies this country will follow in the future. The Koch brothers are set on picking their preferred politicians. Too bad that with a country of over 300 million people these two fellows want to decide who should run this country of ours. Koch Industries controls oil and chemical companies that do business around the globe. So what do the Koch brothers and their anonymous friends want from politicians who benefit from their secret money? They want laws that benefit the companies like the ones they own even when those laws come at the expense of millions of other Americans. I think the reason is clear. They want people in office who will put their special interests above the public interest. These brothers run Koch Industries, which is a giant international conglomerate and one of the largest privately held companies in the world. The Kochs' secret money organization, Americans for Prosperity, has opposed EPA's new mercury pollution standards. These historic standards will prevent 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks, and up to 11,000 premature deaths. Americans for Prosperity, funded by secret money, opposed the rule that will save these lives. They would rather have the money. We know what millions of people who live near powerplants want. They want the plants to clean up their acts and stop poisoning them and their neighbors. The Kochs and industry lobbyists argue that these standards just cost too much. What is the value of a life to these guys? Let them answer the question publicly. Turn in the secret money and let the people across our country decide who they want in the Senate, the House, and the White House. How much poorer is our society when children are born with developmental problems? A child born with pollution in their body is set back from day one. That child's potential is stunted before they have even taken their first breath. Polluters just ignore the costs to American families. They think their right to pollute is more important than the average person. The children in our country have the right to breathe. It is foul play if we have ever seen it. Put your money up, take fresh air away from young people, and create problems that mercury in our environment does. Secret money in politics makes it possible for polluting companies to spend millions of dollars influencing elections, and the American public is kept in the dark. So I say to my Republican colleagues: Let your conscience rule your decision. Let's tell the truth. I wish the vote could say: Yes, I want secret money to continue being sent. They dare us to use that language. Come on. There are good people over there. Let's shine some light on who is pulling the strings in this country. Is it the people or is it the money that makes the difference in the way this society functions? I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, at this moment in time, corruption of America is taking place, but it is not in front of our eyes. The American people have a right to know who is responsible. It is being corrupted by secret money from secret donors. Every day they spend more and more money to buy our elections, but we do not even know exactly who they are. We are talking about a small number of people who are among the richest in America, and they are determined to manipulate the election in order to elect those to high office, including a President, who will pursue their special interests. When we turn on the TV, we see their handiwork right in front of our eyes. Attack ads that are filled with deceptions about what is happening are undermining our democracy one distortion at a time. Who is responsible for the fabrications in these ads? We can't know. Unlike the election rules of the past, the names of those funding these operations are hidden from the American people. We see organizations with innocuous names such as Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS fill the airwaves with wild claims. These front organizations provide the curtain that hides billionaires and corporations from sight. We need to pull back the curtain on the sources of secret money. Why shouldn't American citizens know who wants to override our people power with their purchasing power? Democrats have offered a way to shine the sunlight on who is trying to buy our country. The DISCLOSE Act would reveal the identities of those who pour millions of dollars into efforts to deceive the American people. These groups claim their mission is social welfare, but their sinister intention is to protect their own corporate welfare. It is clear the Republicans are doing everything in their power to prevent the American people from knowing who is behind this disgraceful mission of deception and dishonesty. So today on the Senate floor I am going to disclose the identities of a couple of people who are among the biggest sources of secret money. I am going to disclose where their money comes from. Here on this placard we see the Koch brothers, David and Charles Koch. They are the powerhouses in this movement to take away the ability of the American people to decide how they vote and who gets into office. These brothers are worth billions of dollars, and they are unabashed in their zeal to use their fortunes to further their political agenda. It has been reported that these two brothers are putting together a secret group of donors, and they are going to put $400 million in the pot to subvert the upcoming election--$400 million. The Koch brothers and their secret group will use those millions of dollars to flood the airwaves, but when we see the ads, we will not see the names of the Koch brothers or members of their secret group of millionaires. We will see a name, a nice name: Americans For Prosperity. Yes, the Koch brothers' prosperity. When we look at what it stands for, truly, it stands for siphoning off the votes of the American people, trading them in for cash and picking up their agenda. Registered as a social welfare organization-- it is an insult. That is why they are allowed to keep their donors secret. They have told the IRS they are not a political committee. Who, aside from the Koch brothers, are the donors to Americans for Prosperity? We cannot tell you. They are kept secret. They are allowed to hide behind the curtain. If these wealthy individuals want to pick our next President, they should have the muscle and the courage to stand and say so; tell everybody what it is they want to accomplish, what they want to do to our democracy. They don't have the courage. They would rather stand behind the curtain and control our election $1 million at a time. Where do these brothers get all this money? It is interesting. These brothers run a giant international conglomerate, one of the largest privately held companies in the world. This secretive corporation has a huge impact on our lives. Koch Industries controls oil, gas, and chemical companies that do business across the globe. Now, while we may not notice, their products are everywhere. In fact, their products are in many American homes today. For instance, all of these everyday products are sold by Koch Industries. These Dixie cups are cups that kids drink out of, and they are sold by the Koch brothers. Paper plates that often serve birthday cakes are sold by the Koch brothers. Brawny paper towels that we use to clean the floor when our kids spill things are also sold by the Koch brothers. You probably haven't heard of INVISTA--it is another company owned by the Koch brothers' global conglomerate--but they do make things you have heard of, such as STAINMASTER carpet and LYCRA fabric for clothes. We think these goods come in handy, we all buy them, but they are also a source of revenue for the Koch brothers, who fund attack ads that pollute our airwaves. The bottom line is that allows the billionaires who sit on top of global business empires to subvert