[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 9686-9695]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 85, CONCURRENT 
             RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 316

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union 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. 
     The concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall 
     be considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points 
     of order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and any 
     amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening 
     motion except amendments offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical 
     consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
       Sec. 2.  After adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 85 
     and receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 13, it shall be in order to take from 
     the Speaker's table Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 and to 
     consider the Senate concurrent resolution in the House. All 
     points of order against consideration of the Senate 
     concurrent resolution are waived. It shall be in order to 
     move to strike all after the resolving clause of the Senate 
     concurrent resolution and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 85 as adopted by 
     the House. All points of order against that motion are 
     waived. The Senate concurrent resolution shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question of its adoption. If 
     the motion is adopted and the Senate concurrent resolution, 
     as amended, is adopted, then it shall be in order to move 
     that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate 
     concurrent resolution and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page 9687]]

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

[[Page 9688]]

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.

                              {time}  0945

  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.

[[Page 9689]]

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield my friend additional time if he 
would yield to me.
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, if I may.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, we are standing on the 
shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan

[[Page 9690]]

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.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, John Kennedy's famous words were that a rising tide 
lifts all boats. I guess conversely then, a receding tide would lower 
all boats.
  Isn't that what we are talking about here? How do we get out of this 
economic difficulty we are in? My friends on the other side have 
correctly pointed out that we spent too much and we borrowed too much 
in the last number of years. I have agreed. I have said that ever since 
I came back to Congress 4-plus years ago.
  But to condemn the actions of the past and then say you're going to 
get out of it by repeating it but doubling down on it doesn't seem to 
make a whole lot of sense. Look, I was gone from this place for 16 
years. My children are grown now. I now have grandchildren. When I 
first came here, I had very young children. And I have got to answer to 
them at some point in time as to what we did when this choice came this 
year. Did we say that it made us feel good to loft ad hominem arguments 
at one another, to say that if you are fiscally responsible, what you 
are going to do is literally take the food out of the mouths of 
children, as I heard the gentleman from the other side say? The 
gentleman from the other side said that he has a number of school 
districts that can no longer give children lunch.
  Why is that? They are having difficult economic times there. They are 
finding out they can't tax their people any more. Their receipts aren't 
enough at this time to do that. So the gentleman says that all we have 
to do is come to Washington, D.C., because, of course, our taxpayers 
are different than the taxpayers back home.
  Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is, they are the same people. 
They are the same people that are going to suffer if we put them on a 
road to economic calamity that is going to last for decades.
  So we have a responsibility here to look beyond the easy personal 
shots and to judge these budgets to see whether or not one of them is 
more responsible than the other. I could point out the $1 billion 
placeholder that is in the Democratic budget. What is it for? Nobody 
knows. It is a hedge against whatever they want to spend it on. I could 
point out that my Democratic friends are saying that cap and trade, 
which really translates into cap and tax, is a magical, mystical ride 
that we are going to take. It is going to cost nobody anything. And so 
they criticize us when we say, ``do you know that there is a tax 
inherent in this budget?'' Well, tell me how are we going to do this 
cap and trade that is based on an auction? An auction means somebody 
has to put a price in order to get the ability to spend. But it is 
going to come out of nowhere? And my friend from Massachusetts says, 
``and the Republican budget is going to allow dirty fossil fuels to be 
used.'' Once again we are blaming America.

