Providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 85) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2014.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend and debating partner, as he has just outlined from Worcester, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I want to begin by saying that it was very obvious from the moment that he stood up, Madam Speaker, that we have been debating over the last couple of days, and I wish him well in his recovery as he seeks to get his voice back as our debate proceeds.

I also want to say that as I listened to his account of his concern, that we all share, for those who are on food stamps, for those who are suffering during these difficult economic times. I want to congratulate him for his lifelong commitment to dealing with those who are suffering, and to say that I stand here with him committed to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that those who truly are in need, those who are on food stamps, do not see the rug pulled out from under them. That is a commitment that we are proud to make, standing with him on that. And I will say that I don't believe for 1 minute that our budget would in any way undermine those who are facing the serious economic challenges that we have.

But I have to say, Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the budget that was sent here to this Congress was, interestingly enough, entitled, ``The New Era of Responsibility,'' proving once again that, in Washington, spin seems to trump reality every single time.

Slapping the moniker of ``responsibility'' on a disastrous budget is far easier than actually crafting a responsible budget. But now is not the time to be taking the easy way out and abandoning our duties to wisely and effectively spend the taxpayers' money.

We, as we all know, are facing the gravest economic crisis that we have faced in nearly three decades. If there was ever a time for true leadership, it is now. And, regrettably, my colleague's side of the aisle has chosen this very critical moment to shirk the responsibility for the great task that is before us.

The Democratic budget imposes new taxes, new taxes on small businesses,

increasing that burden on job creators. So that will mean more lost jobs, fewer capital investments, and greater strain on our credit markets.

It also increases taxes on every single American household across this country with new energy taxes. In fact, families will see their taxes on energy go up by as much as $3,100 a year.

Now, these are not--these are not, Madam Speaker, as we all know, tax increases on the super rich, which we regularly hear decried around here. These are regressive taxes that will hit every single family in this country. And, Madam Speaker, it is important to note this energy tax will hit the poorest of families in this country, because they need to turn the light switch on and turn the microwave on as well.

This budget will have immediate and very, very painful consequences. But as painful as the short-term impact will be, the long-term consequences are even more troubling. This budget more than quadruples the deficit. My friend talked about how this budget reduces the deficit. All one needs to do is look at the numbers, Madam Speaker. This budget more than quadruples the deficit. It pushes our national debt to a level that threatens the solvency of this country for years to come, in fact, for generations to come.

Now, some Americans may be wondering why the deficit should matter while so many families are struggling. Well, let me clarify exactly what it is that we are talking about here.

Republicans are not advocating a complete eradication of the deficit in 2009. We have had deficits over the past several years. We all acknowledge that. And while we are committed to reining in wasteful spending, this time of serious economic challenges is not the time for sudden or extreme austerity.

Our concern with this budget is not that there is any deficit at all; our concern is that the deficit itself is so catastrophically huge. It takes the largest deficit in the last 8 years and expands it exponentially by 450 percent in this year alone, a 450 percent increase in the size of the deficit this year alone.

It is either amusing or tragic, depending on how seriously one takes this issue, to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whine that they inherited deficits. They justify their enormously wasteful budget by saying Republicans ran deficits, too. Yes, there were budget deficits when Republicans controlled Congress. We all acknowledge that. We have been fighting two wars; and, yes, we did not go as far as we would have liked in trimming down wasteful spending. We acknowledge that.

But what twisted and contorted logic, Madam Speaker, is it to say: Republican deficits were bad, so we are responding by making them four times worse. Is this really the Democratic majority's justification for what it is that we are doing today? Do they really think anyone could be fooled by such preposterous reasoning? This argument is not just bizarre, it is downright dangerous. It fails to take seriously the impact of exponentially growing debt.

It also fails to take seriously the nature of our current economic crisis. Some debt is manageable, as any working family knows. Americans borrow money all the time to buy a new car or pay for college tuition. At reasonable levels, debt is manageable. But as we have learned very painfully, irresponsibly and dramatically increased debt can be catastrophic.

Our Nation's oldest, most prestigious financial institutions have collapsed under the weight of their irresponsible debts. And now the Democratic majority is careening down the path that led these institutions into ruin. Our current economic crisis has come as the result of irresponsible, unaccountable behavior. We all know that. We simply cannot begin our recovery unless and until we begin to learn from our mistakes. The Democratic budget simply repeats and expands on those mistakes.

But, Madam Speaker, we do have another choice. We, as Republicans, have put forth an alternative that heeds the lessons of our economic crisis and applies some common sense to our spending priorities. It also heeds the lessons of history and previous times of economic crisis. We have experienced great economic challenges before throughout our Nation's history. And what have those experiences taught us? Now if we go back to the recessions in the early 1980s and the early 1960s, we see very clearly a Democratic President and a Republican President. President Ronald Reagan and President John F. Kennedy quickly righted our economies with pro-growth policies that empowered America's job creators. Again, a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, and a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, both put into place pro-growth policies that empowered the job creators here in the United States. John F. Kennedy, as I said, and Ronald Reagan after him, understood that all the government intervention in the world could never match the power of American entrepreneurship.