our democracy. They want to change it. They want to change the character of our country. They want a few to be able to name the governance of the millions. Although Brawny paper towels may be able to clean up some spills, they will not be able to clean up what is going on with our electoral process. The bottom line is this: When the wealthy decide they are going to control our elections, the American people have every right to know it. When these wealthy people decide they want to become kingmakers as well, the public should know what they are up to. Kings went out of America centuries ago, and they are trying to bring it back in some form. Common sense says our democracy and our country's core are at stake, and we don't want it to happen. I hope the American people see what is going on here and understand that they are not being told what is going on in our society. That is not what America is about. America's openness has been the bulwark for our society since its founding. Secret societies have largely disappeared from our country, but when they do inevitably appear, it has been to bring instability. Transparency has enabled our Nation to flourish with openness. Our country has become richer as a result of that openness and transparency. Now, at a critical moment in the history of America, it is shocking to see this abject use of secrecy and power. We should not let them take it. We should not let the few with all kinds of wealth-- billionaires, if you will, made on the backs of the American people-- take our democracy from the millions. If it weren't for people who manned the jobs, such as cops, doctors, teachers, and the other people in our society, I don't care how smart these people were, they could not have amassed these fortunes. And I don't begrudge them the ability to spend it where they want, but when it comes to the election, we have to tell the truth. We have to have it happen that way. The American people have to know who is going to put the President in the White House in the next administration. We don't want it to change because someone else is hiding behind the curtain and manipulating hundreds of millions of Americans who are going to have to abide by them when these elections are over. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose to the flood insurance language that is included in the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348, which the Senate will consider today. The Senate had been debating a stand-alone bill to reform the National Flood Insurance Program for several days, but we were prevented from voting on amendments to the bill and ultimately passing the legislation. Since agreement on a process for considering flood insurance amendments was blocked, we are now forced into an up-or-down vote on a conference report that contains provisions that will save or create millions of jobs in the transportation sector and keep Federal student loan rates from doubling. I will support the conference report because of those provisions, but I oppose the flood insurance portions. Last September, I saw firsthand how Hurricane Irene's floods devastated communities in my State of New Jersey. President Obama and I toured the wreckage together. It was heartbreaking. We saw families with their belongings on their front lawns, and much of their homes destroyed. Unfortunately, Hurricane Irene was not the only storm to cause major flooding in New Jersey recently. In just the last 3 years, FEMA has declared five federal disasters that caused major flooding in New Jersey. For many of the people who have been hit by these floods, their homes are all they have. Many of them have owned their homes for generations. They have raised their children and built their lives in them. For these homeowners, it would be wrong to turn our backs on them. But I am afraid the flood insurance language in the conference report could do exactly that. The flood insurance language we are considering will require major insurance premium increases for people living in certain homes built before FEMA's flood maps were finalized. For years, families who bought homes built before floods maps were available paid lower rates for their flood insurance. We did that because we recognized it would be wrong to charge extremely high premiums on families who did not know their flood risk when they purchased their home. But the flood insurance reform proposals on the table would bring the hammer down on those families. Most families affected by the change would see their premiums double. Some may even see their premiums increase five-fold. In New Jersey, we know of families in over 1,800 homes that would see their premiums increase under these provisions. Residents in other States, including Louisiana, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida, would also face these dramatic rate hikes. To address some of these concerns, I introduced two amendments on flood insurance this week. One would have prevented premium increases for primary residences built prior to 1974, and the other would have allowed the increases to occur for some homeowners, but provided for a hardship exemption from premium increases for families that cannot afford the higher rates. Let's remember, many of these homeowners rely on fixed incomes, are retired, and have budgeted with the expectation that their premiums would stay steady. We should not change the rules in the middle of the game when homeowners have played by those rules from day one. Many of these families simply do not have the means to raise more money if rates increase. I also cosponsored an amendment from Senator Pryor to eliminate a requirement in the stand-alone bill that owners of homes behind dams and levees obtain flood insurance. I am pleased that the language in the conference report does not include that requirement. Flood insurance reform will have real implications for millions of people throughout the United States, including in my home State of New Jersey. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program should not be taken lightly, and deserve to be debated and amended on the Senate floor. I am disappointed my Republican colleagues have prevented us from considering important flood insurance amendments this week, and I oppose including flood insurance reform in the legislative package we are considering today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, today, June 28, 2012, 30 million American people gave thanks, and it is because the Supreme Court this morning upheld the health care law that will provide those 30 million people with access to affordable health insurance. Today is a proud day for America and for the values we cherish because on this day our Nation's highest Court has reaffirmed that America is a country that works for everybody, not just a privileged few. We fought for these values for many years, and this victory is just the latest in America's long struggle for a fairer and more equal country. We took the first step 77 years ago when President Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, ensuring that in this country no senior would go hungry. Thirty years later President Lyndon Johnson helped America take the next step when he created Medicare and Medicaid, ensuring that our seniors and the most vulnerable among us would always have access to health care. And today our efforts to ensure that every American has access to quality health care has been given the stamp of approval by our Supreme Court. Today we established our belief in America, the wealthiest Nation on Earth, that it is our moral duty to make sure everyone can keep themselves and their families healthy. A little more than 2 years ago, we heard the call of Americans struggling to pay for health care--parents who had to choose between keeping their children healthy and putting food on the table and seniors who couldn't afford lifesaving medication. So we passed and President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act, and already millions of Americans are reaping the benefits of this law. Thanks to health reform, insurers can no longer deny people coverage for a preexisting condition. If someone has cancer or some other longtime sickness, insurers can't deny them coverage if they are already sick from these conditions. Up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions are already benefiting from this provision. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are prohibited from canceling coverage when people are sick. And more than 3 million people in my State of New Jersey no longer have a lifetime limit on their health insurance coverage. Today millions of seniors are already receiving free preventive health services and are saving an average of $600 a year on prescription drugs. And it is not just seniors who are seeing lower costs; almost 2 million New Jerseyans with private insurance now receive preventive health service at no additional cost. For women, these services include cancer screenings, such as Pap smears and mammograms. Since the 1950s, cervical cancer screenings have cut mortality rates by more than 70 percent. Think about that--70 percent of the people are alive now who otherwise would have died if they didn't have the coverage. Young people have benefited as well. More than 73,000 young adults in New Jersey obtained health coverage last year through their parents' insurance plans. This has brought their parents peace of mind, knowing that their children, who may have just graduated from school and are making their way in the world, will be covered with insurance if they need it. But even with the Supreme Court's decision, our friends the Republicans continue to fight our efforts. They are again showing they will stop at nothing to make seniors have to pay more for medications, more families going bankrupt, and more parents having to choose between feeding their children and taking them to the doctor. Our colleagues across the aisle keep telling us that they want to repeal and replace health reform, that they simply favor other solutions, but they have no proposals and no ideas on how to do that. Instead, they just keep giving the American people the same message: Give your benefits back; we can't afford it--in this rich Nation of ours. Well, I have a message for my friends here in this place where care is so carefully given: If you don't want Americans, I say to colleagues here, to have affordable health coverage, then you ought to give yours back. That is what I say. The Republican hypocrisy is stunning. As Members of Congress, politicians have access--all of us--to world-class health care, but they are determined to take away the lifeline that health reform law offers to families who really need it. Let's be clear. Without this law, insurers could once again restrict benefits, cancel coverage when people get sick, and refuse care to people with preexisting conditions. The Republicans want to return to the days when it was legal for insurers to turn away sick children, to say: Sorry, you are not covered by insurance. No matter how sick you are, we can't give you any help. And I say to my Republican colleagues, stop attacking the American health care plan, not the Obama health care plan. Start working with us to ensure a healthy and happy future for all of our children and grandchildren. Americans don't want to relive the health care debates with the lies about death panels and socialized medicine. The American people want us to move forward and work together to lower costs and make sure no American gets left behind. That is what the American people deserve from us. They send us to this place for 6 years at a time. That is the America we must believe in. That is the America we fight for. And today we are one step closer to making that America a reality. I speak for myself. Some years ago, I was 18 years old and I signed up to serve my country in World War II. It was a dark moment in our history. The war was at its height. My father was on his deathbed. He was just past 42 years of age. He had cancer, acquired--like his brother and his father did--from work in the mills of Paterson, NJ. That is what they had. My mother was a 37-year-old widow. Things were tough. Things were difficult. I had a little sister. My father died, and we all grieved. I was already enlisted in the Army, and they permitted me to stay home until my father passed on. But what happened is not only did my father leave grief, but he left bills--bills for hospitals, for pharmacists, for doctors. People shouldn't have to go through that. The coverage ought to be there that says: We will take care of you. You are an American citizen. Be proud of that. And don't let anybody fight to take away your rights to protect their rights. No, that is not a balance. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Alexander Pagoulatos, an impressive young New Jerseyan who recently graduated West Point as the class of 2012's valedictorian. Hailing from Basking Ridge, NJ and a 2008 graduate of Ridge High School, Alex has strong roots in the Garden State. As a young man, he was well known for excelling on Ridge High's Varsity fencing team, as well as his dedicated service to his church and greater community. And when Alex applied through my office for a nomination to the United States Military Academy at West Point during his senior year, his outstanding record and bright future made it an easy choice. At West Point, Alex continued to make us proud. As an economics major, he achieved the highest grade point average possible, the result of earning numerous A-pluses. This accomplishment is all the more impressive when one considers that he also minored in environmental engineering. For his success both in and out of the classroom, Alex earned awards of all kinds. This May, Alex graduated at the top of his class academically, physically, and overall, receiving his diploma as the class of 2012's valedictorian. Alex's service to his Nation didn't end that Saturday at Michie Stadium. Upon graduation, Alex received his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army. Following his training at Fort Benning, he will deploy to Vicenza, Italy as a member of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. As a former soldier and a veteran of World War II, I commend Alex for his service to our Nation and recognize the sacrifices he is making in the name of that service. He has made my State of New Jersey extremely proud and I know he will continue his commitment to excellence in the Army. We all owe Alex an incredible debt of gratitude and I know that the people of New Jersey, and indeed Americans across our country are thankful for his dedicated service to our country and look forward to his future achievements.