Providing for Consideration of House Resolution 38, Reducing Non-Security Spending to Fiscal Year 2008 Levels or Less

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 43, ``A rule providing for consideration of the Republican Budget-less Resolution.''

Through the American Recovery Act of 2009 (stimulus bill), Congress threw out a massive lifeline to save Americans who were on the verge of losing their jobs and to create jobs for those who were unemployed. We have received numerous reports from our constituents and the Administration of the positive impact the stimulus funding is having on our economy. Yet, we know there is still more work to do. This bill will undermine and erode the many scarifies Americans have made to adjust to the downturn in the economy. This bill is turning America backwards in the wrong direction.

The new proposal of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) to cut and then freeze non-defense discretionary spending at 2008 levels from 2012 through 2021 would mean cuts of more than 40 percent in education, environmental protection, law enforcement, medical research, food safety, and many other key services.

For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) funding at the FY2008 enacted level instead of the FY2010 enacted level would result in a decrease $2.83 billion--$7.46 billion enacted for FY2008 vs. $10.29 billion enacted for FY2010. The majority of this decrease below the FY2010 appropriations would be the result of a $2.04 billion decrease within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, and a $665.8 million decrease within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account.

The decrease within the STAG account would be attributed primarily to funding for capitalization grants for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), although numerous other grants also are funded within this account. The SRF funding specifically supports local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, respectively.

Furthermore, the EPM account funds a broad range of activities involved in EPA's development of pollution control regulations and standards, and enforcement of these requirements across multiple environmental media, such as air quality and water quality.

This proposal would represent the deepest annual cut in funding for these programs in recent U.S. history. It would remove substantial purchasing power from a weak economy, thereby costing hundreds of thousands of jobs and raising risks of a double-dip recession.

If imposed across the board, such a cut would mean 42 percent less for healthcare for veterans; 42 percent less for K-12 education; 42 percent less for protecting the environment; 42 percent less for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and border security; 42 percent less for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 42 percent less for food safety and inspection; and so on.

Specifically, in my Congressional District, the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, two active Light Rail construction projects are underway. These projects exemplify urban mobility, jobs, economic prosperity, energy independence and sustainable growth for the city of Houston. The projects are commonly referred to as the North Corridor Line and the Southeast Corridor Line. It is critical that these projects continue so that the construction can proceed and the benefits of the new service can be available to the traveling public as soon as possible. In the FY2011 appropriations legislation that passed the House of Representatives, we were able to secure $150 million for Houston METRO. However, we were unable to preserve this funding in the legislation that passed the Senate, which resulted in the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress at the end of last year not including this funding or any other funding for specific New Starts projects for Houston METRO. I want to ensure that my constituents are in a position to feed their families, to secure employment and further his or her education by preserving this important funding.

I represent an international energy hub and global business city. Twenty-six companies on the 2010 Fortune 500 list maintain their headquarters in Houston and many more have administrative operations located in Houston. More than 3,000 firms conduct international business in over 200 countries, making Houston a truly global city. Houston is also a burgeoning leader in the information technology, nanotechnology, aerospace, and health care industries.

To adopt this resolution would be crippling my District and eliminating the guarantee through these projects of thousands of jobs for Houstonians. It is factual that Houston's expertise in global business and energy will provide the southwest region with an economic boost that will ensure the United States remains an international economic leader.

Consequently, the House majority, of course, could decide to meet its overall target for non-defense discretionary spending while protecting one or more of the programs and services listed above. But, a cut of less than 42 percent in, say, education or environmental protection would necessitate even more draconian cuts in, say, food safety and border security.

Our Border States are frustrated and in need of targeted assistance. Over the last year, I attended a number of different hearings, meetings with local and state officials, and press conferences on immigration, combating the drug trade, and improving the border, and in almost all instances, I have heard the same comment: Border States are frustrated. The deeply misguided Arizona Law, (SB 1070) for example, is an expression of that frustration. Unless we want to see more of a backlash, we in the federal government must do more to help our Border States, which are vital to securing our nation and upholding our immigration laws, and helping local and state officials secure our Border States.

The United States continues to fight the battle against the powerful drug trafficking organizations that have plagued our sister cities just across the border with violence. We have been fortunate thus far that for the most part the violence has not spilled over into the United States, but we cannot depend on being insulated forever. Instability abroad, especially on the border, is a danger to stability at home, and we have a vested interest in helping our neighbors to the southwest combat the criminal organizations that have threatened the safety of their citizens and brought drugs into our country.

First of all, we need to provide more ``boots on the ground'' to help secure our borders. While deterrence through additional personnel is essential to improving security, several members of the law enforcement community have also stressed the importance of providing more resources for investigators and detectives, who can help to ferret out and dismantle the criminal activities taking place on our borders.

Moreover, while federal agencies have improved their coordination with the Border States, communication within local and state authorities continues to be problematic. Communication in disperse rural areas presents a particular challenge. At a hearing on the Merida Initiative, I heard the moving testimony of a rancher from rural Arizona, Mr. Bill McDonald. He pointed out how a lack of resources and a rapid turnover rate make communication extremely important, but extremely lacking. These rural areas, and the people who live there, are in many cases the most vulnerable to human traffickers and drug traffickers.

There is a desperate need for Border States to receive the necessary support to effectively secure our borders from threats and ensure a safe and stable environment for our border residents. More robust, well funded, and well resourced law enforcement systems are exactly what our Border States and residents demand.

It is quite disappointing that we cannot accurately evaluate this resolution because it does not really provide a clear breakdown of the $100 billion in cuts it claims for the 2012 budget. The first $80 billion in savings would be to ``Replace the spending levels in the continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels.'' That, obviously, is incredibly vague.

This legislation would end federal subsidies for Amtrak, which basically means the end of train travel in the United States. This resolution would end federal involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would, as Ezra Klein says, likely plunge the mortgage securitization market into chaos and send housing prices skidding again. It would repeal the federal support for state Medicaid budgets that has plugged the gap for many states with budgets hit hard by the recession, meaning many poor people would likely lose their access to medical care.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source