Madam Speaker, I am going to quote a Democratic President, President John F. Kennedy, who in 1962 said the following: ``To increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.'' Madam Speaker, I'm going to repeat the words of the great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy. In 1962, as we were dealing with economic challenges, he said, ``To increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.''

Madam Speaker, history proved John F. Kennedy right. His pro-growth reforms reversed the recession and put our economy back on the path to prosperity. We all know two decades later. My colleague, Mr. Lungren, and I were part of that ``Reagan Revolution.'' Reagan followed John F. Kennedy's lead and accomplished the same thing.

Now, Madam Speaker, today Republicans have proposed a budget built on the Kennedy-Reagan model, a budget that draws upon history's lessons and will allow our economy to grow once again. Our alternative also heeds the mistakes that led to our current crisis and rejects the Democratic majority's policy of massive, reckless new debt for the American people. This alternative will not eliminate the deficit immediately, but it responsibly funds our greatest needs while preventing the deficit from ballooning into an utterly unmanageable size.

It does not raise taxes on small businesses and working families, but, in fact, reduces the tax burden they face and empowers them to lead our economic recovery. It meets our needs as a Nation without condemning future generations to a mountain of crippling debt. It is the responsible solution that the American people are expecting. It is the only budget proposal before us today that will carry us through this economic crisis and begin the process of the recovery that I know we all seek in a bipartisan way.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would be happy to yield my friend additional time if he would yield to me.

Do I have any other option at all to discuss anything else? Is that all I can discuss is the failure of the past? If my friend would yield, and I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional minute, Madam Speaker.

I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that if we talk about the failure of the past, clearly the ideological baggage of the past has been the tax, spend and borrow policy which is being proposed here. Let me say I'm somewhat confused. I know that the President talked about reducing the deficit by half. Now, of course, if we run multitrillion-dollar deficits and you cut it down by a $1 trillion or $2 trillion, yeah, you can maybe cut it in half. But my friend has just said he is going to cut the deficit by two-thirds. I don't know where that comes from.

Let me just say from what it is now, based on the projections with all the spending that is in here, that will create deficits that are so extraordinarily high. That is the challenge that we have got here. When you dramatically increase the size of the deficits--I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I will yield myself such time as I may consume. And I'm happy to further engage my friend. And I will say that we have proposed a 10-year budget. This is a 5-year budget that my friend has. And I know that if you have multitrillion-dollar deficits that are going to be run, the dramatic increase in debt servicing is going to increase the size of those deficits.

I also have to say that it is very interesting, Madam Speaker, my friend said that I was able to talk about the Bush years. And yes, I'm very proud of the fact that in 2001 and 2003, dealing with the aftermath of September 11, an economic recession that existed in the early part of this decade and corporate scandals, that we were able, for 55 months, to have sustained economic growth. And I think that that is something of which we can be proud. But my point is, my arguments here were bipartisan. And John F. Kennedy was one of our greatest Presidents. And I'm very proud to say that we are standing on the shoulders of John F. Kennedy, if that will make my colleagues feel better. Mr. Lungren and I regularly argue that we are standing on the shoulders of Ronald Reagan.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I can reclaim my time, we are standing on the shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to use policies that have historically been very, very successful and brought about economic recovery through difficult times in our Nation.

At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Gold River, California, our former attorney general and my good friend, Mr. Lungren.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. And Madam Speaker, I would simply say in response to the cap-and-tax issue about which my friend has just spoken, that we do share a concern about the poor.

And as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there is a tax of up to $3,100 for every American family. That includes the working poor, it includes those who are impoverished who are still in their homes. And so the notion that we somehow are doing everything----

I yield my friend an additional minute. If the gentleman would further yield, the fact of the matter is, with this proposal that our colleagues have, they regularly point the finger of blame at us, that we somehow are trying to hurt the poor by cutting food stamps and nutrition programs, which is just plain wrong. But they fail to recognize that the tax burden, with this energy tax imposed on any family that turns the light switch on, is going to be overwhelmingly strong.

If the gentleman would further yield, I would simply say maybe it is perverse that we somehow believe that if a burden is imposed on a business, that it is something that is going to have to be passed on to the consumer. I mean, is that--maybe there's something wrong with that interpretation.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I was just handed a piece here which states that the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, our colleague, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from Minnesota, has made it clear that he is not going to allow for a single cut in agricultural subsidies, a story that has just come out here.

If my friend would further yield, under your budget how do you propose to have the cuts in agriculture if you're going to maintain the food stamp and nutrition program and not bring about cuts in subsidies?

I thank my friend for yielding. And, Madam Speaker, I would simply say to my friend, how does he justify the $3,100 tax that is imposed on struggling families who are impoverished with the so- called tax?