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership in resisting these attempts to be able to permit companies to continue to pollute the air, a risk to our children, and marshaling the forces to say no to this. I feel this may be a lesson I learned when I was in business school at Columbia: If we spend money here, we might save it there. But if we don't spend it, we are liable to lose something--a child, the child's ability to function. What kind of a proposition are we looking at? This isn't an accounting exercise. We are talking about the well-being of our children. I will say, we may have disagreements between our sides, but I believe Republicans care as much about their kids on their side as we do on ours. But in this debate, they would say they have to take care of the power companies and permit them to emit poisonous ingredients into the air. So I think the sentence would be more completely said: Rather than take advantage of protecting our children, we would rather continue the profit buildup. It is preposterous when we think about it. We have to continue the standards for powerplants that emit mercury pollution, which is brain poison for our children. We have to make sure we don't relinquish and permit this contagious material to continue to be put into the air. Under the proposal of our friend from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, companies should be free to spew toxic air pollution out of their smokestacks, regardless of whether it goes into neighborhoods where our children play or in the path of their exercise and games. This is a picture we would see. We have all seen it at different times in our lives. But we have learned something over the years. We have learned we can reduce this threat that comes out of these smokestacks. We have a devil of a time in the State of New Jersey because it is from States to the west of us from which we get much of the pollution in our communities. Even if we had a State's option, fully, we couldn't do much about it if our neighbors to the west permit their companies to emit poisons into the air. The standards Senator Inhofe wants to overturn--the Clean Air Act amendments--were approved by Republicans and Democrats over 20 years ago, in 1990. Most Americans would be disappointed to learn that powerplants have been free to put unlimited amounts of mercury into the air that our children breathe. After years of delay and dirty air, the new standards will finally require powerplants to cut mercury pollution. Mercury is a highly toxic brain poison. Even in low doses, mercury can cause damage to fetuses and infants that permanently affect the child's development. Every year, 630,000 babies are born with unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. Let's be clear about what this means. Mercury is poison, and children are being born with it coarsing through their veins. These children suffer from brain damage, learning disabilities, hearing loss. The mercury they are born with can damage their kidneys, liver, and nervous systems. The powerplants that spew mercury also emit pollutants that trigger asthma attacks. Unfortunately, I have had the ability to see a child with an asthma attack. It happens to be my grandson. When he is gasping for air, if someone said: How much would you pay to relieve your grandson of the gasping or the trauma that comes with that kind of condition, there is no cost that would be too much. Anyone who has seen an asthmatic child wheeze and struggle to breathe knows we would do anything in our power to prevent asthma attacks. EPA standards prevent 130,000 asthma attacks from occurring each year. Imagine that. We are protecting 130,000 asthma attacks from occurring to our kids every year. So why are Republicans proposing to erase limits on mercury pollution? We already know EPA's new standards will save and improve lives. EPA estimates this rule would prevent 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks, and up to 11,000 premature deaths. What kind of a calamity is worse than that? There isn't any. Heaven help those families who are tortured by learning that the problems they have for their children's school accomplishments could have been avoided and for every $1 we spend to reduce pollution, we get $3 to $9 in health benefits. A child with pollution in her body is set back from day one and is going to carry that disability for her full life. The polluters ignore the cost to American families. These companies think their right to pollute is more important than our kids' right to breathe. I can't believe they are willing to risk the health of a baby in their home or their grandchildren's home. They say that cleaning up their act will cut into their profits, but we know clean air isn't just good for our health; it can be good for business. For proof, we look no further than in my State of New Jersey and our largest utility, Public Service Electric & Gas. They invested $1.5 billion to upgrade their powerplants. PSE&G cut emissions of mercury and acid gases by 90 percent or more, and they created more than 1,600 new jobs in the process. That is the real picture. That is what happens. It is clear what this resolution, as proposed, would do. It would effectively kill any EPA action to reduce mercury now or in the future. It is unacceptable. I say to those people who come from coal States: Clean up the air. Spend the money. You are going to spend it one way or another. Wouldn't you rather spend it on doing something that is positive for the environment rather than risking your child's health? I think there is no comparison. We had an unfortunate incident in my family. I had a sister who was asthmatic. When she traveled, she always carried a respirator that she could plug into a cigarette lighter, and if she started to feel uncomfortable from beginning to wheeze, she could put this on and her breathing would clear up. She had been elected to the school board. She was at a school board meeting and she felt an attack coming on. She got up to go to her car in the parking lot to get some relief from her inability to breathe. She collapsed in the parking lot and 3 days later she expired. She was 53 years old. What is the price of a life? This was an adult. What about the life of a child, and we compare it to the costs? That is all we have heard about. The other side sounds like a bunch of accountants when they talk about how much will this cost. How much does it cost for a child who can't learn? How much does it cost to live life with a child whose body is impaired and they can't function? What is the cost? The cost can't be explained in dollars. The cost is: What is right in our society? Do we have the obligation to try and protect the children who live in our country? I think so. Let the companies figure out ways to improve the quality of their air emissions. It is pretty simple. If they do, the problem can be solved. But to say no, no, this will cost too much--I think of a schoolyard full of little kids and I say I would like to ask them: What is it worth to see these little kids sing ring- around-the-rosie, and be happy compared to saying to the company, no, your job is to clean up your act. You have time to do it but you must do it. You cannot avoid it any longer. It is clear what this resolution would do. It would effectively kill any EPA action to reduce mercury now or in the future. That is unacceptable. I say to my colleagues: Defeat this measure. Look at your children, look at your grandchildren, and say to yourself: What will I do to protect her; to protect him; to hear their voices nice and clear; to see them learning; to see them growing? What is more important, to protect the powerplant that wants to emit more poisonous air and refuses to do its share? They are going to do it one way or the other. Look at your children. Look at your grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to defeat this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to challenge the obstinacy of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to prevent us from doing anything that can help ordinary families in our country get back on their feet and succeed. As a matter of fact, it was very clearly stated by the minority leader, the Republican leader, to tell us that his No. 1 priority--imagine that, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, his No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one- term President. I ask, what good is that to the people who do not have jobs or the people whose mortgages are about to be foreclosed or their kids can't get an education no matter how smart they are because it is impossible to afford it? Imagine, stated proudly on the floor of this Senate, that the mission is to destroy the Presidency. Shame on him. His No. 1 priority--not to create jobs, prevent another financial crisis or keep our children safe and healthy; it is just that cynical goal of destroying the Presidency, no matter how much harm, no matter how much pain these actions inflict on our general population. It is a disgrace. We have seen what the Republicans are willing to do to accomplish this goal. They brought our Nation to the brink of default. They shut down the Federal Aviation Administration. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to extend the payroll tax cut--just to name a few of the most egregious examples. Now the Republican mission appears to be punishing the American people with longer waits in courtrooms for judgments to be concluded. There are currently 74 Federal judicial vacancies waiting to be filled. In other words, nearly 1 in 11 Federal judgeships across this country is vacant. These vacancies are not some abstract problem only lawyers and academics care about. Judicial vacancies deny everyday Americans and businesses the justice and redress our Constitution guarantees. Millions of them have had their cases delayed. At a time when our economy is making a fragile recovery, we cannot afford to have a legal system that makes it more difficult for businesses to get legal judgment, certainty about their rights and responsibilities, to move their operations, for instance, to full gear, perhaps. But now we have learned the Senate Republicans are committed to making matters even worse. Roll Call reports that at yesterday's weekly luncheon of the conservative steering committee, Minority Leader McConnell decided to halt--stop all circuit court confirmations. How can our democracy function when we cannot even put judges in the courtroom? The very next nominee in line to be confirmed for the circuit court is a highly qualified nominee from New Jersey and we need her on the bench now. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz has been nominated to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Her nomination was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 8, nearly 100 days ago. They refused to let us take it up. For more than 3 months she has waited patiently for a confirmation vote. She is anxious to get to work and we need her, while the Republicans in the Senate play games with the confirmation process. Now that Judge Shwartz is on the verge of receiving a vote and filling a critical vacancy, the Republicans have pulled the rug out to make sure she does not sit there. It is not fair to the judge--to Judge Shwartz or to the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware who deserve to have a fully staffed Federal bench. It sends a particularly noxious message to the women of this country. If confirmed, Patty Shwartz would fill a void, and she would be only the second woman ever to represent New Jersey on that appeals court. This obstruction is especially outrageous, given the record of skill, confidence and admiration Judge Shwartz has earned in the legal community. Her nomination has received strong bipartisan support in our State. Her supporters include Republican Gov. Chris Christie. He is a former U.S. Attorney of New Jersey. He says: Judge Patty Shwartz has committed her entire professional life to public service, and New Jersey is the better for it. That is his statement. If Governor Christie and I agree on someone, you know she's really got to be good. We are not the only ones who feel so strongly about Patty Shwartz's stellar qualifications for the bench. John Lacey, who is the past President of the Association of the New Jersey Federal Bar, said that Judge Shwartz ``is thoughtful, intelligent, and has an extraordinarily high level of common sense.'' Thomas Curtin, chairman of the Lawyers' Advisory Committee for the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, said: ``Every lawyer in the world will tell you she is extraordinarily qualified, a decent person and an excellent judge.'' The American Bar Association clearly agrees. They gave her their highest rating of ``unanimously well qualified.'' A review of Judge Shwartz's experience shows why she has earned such respect and praise. Since 2003, Patty Shwartz has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey, where she has handled more than 4,000 civil and criminal cases. She graduated from Rutgers University with the highest honors, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, at which she was an editor of the Law Review and was named her class's Outstanding Woman Law Graduate. As Governor Christie said, Patty Shwartz has devoted her entire career to public service. Preventing her from doing so will only hurt the American people, people in our area, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware. It will only hurt those people seeking justice and our very system of democracy. It has often been said justice delayed is justice denied. It is a lesson people in New Jersey and all over the country are learning and it has to stop. All Americans should be aware of the price they pay for the obstruction of the Republicans on their side of the aisle. When these confirmations are blocked, it is not just nominees who suffer, the justice system suffers under the weight of vacancies and the American people suffer longer waits for justice in overburdened courts. It is time for Republican politicians to stop blocking votes on those well-qualified nominees and allow the Senate to confirm them without further delay. Make no mistake: I take very seriously the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent regarding Presidential nominees. I do not believe the Senate should rubberstamp judicial nominees without consideration or deliberation. However, what we see today is an unprecedented level of obstruction in confirming judges. At this point in the term of President George W. Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 179 judges, 28 more than the 151 of President Obama's nominees who have been confirmed today. President Obama's nominees have been forced to wait approximately four times as long as President Bush's nominees to be confirmed after being favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. When we had the numbers favoring our majority, we didn't permit delays like this. We would never use that as a punishment for a Presidency we disagree with. As a result, the vacancy rate is nearly twice what it was at this point in President Bush's first term. These delay-and-destroy tactics cannot be what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they gave us the power of advise and consent. I am the son of immigrants who came to this country, and I got the message often from my parents and my grandparents to come to America and find a better way of life than they had in Russia or Poland, their birthplace. I view our justice system as the Nation's premier institution. It demonstrates so well what America is about. I am proud that a courthouse in Newark, NJ, bears my name. It has an inscription that I authored. We spent a lot of time talking about the inscription and what it would look like. I came up with this: ``The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice.'' When people walk into that courtroom, they have to know that they have an equal chance at a proper decision just like anybody else. There shouldn't be the discrimination that exists when we don't fill vacancies that are begging to be filled with qualified candidates. All in this Chamber know when the dispensation of justice is obstructed and delayed, our democracy suffers. I plead with our Republican colleagues: Stop the obstruction, allow the Senate to vote on Judge Patty Shwartz's confirmation without further delay. Put off your attempt to discredit President Obama's tenure as President. That doesn't fit in here. If you want to do it in the political mainstream, and you want those wild gestures and those ridiculous claims that they want