[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1763-H1764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, what would your nightmare 
budget look like? Can you a imagine a budget that would cut support for 
homeland security and small business development, that would do 
virtually nothing to improve one of the most sluggish economic 
recoveries in American history, that would break the Contract with 
America by raising the debt ceiling under cover of a budget resolution, 
that would balloon the debt and the deficit to previously unimagined 
dimensions, and that would do all of

[[Page H1764]]

this less than 5 years before the first of the baby boom generation 
begins to retire?
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that nightmare is a reality; and this 
reality has been created by the President and the House Republican 
leadership.
  In the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, 
almost $10 trillion since President Bush took office, the Republican 
response has been to propose more and more of the same failed policies. 
Finding themselves in a hole, their motto is, just keep digging. There 
is no clearer example of this than the phony pay-as-you-go proposal in 
the Republican budget that requires offsets for entitlement spending 
but not for tax cuts.
  Yesterday, Democrats and moderate Republicans came together and voted 
to instruct the House-Senate budget conferees to institute a real pay-
as-you-go proposal, akin to the one that brought us out of deficits and 
into surpluses in the 1990s. But, as has become standard operating 
procedure around the House lately, when the vote did not turn out the 
way the Republican leadership liked, they kept that vote open and began 
the arm-twisting; and after 28 minutes they had twisted enough arms to 
bring the vote to a tie and to defeat this effort at sound budget 
policy.
  So now we are left with a budget in conference that would provide the 
worst of both worlds. It sends us over the cliff fiscally while at the 
same time radically reducing funding for education, the environment, 
transportation, health care and law enforcement.
  Let me focus, Madam Speaker, for a moment on what may come as a 
surprise to many Americans who have listened to the Republican 
leadership and the President spend a lot of time talking about homeland 
security and the importance of our first responders. This budget shows 
that talking is about all they are willing to do for our first 
responders, our police, our fire departments, our medical personnel.
  The Republican budget makes significant cuts in Homeland Security and 
Department of Justice funding for first responders that results in an 
overall reduction in funding for our police of 33 percent, with a 50 
percent reduction in funding for police in smaller cities and rural 
areas. They also cut funding for firefighters by one-third at a time 
when the Federal Emergency Management Agency is reporting that over 
two-thirds of fire departments in this country operate with staffing 
levels that do not meet the minimum safe staffing levels required by 
OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association.
  The Speaker yesterday concluded the debate on the budget resolution 
by saying the reason it was important to cut taxes for millionaires was 
because millionaires are the small business owners who are creating all 
the jobs in this country. Our friend, the gentleman from Ohio, just 
repeated that argument on this floor tonight.
  Some of those millionaires are small business owners, but again the 
Republican budget shows the true motivation of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle. The Bush administration and the Republican 
leadership have fought to zero out funding, in fact, for the Small 
Business Administration's flagship 7(a) loan program that provides 
close to 30 percent of the long-term loans for small businesses; and 
they zero out countless other small business programs like Microloans 
and others geared toward minority businesses. If, as the Speaker 
implied, the reason for tax cuts for millionaires was really to help 
small businesses, why did it take an extended press and letter-writing 
campaign orchestrated by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), 
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, to get the 
Republican leadership to finally back off of some of these cuts in 
Small Business Administration funding?
  The answer, I am afraid, is obvious. The tax cuts were not meant to 
help small businesses or to spur the economy. They were meant to 
provide a windfall for the most fortunate among us.
  Governing is about getting our priorities straight and taking the 
public trust seriously. Through the Spratt alternative budget 
resolution, fiscally responsible Democrats have made our priorities 
clear: fund the programs America needs like education, health care, 
housing, homeland security and safety net programs, balance our budget 
by freezing scheduled tax reductions for those making over $500,000 a 
year, and target tax cuts in ways that benefit ordinary Americans and 
stimulate our economy.
  There is still time, Madam Speaker, for our colleagues to wake up and 
reject the Republican nightmare budget and to pass a budget that points 
to a brighter future. House-Senate conferees could start by adopting 
real pay-as-you-go rules. I urge them to gauge the House's true 
sentiment and do just that.

                          ____________________