I thank my friend for yielding. There are several different studies which show----

There are several different studies.

There are studies that show there's an increase. The highest I've seen is $3,100.

I thank my friend for yielding. It's not a page in the budget. It's the fact that there is, in fact, a tax increase that several studies have shown ranged from $1,600 to $3,100 for a working family in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I know that the time was limited on the other side, so I'd like to respond to my good friend from Oregon and say that there are a number of studies which have indicated what this cost will be. The highest that I saw was this $3,100 figure.

Now, my friend has just said, this will be worked out later. And in saying this will be worked out later, that creates a degree of uncertainty as to exactly what the tax will be on working families.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I wanted to say that there are several studies. That is one study. And I don't have the other studies in front of me, Madam Speaker, but I would like to say that it stands to reason that if this structure is going to be put into place, the so-called cap-and-trade, talking about exchange of carbon taxes and the taxes that are out there, they are going to be passed on to consumers. And a number of studies, other than the MIT study, have indicated that this will increase the cost burden on working families throughout the United States of America, regardless of their economic standing.

Of course, I am happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, the fact is, Madam Speaker, there are several other studies which have talked about that tax burden which is going to be involved, not that single study. They range from roughly $1,600 to this $3,100 figure that we had in the past.

Of course. I am happy to yield.

What do I think happens to that money? I will tell you. Whatever the tax burden is, it is imposed on the families in this country who are on food stamps, who are on nutrition programs and who are struggling to make ends meet but still have to pay their energy bills.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

If my friend would yield, the fact of the matter is it has not been put into place, and it's very, very clear that there is a $1 billion place holder there, which is what they're planning to utilize.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very thoughtful new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say to our new colleague from Oregon, who has just joined us, that it seems that this budget is dealing with what is little more than a 5-year fantasy land. We're dealing with a 10-year proposal here, and the notion of saying, ``within a 5-year period of time,'' these projections are not taking into reality the huge debt that is going to be existing beyond that 5 years.

I've asked my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to return, and I've been doing a little research. Our staff has looked into this, and we've found that the professor about whom my friend was speaking from MIT did, in fact, say that there would be this one hundred fortieth level, but it was based on the fact that we would see rebates to those families provided, and yet there is nothing in this budget that provides for those rebates.

In light of that----

Let me just finish my thought, and then I will yield to my friend.

The fact is, if you look at that $3,100 figure, it does stand because the budget does not have a penny for those rebates.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, let me just-- --

Madam Speaker, who controls the time?

I think that I control all the time on our side, Madam Speaker, and I think that I've been yielded to.

Madam Speaker, if I may, what I said was I'm reclaiming my time. Did the Chair not hear me say that I was reclaiming my time from the gentleman?

Well, there was no amount of time yielded to him, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, if I may----

Madam Speaker, may I be recognized?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I would simply like to state to the Chair that the gentleman said that there was nothing in this budget that specifically referred to that. When he made his point in response to my question, I asked you to allow me to reclaim my time. I said it three times loudly and with enthusiasm, so I don't believe that I was talking over the gentleman. I was asking to reclaim my time.

Am I wrong?

Madam Speaker, let me state very clearly again for the recording clerk: What I was saying was ``reclaiming my time.'' That was the statement that I was making as the gentleman was speaking.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I would say to my friend that, as we look at this issue, there is nothing in this budget, but there is this $1 billion set-aside there. I would like to ask my friend if he could guarantee that that $1 billion will not be used for the so-called cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax plan, or that it will not be in the budget conference report that we have returning to us.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, may I reclaim my time?

I reclaim my time to ask again as I just did of my friend: Can the gentleman provide a guarantee that that $1 billion will not be used for this so-called ``cap-and-trade program'' and that it will not be included in a conference report that comes back to the House?

I'm happy to further yield to my friend to respond.

Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will say that the gentleman has made his point, and so he is not providing a guarantee that it is not going to be there, and I appreciate his recognizing that fact.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

I'd like to yield a minute and a half to our hardworking colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend if he has any further speakers.

If my friend from Worcester is prepared to close, I will yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, we all know this has been an interesting debate, a fascinating one, and I think there is going to be a very clear choice that is before us.

The American people are hurting. The people whom I represent in California and people all across this country are suffering because of the economic downturn that we face today. It is a very serious and a challenging one, and I believe that every Democrat and every Republican wants to do what they believe is best to get our economy back on track.

I will tell you that I think that it's important for us to look at history. We need to look at the history of spending and what it has created, and we need to look at the history of what it is that gets our economy growing. Dramatically increasing spending, as study after study has shown, does nothing to get our economy back on track, to get it growing.

I believe that those words that were offered by President Kennedy, that I quoted earlier, in 1962 as he was dealing with a difficult economic time, when he said, ``to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases and public expenditures but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.''