to destroy President Obama's tenure, don't do that. Don't do that to the American people. Be fair. Do your job, and let's get on with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in Senator Sanders' office, Rebecca French, be granted floor privileges for the duration of consideration of S. 3240, the Agricultural Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today because there is an epidemic hovering over America, and we ought not to stand by and let it continue. A staggering one-third of Americans are obese a condition that can endanger health and shorten lifespan. Among our children, the situation is becoming a plague and leaving too many young people unable to participate in physical activities, such as sports or games. I salute the First Lady, Michelle Obama, for bringing attention to this crisis by educating parents, teachers, and kids about the need to be more active and eat nutritious food, but it is going to take the involvement of this Congress. We need to protect our children, our economy, and our national security. Our Nation's childhood obesity rate is one of the highest in the world. Here we see it, childhood obesity rates displayed worldwide: Obesity epidemic as seen among American youth. And if we look at the other major countries in the world, going from the lowest, China is at 5.2 percent, upwards to France at 14.1 percent, and then we get to America, and 31.7 percent of our children are obese or overweight. That is discouraging, very sad for the individual and for the country at large. People who are obese are at a higher risk for heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and even certain types of cancer. Obesity-related conditions kill more than 110,000 Americans every year. We do not want to see more children with diabetes. We don't want our children to be burdened with a lifetime of disease and disability. Public health advocates have been sounding the alarm for years, but this problem has only gotten worse and this Congress and the Federal Government have largely ignored the problem. Over the last few decades, the rate of children who are obese or overweight has doubled. In 1973, we were looking at 15.4 percent. That was the percentage of obese and overweight American children. But if we look ahead only 40 years, we see the rate has gone from 15.4 percent to 31.7 percent. That is almost one-third of our childhood population. This issue has even affected our military and the statistics are shocking; 25 percent of our young men and women who want to join the military are too overweight to serve. We need to take bold action. This farm bill is not just about making sure businesses stay profitable, it should be about keeping our citizens healthy too. We owe it to our kids and our country to learn what is causing this calamity. That is why I filed an amendment to focus in on a particular suspected contributor to the problem. The Federal Government can and should determine whether sugary drinks are causing obesity and causing the damage that goes with it. Americans are drinking more high-sugar drinks than ever before--children and adults drink twice the amount of sugary soda than they did just three decades ago. These drinks are cheap and available everywhere--in restaurants, convenience stores, movie theaters or vending machines. We have seen children and teenagers holding giant cups of soda or other sugary drinks. Some of these sizes are so big they look like a barrel. When a child drinks 32 ounces, takes a 32-ounce cup of soda, it is the equivalent of ingesting 41 sugar cubes. Can you imagine anyone permitting their children to devour 41 sugar cubes? Who in this body would give their child or grandchild 41 sugar cubes to eat? The city of New York is taking a bold course of action and other communities have done their own studies and have decided to act. In Congress, we need to step up and do our part. We need to know what role sugary drinks are playing in the childhood obesity epidemic in America. My amendment would initiate a study on the impact of these drinks on obesity and human health in the United States. It would require an examination of public health proposals regarding the cost and the size of these drinks. The amendment is endorsed by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Center For Science and the Public Interest. I reach out, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask that, once and for all, we work together to do what we can to protect our children--protect them, in this case, from the obesity epidemic. I hope we will join together to fight for the well-being of our children. I yield the floor and I suggest absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Paul amendment No. 2182, which would cripple the food stamp program. I have to tell my colleagues that there is an aura of wonderment around here that says: Look, let's cut food stamps for hungry families and for little children. We have the agri companies to take care of, the agribusinesses, to make sure they can feed their children. The most fundamental test for any family is to put food on the table--to make sure their children get the nutrition they need. When tough economic times hit, families can find themselves struggling to meet their most basic needs. The food stamp program was created so that even in the toughest of times, children in this country do not go to bed hungry. Here is a picture of a child reaching out for food--the old story about models on cereal programs, talking about satisfying the brother's hunger with the old remarkable display of what it is that comes to the fundamentals and taking care or letting families who need help get some, especially in this area. It is appalling that our Republican colleague from Kentucky has proposed an amendment to cut more than $300 billion from a program that is a lifeline for many families. These harsh cuts would punish families who need help the most. We are debating a bill that contains billions in support for big agricultural companies, but instead of targeting the subsidies they get from the Federal Government--from the taxpayers-- Republicans say we ought to cut programs for hungry children. I wonder if those who want to cut the food stamp program would participate in a real way and say to their little children, say to their family: Look, just to show we are serious, just to show we care, we will limit the amount of food we are going to give our children, the amount of food we are going to give the elders in our household, to show we are serious about this. Hungry children didn't cause the recession or the deficit. Cutting food stamps will not solve our debt problem. But hungry children don't have lobbyists, so programs such as food stamps end up on the Republican chopping block--heroic, muscular men and women who say: We want to make our country fiscally sound, so let's take the food stamps away from people who could be starving. The Paul amendment would cut support for food stamps by almost 45 percent next year alone. The consequences could be devastating. The consequences would be devastating. The numbers are staggering: More than 46 million Americans, including 800,000 people from my State of New Jersey--we are a State that has about 9 million people--are dependent on food stamps to make it through the month. Half of them are children. When you look at this placard, can you imagine telling a mother that she has to tell her kids they have to do more with less food so maybe other businesses--agribusinesses--can continue to get subsidies? Republicans should have to tell these families: We are not going to cut corporate subsidies. No, no; we have to do that. We have to make sure the rich will not pay more in taxes. So please understand, as we take food off their tables, we say to our kids: Eat less, get thinner, get trimmer. Stop doing your homework because you are