Reducing Non-Security Spending to Fiscal Year 2008 Levels or Less

Floor Speech

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 38, an irresponsible piece of legislation that asks the members of the House to abdicate their responsibility to vote on a budget for the federal government. This resolution opens the door to massive funding cuts to programs that are critical to our fragile economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, with H. Res. 38 the Republicans have offered what they call a ``Budget Resolution''--but what should be called a ``Budgetless Resolution'' because it contains no numbers, no specifics and, worst of all, no ideas for job creation or economic recovery.

Instead, it takes the unprecedented step of giving unilateral authority to the Budget Committee chairman to set spending limits for the federal government. With all due respect to Chairman Ryan, no members of Congress should ever contract out their vote to another member--especially not on something as fundamentally important as setting funding levels for the federal government.

H. Res. 38, the Budgetless Resolution, is a one-page document that makes the vague and simplistic goal of reducing federal spending to 2008 levels or less. Democrats are serious about deficit reduction. But we also must make sure that we continue on the path to economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. If we are going to work on deficit reduction--as we should--we should go through the budget surgically, examining where federal investments are working and where they are not.

The Republican plan is the exact opposite approach--it is deficit reduction while blindfolded. The across the board Republican budget cuts would seriously hurt the people in my district by gashing funding for critical programs.

We are not talking about ``duplicative'' or ``wasteful'' spending. We are talking about Title I education funding that gives poor students after-school support that helps them reach their full potential; GOP cuts would leave over 332,000 students in California without extra academic support.

We are talking about Title II education funds that keep class sizes small and classrooms more focused; GOP cuts would lay off over 1,000 teachers in California, resulting in dramatically larger class sizes for students in my district.

And this is just one example of the effect that Republican budget cuts would have in one state and in one area. Imagine how devastating the cumulative effect of Republicans' blind, across the board cuts. We are not talking about stripping funding for ``bridges to nowhere''--we are talking about real people; real lives; real families.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to cut spending, let's not do so blindly. Let's have a bipartisan conversation about what our spending priorities are and where we can afford to trim the budget. I am certain that we can come to some agreement if we at least allow a conversation to be had. Deficit reduction is one of Democrats' top priorities. But we owe it to the American people to do so responsibly.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H. Res. 38.

Source