Now, Madam Speaker, the reason that I point to John F. Kennedy is that at the beginning of this administration's term and at the beginning of this Congress, we heard Democrats talk about the need for us to work in a bipartisan way. So what we're using, Madam Speaker, is the model of a great Democrat, John F. Kennedy, who recognized that dramatically increasing spending is not the cure that we need to deal with this challenge. And history proved John F. Kennedy right.

We know that tax cuts create jobs and jobs create revenues. It's true that we have a debt and a deficit that need to be addressed. The way to do that is to grow our economy. Tax increases do not increase jobs. And so it is absolutely imperative that we put a pro-growth policy into place, and that's what we do. We grow the economy, we recognize that there are serious societal needs out there, whether it is nutrition, whether it is food stamps. We need to address those. And we do provide for that in our budget. And at the same time, we focus on future generations by saying we are going to responsibly take the debt that exists and we are going to take it on a downward slope.

Now, my colleagues continue to talk about the next 5 years. Our budget focus is on 10 years. Why? Because we know that the 5-year plan that they have where they talk about reducing the multitrillion-dollar deficits that we're going to have, that they skyrocket after that 5- year period of time based on the spending that they plan to have in their budget.

So, Madam Speaker, we're going to continue with this rigorous debate that's taken place over the past hour-plus. We will see it happen throughout the day, and then we're going to have a chance to determine whether or not we are going to put into place policies that stand on the shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to grow our economy, reducing the tax burden on working Americans so that they can create jobs and increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, or are we going to have a policy which taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislation days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for further consideration of the budget under a structured rule. It makes in order four substitute amendments.

First, let me once again thank Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for all of their incredibly hard work. They obviously have very significant differences in philosophy, but they strive to make the Budget Committee a very fair and thoughtful place.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today will allow Members of this House to make a very clear choice: Do you believe we should pass a budget that invests in the American people? Or, do you believe we should pass a budget that makes the same old mistakes of the past?

My friend from California (Mr. Dreier) and I had a very good debate on the floor and in the Rules Committee yesterday, and I know that many of our colleagues will voice their opinions today during the debate. But I would like to take a bit of time to talk about the choice that Members will make today.

In addition to the Democratic and Republican budgets, this rule makes in order proposals from the Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Republican Study Group. So a wide range of options will be presented today.

I will vote proudly for the Democratic budget. Our budget reduces the deficit, it cuts taxes for middle-class families, and it makes critical investments in health care, education, and clean energy.

We will hear a lot today about the deficit, so let's remember one thing: The Obama administration inherited an economy in a deep recession, with a projected annual deficit of over $1 trillion. This deficit didn't simply appear out of thin air. It was the direct result of the policies of the Bush administration, along with their Republican allies in Congress, who inherited a large surplus and then proceeded to squander it.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will say, ``Don't talk about the administration, they are gone,'' as though 3 months ago is somehow ancient history. But we must talk about how we got into this mess. Those who ignore bad mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat it.

We believe that the best way, indeed, the only way to effectively reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, to create good-paying jobs for middle-class Americans, to improve the health and education of the American people, to invest in the cutting-edge green energy economy of the future.

By contrast, the Republican budget proposes slashes in health care and in nutrition for the most vulnerable Americans. It ignores the educational needs of our people. And it relies on the same dirty fossil fuels that threaten our environment and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Now, I would like to talk for a moment about a specific difference between the two budgets on hunger and nutrition. Mr. Dreier got very upset with me yesterday, I believe he used the word ``shrill,'' when I suggested that the Republican budget would cut food stamps and other nutrition programs. He argued that of course Republicans care about hunger, and that to argue otherwise would be class warfare.

Well, what do you know, when you actually look at the Republican budget they do in fact cut food stamps. They rescind the food stamp increases included in the stimulus bill; in other words, cutting the program below current law by more than $20 billion over 2 years. And if that weren't bad enough, the Republican budget instructs the Agriculture Committee to cut an additional $38 billion over 10 years.

Now, where would that $38 billion come from? It can only come from a couple places, agricultural subsidies or nutrition programs, because that is what the Agriculture Committee does. And Mr. Ryan said in the Rules Committee yesterday that they weren't proposing to reopen the farm bill.

So that means it won't come from the agricultural subsidies; that means that the additional $38 billion would most likely come from reducing nutrition programs for the most vulnerable Americans.

Now, here is what that means to the people at home. Because of the recovery package that we passed a few weeks ago, a family in Massachusetts will see an increase in their food stamp benefits by around $39 a month. But the Republican budget eliminates that increase, literally taking food out of the mouths of Americans already struggling to make ends meet.

This increase averages out to a little more than $1 a day. Now, many of my colleagues spend three or four times that amount on a latte. Maybe $39 a month isn't a big deal to those in this Chamber, but it is a lot of money for people who have been adversely impacted by this lousy economy.

I believe it is wrong to cut food and nutrition programs for vulnerable people in order to pay for capital gains tax cuts for Wall Street traders.