too tired or stop complaining because you do not feel well when the food quantity is not sufficient. On average the Food Stamp Program provides assistance of just $1.50 per meal--a buck and a half. There is not much there to cut. The Republicans who are so eager to cut food stamps from children should try living on $1.50 per meal for the next month. Let them then report how it feels, how their kids survived with less food than they need. Then we will see how eager they are to cut the food stamps. The Republican approach would hurt those with the least to protect those with the most. That is not what this country is about. Too many of America's families are still struggling. Too many parents are still looking for work. Too many of our children are still hungry. The food banks across the country are getting evermore attention and visits. Republicans should offer them help, show some heart. This is not an accounting organization. We are not here to just balance the books. Yes, we have to balance the books. I come from business, and I know what they have to do. But that means we would not be servicing our democratic structures, the people in our society who need help. Republicans should offer them help. Instead, they offer them deeper poverty and greater hunger. The bottom line is this: At a time when 50 percent of food stamp recipients are children, it would be a moral stain on our country's character to cut this program. That is not what America is about, and that is not why any of us serve. The children who would be harmed by reckless cuts cannot speak for themselves. But we should not need to hear their crying voices to know what is right. I urge my colleagues to listen to their consciences and defeat the Paul amendment. I conclude by saying how disappointing it is to see a $4 billion reduction to the Food Stamp Program in the farm bill. I am proud to join Senator Gillibrand in offering an amendment to reverse these cuts. We are going to try to make that happen. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to speak against amendment No. 2107, the one that talks about pharmaceutical products, medicines. We know how important the prescription medicines are in improving health in this country and the need to make sure those drugs are safe and affordable. Prescription drugs have brought great advances in health outcomes. Just look at how much longer people are living. Over the past century, life expectancy increased from 49 years to 77 years. We know that beneficial drugs need to be more affordable and more readily available. But allowing drugs to enter into the United States from other countries is not the answer. The Department of Health and Human Services found that importing prescription drugs might save 1 to 2 percent on their prescription drugs--and I am not describing that as insignificant--but these are modest savings compared to what the outcome might be. Importing risky prescription drugs from other countries could cause more health problems, more suffering, and in the final analysis, more expensive treatments. Americans buy medicine to lower their cholesterol, fight cancer, prevent heart disease. Some of these have had remarkable effects. Heart disease is much less threatening. It is still a dangerous disease but much less than it was years ago. Imagine what would happen to a mother or a child if they were relying on imported drugs only to find out that the drugs were unsafe. We need to be absolutely certain that we are not putting Americans' lives at risk. That is why I am opposing amendment No. 2107, the McCain amendment, which would allow potentially unsafe prescription drugs to be shipped across our border, directly into the medicine cabinets of homes throughout America. Instead of safeguarding American patients, this amendment could bring potentially dangerous and ineffective drugs from Canada. I say that because, though Canadian drugs may seem safe, we already know that drugs that claim to be from Canada are not always reliable. They are not worth the risk. An FDA investigation found that 85 percent of drugs imported from Canadian Internet pharmacies were actually from 27 other countries. Many of these were pure counterfeit. The Senate already recognized the danger that imported drugs pose to Americans. On five previous occasions, this Chamber has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that importation will not put people at risk. The Secretary still has not been able to confirm that imported drugs would be safe. I wish to make another observation. I find it kind of amusing to watch Republican colleagues talk about how wonderful the Canadian health system is. Last I checked, Canada's health care system is socialized medicine. During the health care reform debate these same colleagues were decrying the Canadian system as a horrible socialist experiment. My colleagues need to make up their minds. Do they prefer socialized medicine? If so, it comes with some risks. I am proud that many of our country's drugs originate in the State of New Jersey, commonly known as the Medicine Chest State. In fact, there are over 46,000 highly skilled people in my home State working to produce lifesaving drugs. It would be wrong to undercut the hard work of these trained New Jerseyans, only to put Americans in danger. Right now the drugs in our country are safe and effective, as we have seen by the results. Thanks to Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi, this bill will even make our drugs more safe. Americans deserve real peace of mind. When they open the pill bottle and swallow their medicine, they have to know the product is safe and effective. I urge my colleagues to support keeping medicine in our country safe and affordable. I urge the drug companies, the medicine companies, to do whatever they can to make drugs, medicines, more available at cheaper prices. I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment No. 2107. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I come to the floor today because we dare not stand here while a menace threatens children across our country with too many untested chemicals present in everyday consumer products, products intended for children's use, such as baby bottles and nursery furniture. Many of them contain chemicals that have never been tested for human safety. These chemicals should be tested in industry laboratories, not in our children's bodies. It is time to update the law to protect them. This picture shows some of the moms, many who traveled long distances yesterday to come to the Capitol with signs demanding ``safer chemicals now.'' Many of the moms had little children with them. They are pleading with us. They are saying: Senators, understand what is taking place. Threats to our children should not be tolerated in America. These moms are right to be concerned that their families are not being protected from dangerous chemicals. It is our responsibility, the responsibility of those in the Senate and the House, to fix our broken chemical laws. But until these laws are fixed, toxic chemicals--the word ``toxic'' is a replacement word for poisonous--toxic chemicals will continue to gnaw away at our children's bodies, their health, and their well-being. Studies by CDC scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including 6 carcinogens, coursing through America's children's bodies. ``Toxic Chemicals Pose Significant Health Risks.'' This chart tells a very bad, a very sad story: Five percent of pediatric cancers, 10 percent of diabetes, 10 percent of Parkinson's disease, and 30 percent of childhood asthma are significant health threats to children. And instead of protecting us from harmful chemicals, our current law falls short. A law called TSCA was designed to eliminate these threats to children's health. It passed in the 1970s. It is so severely flawed