Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is also the ranking Democratic member on Health and Human Services.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 14-day continuing resolution. The House majority is threatening to close down the government. This is brinkmanship. Their desire to engage in brinkmanship damages our economy and creates uncertainty for businesses and families.

Make no mistake, the proposed budget cuts will cost jobs, 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012, according to economist Mark Zandi, who, in fact, was the chief economist for Senator John McCain in his Presidential bid.

Let me be clear. I am very supportive of the removal of earmarks in this resolution. They should be cut. We understand the need for deficit reduction. The question is where do we start?

Our first priority should be to go after waste and special interest spending: $40 billion to the oil industry which we are providing today, $40 billion. What about the almost $8 billion to multinational corporations who take their jobs overseas? And, yes, what about the $8 billion in agricultural subsidies?

It is too bad that cutting these special interest subsidies is not the priority of the majority's resolution. Instead, this budget makes deep and reckless cuts in the areas that most impact middle class and working families.

Of the $4 billion in immediate cuts put forward by this 14-day resolution, $1.4 billion comes out of Education, Health and Human Services, and out of training programs. And, yes, almost a billion dollars, a quarter of the cuts, comes out of education. Education should be one of the last places we look to cut the budget, not the first.

Yes, these cuts could be achieved by eliminating four programs proposed for termination by the President, as well as eliminating funding associated with earmarks last year. But these are not the President's proposals. While he would cut some education programs, he would then reinvest those savings in other education programs considered more effective. This resolution just wipes out the funding.

This resolution severely cuts efforts to reduce illiteracy, which is a serious national problem for economic, as well as human, reasons. The largest program targeted, Striving Readers, represents a consolidation and reorganization of literacy programs that was just launched in 2010. Why would the Republican majority think it is responsible to strip away funding to improve literacy in this country before it even has a chance to work?

I'm particularly concerned and disappointed by the elimination of Even Start. Even Start is about breaking the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving educational opportunities for families. I do not agree with the President's assessment that it should be terminated, and I do not support its elimination in this resolution. This is an effective and a critical program that should be allowed to continue.

I'm not the only one concerned by the consequences of this reckless budget. Three hundred leading economists have signed a letter to the President noting how these spending cuts will diminish our economic competitiveness. Goldman Sachs reported to its investors that the Republican budget will slash economic growth by 2 percent of our economic growth. That would send the unemployment numbers back over 10 percent.

Americans want us to craft a budget for the remainder of the year that creates jobs, reduces the deficit, and strengthens the economy.

Do we start with slashing special interests and waste like the $40 billion that we are providing in subsidies to the oil companies? And last time any of us looked, they were doing pretty well. They don't need any subsidies. Or do we start by cutting the things that help the middle class, which help our businesses, and working families with children and with seniors?

This resolution increases unemployment. It will hurt our economic recovery. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source