Madam Speaker, we all talk about how bad things are on Main Street, and our budget should be designed to help the people who live on Main Street and on the side streets as well, whether that is in California or Massachusetts or somewhere in between. But let me tell you how bad things are out there, and let me tell you why the Republican budget will make things worse.

School districts across this country are facing budget shortfalls. Families are having hard times making ends meet. Unfortunately, some families don't even have enough money to pay for the school meals, and the schools are taking drastic measures in response, according to a February 25 Associated Press article.

According to the article, many schools are literally taking kids out of the lunch line because their parents can't afford to pay the cost of a reduced lunch and they are giving them a cheese sandwich, or, in some cases, giving them nothing simply because their parents can't afford to pay for the reduced-price school lunch.

According to this article, the School Nutrition Association recently found that half of the school districts from 38 States surveyed have seen an increase in the number of students charging meals, while 79 percent saw an increase in the number of free lunches served over the last year. This means that more families are relying on the Federally funded school lunch program to help feed their kids; yet, the Republican budget would basically cut school lunch funding from the budget, once again making it harder for our children to get the proper food and nutrition they need.

Now, my good friend from the other side of the aisle will probably say that this is class warfare, that the Democrats are demagoguing this issue. Well, let me tell my good friend from California that the Republican budget requires the Education and Labor Committee to cut almost $23 billion from programs in their jurisdiction. One of the biggest programs, if not the biggest program, is the school lunch program. And if the Republican Party isn't cutting school lunch, then I would like to hear where they are going to make these cuts. Student loans, special education, funding for basic education needs?

Let me be clear: A vote for the Republican budget is a vote to cut programs that are essential and that are helping Americans get through these tough times today, and it is a vote to ensure that people will not be able to improve their lives.

Madam Speaker, those of us in this Chamber earn a good salary. No matter what happens, we will all be fine; but there are a lot of people whom we represent who won't be, unless we provide some help. These are difficult times, and we need to rise to the occasion.

So again, Madam Speaker, Members will have the opportunity to make some very clear choices today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Democratic budget, to believe in the potential of the American people, to restore the American dream, and to leave a better America for future generations.

No Free Lunch: Schools Get Tough on Deadbeats

Albuquerque, N.M.--A cold cheese sandwich, fruit and a milk

carton might not seem like much of a meal--but that's what's

on the menu for students in New Mexico's largest school

district without their lunch money.

Faced with mounting unpaid lunch charges in the economic

downturn, Albuquerque Public Schools last month instituted a

``cheese sandwich policy,'' serving the alternative meals to

children whose parents fail to pick up their lunch tab.

Such policies have become a necessity for schools seeking

to keep budgets in the black while ensuring children don't go

hungry. School districts including those in Chula Vista,

Calif., Hillsborough County, Fla., and Lynnwood, Wash., have

also taken to serving cheese sandwiches to lunch debtors.

Critics argue the cold meals are a form of punishment for

children whose parents can't afford to pay.

``We've heard stories from moms coming in saying their

child was pulled out of the lunch line and given a cheese

sandwich,'' said Nancy Pope, director of the New Mexico

Collaborative to End Hunger. ``One woman said her daughter

never wants to go back to school.''

mixed reviews

Some Albuquerque parents have tearfully pleaded with school

board members to stop singling out their children because

they're poor, while others have flooded talk radio shows

thanking the district for imposing a policy that commands

parental responsibility.

Second-grader Danessa Vigil said she will never eat sliced

cheese again. She had to eat cheese sandwiches because her

mother couldn't afford to give her lunch money while her

application for free lunch was being processed.

``Every time I eat it, it makes me feel like I want to

throw up,'' the 7-year-old said.

Her mother, Darlene Vigil, said there are days she can't

spare lunch money for her two daughters.

``Some parents don't have even $1 sometimes,'' the 27-year-

old single mother said. ``If they do, it's for something

else, like milk at home. There are some families that just

don't have it and that's the reason they're not paying.''

The School Nutrition Association recently surveyed

nutrition directors from 38 states and found more than half

of school districts have seen an increase in the number of

students charging meals, while 79 percent saw an increase in

the number of free lunches served over the last year.

``families struggling''

In New Mexico, nearly 204,000 low-income students--about

three-fifths of public school students--received free or

reduced-price lunches at the beginning of the school year,

according to the state Public Education Department.

``What you are seeing is families struggling and having a

really hard time, and school districts are struggling as

well,'' said Crystal FitzSimons of the national Food Research

and Action Center.

In Albuquerque, unpaid lunch charges hovered around $55,000

in 2006. That jumped to $130,000 at the end of the 2007-08

school year. It was $140,000 through the first five months of

this school year.

Charges were on pace to reach $300,000 by the end of the

year. Mary Swift, director of Albuquerque's food and

nutrition services, said her department had no way to absorb

that debt as it had in the past.

``We can't use any federal lunch program money to pay what

they call bad debt. It has to come out of the general budget

and of course that takes it from some other department,''

Swift said.