that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office testified that it is a ``high-risk area of the law.'' Imagine that: TSCA, because of the fact that it is so severely flawed, is a high-risk area of the law. In nearly 35 years, TSCA has allowed EPA to require testing of only 200 of more than 80,000 chemicals. Thousands of new chemicals are introduced every year in industrial and research facilities, but only 200 over that time were tested. What does that say? When you think about the number of children we are trying to protect, 80,000 chemicals, and EPA could require testing for only 200 of them, and only 5 were banned. It is hard to believe the chemical industry fought for years to keep the status quo alive at the expense of our lives, our children's lives, our children's health. Recently the Chicago Tribune exposed how the industry used dirty tricks and junk science to drive their public misinformation campaign. They wanted to mislead the public about what is going on. Their series detailed how the industry repeatedly bullied and lied to State legislators to prevent commonsense reform. They bankrolled phony experts. A doctor in one instance prominently stood up there and defended a chemical material, a fire retardant. They are brought in there to invent stories that spout the company line, protecting not the health of children but protecting their profits. It is a terrible exchange--all at the expense of safety and health. It is clear that chemical manufacturers purposefully hid the dangers of toxic flame retardants. We have a chart here that shows the average couch, for instance, has over 2 pounds of flame-retardant chemicals in its foam cushions, chemicals that have been linked to developmental problems and other health risks. The Presiding Officer has cautioned us about this, as well, that there are discharges when these are compressed that release the toxic chemicals into the air. Scientists have warned us about these chemicals since the 1970s, and yet they show up in household furniture, including baby crib mattresses and high- chair cushions. The Chicago Tribune report said that: A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the world. But we are not here to attack chemicals. We are saying sort out those that are necessary and good for our sustainability, but there are hidden in there products that are dangerous, that are contaminants, that can bring terrible things to children, terrible health threats. Hundreds of useful everyday products contain chemicals, but it is our responsibility to make sure they are all safe, and today we don't know what is in the air, the atmosphere, and is poisonous. Here is an example. Everybody recognizes what this is, a baby bottle. We have all bought them or seen them used for our kids. But chemicals in some baby bottles have been linked to serious health threats. Imagine, as a child takes nourishment, they are taking in a substance that can be dangerous to their health and make them sick--or worse. When we use these products, the chemicals in them can end up in our bodies. In essence, the American public has become a living, breathing repository for chemical substances. No one should accept this standoff, and most do not. Those who are aware of what is taking place don't want to hear any excuses. They say: Get rid of these things. Let us know what is in there so we can protect our children and shield them from these threats to their health and their well-being. Everyone--from some chemical manufacturers to businesses that use chemicals in their products, to environmental, labor, and health groups--has called for reforming our chemical laws, and we will not wait. I ask my colleagues not to wait here. Join us in this quest to save our children's health to make sure they grow up as healthy as we can enable them to do. We will not wait any longer, and we cannot let lobbyists run out the clock. Lobbyists. Those are people, who for a fee, will represent almost anybody. But in this case, we are looking at not those who bring in good information or a good product, but those who are defending companies that are producing products that are dangerous for all the children who are exposed. My bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, lays out a vision for strong, effective, and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. The bill simply requires the chemical makers to prove that their products, their chemicals are safe before they end up in children's bodies by being put into a product that children use. Most of the thousands of chemicals we use every day are safe, but this bill will separate the safe chemicals from the ones that are not-- the ones that threaten our children and our families. It will ensure that chemicals are tested and that EPA can take unsafe uses of chemicals off the market. This bill is common sense. I am sure those who might be listening and those who might read the story from the Chicago Tribune and the research they did will find it very difficult to understand why it is we can't take the steps in here in the Congress to make their children safe. We do it in all kinds of ways to protect our kids. We want them to be able to grow and develop as children should--healthy, healthy kids. Some chemical industry lobbyists say the cost of testing all these chemicals would be too high. Talk to a parent whose children carry lots of toxins in their bodies already. Talk to the mothers who carry these toxins in their bodies and can transmit them very easily to their children, particularly in pregnancy. So, too high? Too high has to be judged not by the chemical company making a profit and wanting to make more. We cannot violate our responsibility to the mothers and fathers and the relatives and the families, where little kids live and enjoy life. What about that cost to the damage of their health? What about the cost to them? How high is that cost? I would like one of these chemical manufacturer executives to stand up to parents who are worried about the health and the well-being of their children and say they are not making enough money and they are going to have to pump more of these threatening materials into the atmosphere without submitting them for testing. What about the cost to the parents who have to pay for their care? The bottom line is this: If we don't act to protect Americans from thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products, who is going to do it? It is our responsibility. Throughout this process we have invited input from all sides of this issue, including the chemical industry. I have extended an open invitation to my Republican colleagues: Think about it. Look at it through the eyes of your children and of your families. Think about it. Or would you rather go to the bank with a larger deposit because you are doing something that is a threat to children of any age and any stage? So I asked colleagues from the Republican side to work with us. Work with me to fix this broken law. The one thing we will not do--and I know I speak for many others who are cosponsoring this legislation--we will not accept inaction. It is time to act. We want to mark up legislation to reform TSCA and move this legislation to the Senate floor, where decisions can be made. Opinions of individuals who may say, No, we would rather go ahead and enlarge our bank accounts, our cash reserves--let them say it in front of the public. That is when we will be conducting the kind of a test we should be doing here. We want to move the legislation to the Senate floor and have a vote on it. Hopefully good judgment and good sense will prevail and this will get through and get to the President's desk so he can sign it and start the process of protecting our kids. It is time to come together to finally fix this law and protect our families from toxic chemicals. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.