[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   REDUCING NON-SECURITY SPENDING TO FISCAL YEAR 2008 LEVELS OR LESS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 25, 2011

  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.

                          ____________________