``dignity and respect''

With the new policy, the school district has collected just

over $50,000 from parents since the beginning of the year. It

also identified 2,000 students eligible to receive free or

reduced-price lunches, and more children in the lunch program

means more federal dollars for the district.

School officials said the policy was under consideration

for some time and parents were notified last fall. Families

with unpaid charges are reminded with an automated phone call

each night and notes are sent home with children once a week.

Swift added that the cheese sandwiches--about 80 of the

46,000 meals the district serves daily--can be considered a

``courtesy meal,'' rather than an alternate meal.

Some districts, she noted, don't allow children without

money to eat anything.

Albuquerque Public Schools ``has historically gone above

and beyond as far as treating children with dignity and

respect and trying to do what's best with for the child and I

think this is just another example,'' Swift said.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California for his concern for my voice. And I appreciate the fact that he admitted that the Bush deficits were a bad thing. That is the first important step toward a recovery. So I appreciate that. And he mentions the two wars we fought. I would remind him that they were always off budget. And the budget the Democrats present today is a more honest accounting of those expenditures.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Andrews.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm not sure how pointing out that the Republican budget cuts nutrition is a personal attack. But I guess the truth stings a little bit.

The fact of the matter is that their substitute rescinds $20 billion in food stamp funding right off the top. I mean, that's just a fact.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

So that means it's only food stamps. And the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, said that the farm bill was off the table. So there's a bipartisan, you know, I guess agreement that the farm bill is going to stand. But your budget----

I reclaim my time. Under our budget we do not rescind the $20 billion in food stamp funding. Beyond that, the Republican budget freezes all discretionary spending. That potentially cuts off nutrition assistance to between 500,000 and 1 million pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants and small children, including monies for the WIC program.

So, we can sit here and talk about abstractions all we want. The bottom line is that these programs that we're talking about, these cuts that are being proposed by the Republican budget, have a direct impact on real people. And maybe those aren't the people that come to Washington to lobby, but I'll tell you, the number of people who have fallen into poverty, the number of people who are still struggling just to hold on to the middle class, they're dwindling. And so your budget makes it much worse.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California to tell me what page in our budget that figure comes from.

Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I thank the gentleman.

We are really tight on time, Mr. Dreier.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Etheridge.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Schrader.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of how much time remains on both sides?

I'd like to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

(Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.

We have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting debate, but the fact is that Members will have a clear choice. And it's a choice of whether or not you want to stick to the same old-same old, or whether you want to go in a dramatically different direction.

If you have loved the last 8 years, then you should vote for the Republican budget because it's a continuation of the same thing.

If you want a different direction, a direction in which we invest in our economy, invest in our health care, invest in clean energy, invest in education and reduce our deficits, then you need to vote for the Democratic budget.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, the Republican budget, among other things, repeals most of the economic stimulus package that we passed, a stimulus package that is already helping our economy. In my district, a health IT company has already announced they are going to hire 500 more people because of the money for health IT in the economic stimulus package.

And what I find ironic is that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, you know, and who now will vote against it again by voting for the Republican budget, are going back to their districts and will be taking credit for all of this Federal money going to help the people in their communities.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken so many bows, they are humpbacked.

The fact of the matter is we have a problem not just 5 years from now and not just 10 years from now; we have a problem today. There are people in my district today who can't put food on the table. There are people in my district today who are losing their jobs who can't afford a college education for their kids.

We need to approve the Democratic budget because we need to understand if we're going to reduce our debt, we need to have our economy grow, and the only way to grow is by providing smart, sound, good investments. That's the choice.

And so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic budget. I am proud to stand here in support of it. I have two kids, a 10-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter. I am voting for this budget because of them. I want to give them a better future. And that's what this debate is about.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, first I do want to offer my congratulations to the gentlelady for simply offering the budget. As one who has written budgets before, on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, it is hard, difficult, challenging work, but I know the lady is committed to her set of principles. They are diametrically opposed to mine, but I respect her body of work and her commitment to her philosophy.

Madam Chairman, as we look at this budget and the other Democrat alternatives, frankly, they have a whole lot more in common than they have in their differences. All of these budgets, all of these Democratic budgets, are simply radical. They are radical departures from over 200 years of history in America.

Every single one, Madam Chairman, spends too much. They tax too much, and they borrow too much. We are looking, even prior to the submission of this progressive budget, much less the Democratic-controlled House Budget Committee budget, we were looking at drowning in a sea of red ink. We were looking at entitlement spending simply being out of control.

And don't take my word for it, Madam Chairman. Let's listen to the Federal Reserve. ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Listen to our most recent former Comptroller General Walker of the General Accountability Office. ``The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer, a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''

Now, Madam Chairman, that was all before the submissions of these budgets. And let's look at the recent history of this Democratic- controlled Congress. Seven hundred billion dollars of bailout money, costing every American household $6,034. Now, some Members on the other side of the aisle claim the taxpayer is going to get his money back. I hope that proves to be true. As history is my guide, I have some doubts.

A $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan, not a plan to stimulate the economy, a plan to stimulate big government, costing every American household $9,810. Madam Chairman, where are they going to get this money? People are losing their jobs. Credit is being contracted. And yet, spending bill after spending bill after spending bill.

Then, Madam Chairman, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, costing every American household $3,534. Now, on top of all this, on top of all this massive spending, we have the single largest budget in American history being proposed, more spending than this Nation has ever seen. More spending than this Nation has ever seen, even with respect to the economy, with the exception of World War II.

These are budgets that are going to impose costs on the average American family of over $30,000. Again, Madam Chairman, this progressive budget, along with all the other Democratic budgets, spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

Now, Madam Chairman, speaker after speaker has come to the floor to decry the inherited economic mess. There is an economic mess. But our President inherited this economic mess from a Democratic-controlled Congress. When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, the deficit was $160 billion and falling. And now, just 2 years later, just 2 years later, it was $1.3 trillion, and the President decided to add on another 500, $600 billion on top of that. We're looking at an increase in the Federal deficit of tenfold in just 2 years.

And now, Madam Chairman, each one of these Democratic budgets is proposing more debt, more debt in the next 10 years than has been run up in the previous 200 years of our Nation's history, going back to the dawn of the Republic. We have never seen these levels of debt.

Again, Madam Chairman, never in our history have so few voted so fast to indebt so many and do so little good. As history is my guide, no nation, no nation has ever borrowed or spent its way into prosperity, no matter how they tried. This is simply radical.

Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where European socialists are lecturing the United States of America about fiscal responsibility. What a topsy-turvy world we live in, Madam Chairman. Never thought we would have seen the day. But now that spectacle is on television.

Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where our Secretary of State has to go to China and beg them to keep on buying our debt? Even the Chinese, the Communist Chinese, are now lecturing the United States of America about its profligate spending.

Madam Chairman, if any of these Democratic budgets are passed, we will be the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with less freedom, less opportunity and a lower standard of living. It is unavoidable. And that's why this budget is so radical.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would first yield myself 30 seconds to say to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and my friend, that I would certainly concede the point that he is probably far more familiar with socialists in Europe than I am, and I concede that point.

I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

With 30 seconds, I'll reclaim my time.

I would also point out to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee Article I, section 9 of our Constitution that puts the spending power with the Congress, and to remind him that his party has been in control for the last 2 years.

With that, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chairwoman, we come to this floor with a sobering recognition: $657 billion spent on the war in Iraq. Certainly we would not take one cent away from

our soldiers, their care, the care of their families. But $657 billion on a war that generated the kind of controversy and questionable results that the Iraq war created puts us in the position we're in today.

For at the same time that we were fighting a war, the last administration saw no reason to ask America to sacrifice. And so it gave these enormous--that administration gave these enormous tax cuts that put us in this very difficult position of reaching $1 trillion in debt.

What we do today with this budget--and I stand here as a vice chair and one believing in the principles of this administration of helping America restore itself in energy, health care, education--this budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, puts more money to extinguish poverty, it cuts the tax cuts that have been given to the rich, and it invests those moneys in education, climate control, as well as providing for our veterans, and, yes, it does something enormously unique: it provides a pathway for rehabilitation for ex-offenders. It intervenes with respect to youths who are involved in crime, and it provides the resources to fully fund what we call the Second Chance bill, allowing ex-offenders to be rehabilitated to go back to their families and get their families off of welfare.

Research has shown that targeting funding towards intervention rather than incarceration is more effective than reducing crime and saves the taxpayers' money in the long run.

This is a bill for the people of America. I ask my colleagues to support it and to support the President's budget.

Madam Chair, I would like to rise in support of the budget put forward today by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This alternative budget combats the worsening poverty and Hurricane Katrina redress, renews federal commitment to fully address the on-going suffering of the victims of Hurricane Katrina and help cut the poverty rate in America by 50 percent during the next decade with increased funding for decent affordable housing, anti-hunger programs, and more quality child care. This Progressive budget restores the 21st century social contract and safety net; Economic Stimulus #2 ($300 billion), which provides more immediate help to overcome the ``Iraq recession'' through increased federal assistance for unemployment insurance, food stamps, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states, and housing assistance.

The Congressional Progressive Budget targets waste, fraud, and abuse in federal government, starting with Pentagon savings and projects enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at least $60 billion/year on largely obsolete Cold War weapons systems plus billions more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending identified by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).

This Progressive budget repeals the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers--due to expire in 2010 regardless and beyond-- savings of at least $222 billion and cracks down on corporate welfare while projecting elimination of various corporate tax loopholes such as deductibility of advertising for junk mail, imaging purposes, etc. and special tax breaks for oil and gas industry and other extraction industries.

This alternative budget shifts some spending and increases other non- military spending to fight root causes of terrorism--21st century diplomacy, meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB, universal basic education for all); Global Warming and Energy Independence, sustained investments in renewable energy and energy independence, including needed extension of production and investment tax credits. This budget includes full funding of authorized levels for green jobs and pathways out of poverty grants. In addition, climate policy should significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a manner which supports economic security and health of low-income and moderate-income families and communities of color and education for all--fully fund Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA prospectively and improve Teacher Corps and job training. This ``progressive'' budget includes Medicare for All--affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans, starting with full funding of SCHIP to cover every child in America.

Included in this budget is Guaranteed Veterans' Health Care--which ensures whatever federal funding is needed to provide health care (including mental health) for all America's veterans (including but not limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations; support for the Middle-Class--increase funding to protect fundamental worker rights, enforce fair credit and lending practices, and promote livable wages and safe workplaces; and rebuild America's Communities-- substantially increase funding for Community Development Block Grants, Social Services Block Grants, and community policing, and authorize release of funds available through the gas tax to clean-up leaking underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly half of all Americans. This progressive budget increases funding supporting the Office of Environmental Justice and environmental justice programs, including community grants and a review of the EPA and other agencies' policies to ensure they are protective of minority and low-income communities. Madam Chair, we need to pass a real budget for America that's forward thinking and ``progressive'' that will get us back on the right track.

Madam Speaker, I think someone who sells real estate or teaches school for a living must listen to this budget debate and be befuddled by what he or she is hearing. Thankfully, today there will be a chance for that citizen to hear a wide range of alternatives, a wide range of views as to how we should fix the country's economic problems. For that, I commend the Rules Committee under Ms. Slaughter's and Mr. McGovern's leadership, and I hope the minority will vote for the procedure that lets that wide range of views be heard.

But that person who teaches school or sells real estate has heard consistently from the minority that their household will get a $3,000- a-year tax increase. That isn't so. The fact of the matter is that the hypothetical, mythical energy tax that the minority continuously refers to is not in the budget. If there ever were to be such a tax, it would have to come to this floor for a separate vote, a separate debate and separate consideration. The minority habitually says that small businesses and families will have their taxes increase. The fact of the matter is there are instructions to pay for health care that would probably look to repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest 5 percent of people in this country, a platform the President ran on and was elected on. It is absolutely untrue that the 95 percent below that figure have any sort of tax increase. They don't. In fact, there is a $1.7 trillion tax reduction for the bottom 95 percent of people in this country, for middle-class people. We hear that small businesses are going to have their taxes increase. That is not true. Ninety-eight percent of the small businesses in this country file tax returns lower than the adjusted gross income that would be affected by the provisions that would help pay for the health care bill.

We hear habitually about deficit and debt, and those on the minority side gnash their teeth and weep that the debt, according to them, will be doubled in 5 years. They know all about that, because that is exactly what they just did. They just doubled the national debt in the last 5 years under their watch.

The fact of the matter is that this plan reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the next 5 years.

Now I do agree with my friend from California that this is about choice, this is about how to handle our economic distress. President Obama came to office and said he would do three things. He said he would pass a bill to stimulate the economy by helping people buy houses, buy cars, get construction workers back to work and keep people working and teaching in our schools. He did it. He then said his administration would lay out a plan to stabilize the collapsing banking system. Such a plan was laid out at the beginning of last week. And although it is far too early to measure its results, early signs are good. And then he said he would lay out a long-term plan for economic development, jobs and growth that would address the fundamental, underlying problems of this country. And that is what we are doing today. Stop living on borrowed money; he is cutting the deficit by two- thirds. Make us free from imported energy; he sets out a path to do so that Congress will either follow or not. Deal with health care reform; he sets out a path to do so that we will deal with through reconciliation instructions, whether you vote for it or not. And finally, he sets forth a path to broaden access to education and improve its quality.

Just one moment. I just want to finish this point. I would love to hear from you.

The other side wants nostalgia. If we were to have a third George Bush term, their alternative is what it would look like; make permanent the tax breaks for the wealthiest, reduce what we spend on education, nutrition, environment, energy and health care, and hope for the best. This is a choice between the future of promise and the failure of the past. And if my friend would like to ask me about the failure of the past, he can certainly do that.

Reclaiming my time, has the gentleman read the majority budget resolution? If the gentleman would read it, he would see that the deficit is two-thirds at the end of the 5-year cycle.

Reclaiming my time, if I may.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman can stand on whomever's shoulders he wants. I'm afraid that the economic collapse you have left us with is standing on the chest of the working American.

My friend from California continually references this energy tax increase. He's very astute on the rules, Madam Speaker, and he knows that the way you can set the predicate to raise revenue in a budget resolution is by a reconciliation instruction.

Would the gentleman care to tell us where the reconciliation instruction is to raise money for this cap-and-tax that he keeps talking about?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his statement. It is not in place. Therefore, there's no tax in this budget.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the underlying budget resolution that adversely affects the marriage penalty situation for any middle-class person. Again, 95 percent of families in this country get a tax cut, not a tax increase. It's just not so.