                              {time}  1000

  I know that the fact of the matter is that we have fossil fuels in 
abundance here in the United States, coal for instance; and somehow, 
instead of working towards clean coal technology so that we can utilize 
our abundant resources, our friends on the other side say somehow 
that's evil.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. 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----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, the gentleman's statement 
is only true if you believe that when you buy a carbon credit and pay 
for it, that actually amounts to money. If somehow, magically it 
doesn't cost anybody anything, even though it's being auctioned on the 
market, and then that cost is going to be passed on to the consumer, 
which is, in the nature of a tax.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. What we have here is an argument 
that if you can't pay for it back home, you can pay for it here because 
somehow we have an unlimited amount of money, and it has no impact on 
anybody whatsoever. As if inflation has no impact.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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----
  Mr. DREIER. 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?
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 9691]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. 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?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield on this point?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I really appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak to this, because I endured this through the 
Budget Committee. I didn't say anything in the Budget Committee. I've 
listened to it on the floor.
  Does the gentleman know where the $3,100 figure comes from? Does the 
gentleman know?
  I yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. There are several 
different studies which show----
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Does the gentleman know where the $3,100 figure comes 
from, that your leadership----
  Mr. DREIER. There are several different studies.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.
  Mr. DREIER. There are studies that show there's an increase. The 
highest I've seen is $3,100.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California to 
tell me what page in our budget that figure comes from.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. This $3,100 figure that has been cited by 
Republican leadership, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and referenced, I 
thought the gentleman from California would talk about it coming from 
MIT. That's where it came from, and his colleagues have referenced it 
repeatedly on the floor. This is from research by MIT professor John 
Reilly, done in 2007.
  Republican staffers at one point, since they were citing it, called 
him and he said, and I quote, ``called me March 20 and asked about 
this. I had to explain why the estimate they had was incorrect, and 
what they should do to correct it. But I think this wrong number was 
already floating around by that time.'' He pointed out that it actually 
was one-tenth of that figure, it was a net welfare that was going to be 
$300 per person, that the Republicans are intentionally misrepresenting 
the research from MIT.
  Now, I would suggest that it's further flawed because we have, in the 
budget, left this element to be worked on by people who want a legend. 
But this canard ought to be rejected.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. We are really tight on time, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, his leadership, and 
my colleagues for correcting this number.
  Madam Speaker, as we consider the budget proposal for the coming 
year, we are facing one of the most important votes in recent history. 
We can choose to honor the pledge we made to the American people in the 
last election and begin the process of health care reform, make 
investments that will lead to energy independence, and invest the 
needed funds to reinvigorate our educational system, or we can follow 
the same failed policies of the past that brought us to the crisis we 
find ourselves in today.
  Our budget builds on the integrated approach to lifting us out of the 
recession, and returns us to fiscal discipline by cutting the deficit 
by two-thirds by 2013.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and on the 
leadership's budget blueprint, H. Con. Res. 85.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. I want it to be clear. I didn't say it would be 
worked out. I said that the study that you and Republicans have 
repeatedly cited----
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course, I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to clarify that the professor who's 
being referenced by your leadership said that it would be one-fortieth 
of that amount.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. What do you think, assuming that it is one-fortieth 
or larger, what do you think happens to that money?
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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?
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
statement. It is not in place. Therefore, there's no tax in this 
budget.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Etheridge.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, you know, a budget's more than just a 
document. It really is a statement of our Nation's priorities and 
values. And the underlying bill that we're talking about builds on the 
work this Congress has done to put our economy back on track and 
provide jobs for our people

[[Page 9692]]

and invest in the current economic crisis of building for future needs.
  The bill lays out a plan to cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds, 
creates jobs and investments, reforms health care, and provides for 
clean energy and education.
  As a former school chief in my home State, I'm particularly pleased 
that the budget prioritizes education and innovation, a critical 
foundation piece for building a future.
  In recent months, we have seen the economy start to recover as we put 
things in place. We'll see that in the months to come.
  But let me just share a personal story. Just this past week I was at 
a middle school, Meadow Middle School in Johnson County, met with a 
bunch of students who will be the first in their family to go to 
college. That's what this is all about. We're building for the future. 
These youngsters start in middle school making a decision where they're 
going. Never has a member of their family been to college. That's what 
we're about here today.
  Certainly we can argue the details, but, you know, let's keep our 
focus on what it's about. It's about the people of America, those 
who've lost their jobs, some who've lost hope. But we can give hope to 
the next generation. We can provide a foundation for building jobs, and 
we can get our economy moving again. But we have to do it together.
  This budget resolution is a step in that direction of building a 
strong future for America and making a difference--for the leadership 
position in the world.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very 
thoughtful new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and, 
more importantly, the budget resolution. Having run a business, I know 
that, to put together a responsible budget in the middle of a difficult 
economic climate, you have to prepare for things to get worse, not 
assume they will get better. The majority's budget fails to meet the 
commonsense standard by spending taxpayer dollars freely, without the 
same ``do more with less'' approach that many of my constituents live 
by.
  For proof of that, look no further than the fact that independent 
estimates suggest, roughly, 250,000 new Federal bureaucrats may be 
needed to spend all the money in the President's budget. We should be 
looking at paring our employment roles, not expanding the already 
bloated Federal Government. Moreover, by continuing to borrow money we 
don't have, taxpayers will be on the hook for as much as $1 trillion in 
interest payments on this debt. This is only a preview of the massive 
burden that will be forced on our children and grandchildren by 
Washington's refusal to make tough choices now.
  My constituents didn't send me here to evaluate how their hard-earned 
money is spent in the abstract. This is about dollars and cents. By 
that measure, this budget is reckless spending, and it fails to protect 
working families, family farms and small businesses who are struggling 
right now. This budget simply spends too much; it borrows too much, and 
it taxes too much.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Schrader.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the rule. I 
appreciate this opportunity.
  I'm not going to bore the rest of the body or the American people 
with more discussion about the inherited deficit we've got and about 
the necessary recovery plan that has been enacted to put Americans back 
to work after the Bush administration destroyed our economy, morally 
bankrupted us, as well as financially.
  It also is amazing to me that, in the Republican budget I have here, 
there is nothing that addresses the long-term cost drivers that the 
budget of change has that has been put forward by the President of the 
United States and the Democratic Congress. We're dealing with the long-
term cost drivers of health care, with the need for a 21st century 
education, and with the fact that we can no longer have our economy 
being at the mercy of people in the Middle East.
  What is amazing is what is not in this budget. In this budget, the 
most explicit piece is about how we get wasteful spending under 
control. We just heard the Republican floor leader talk about the fact 
that, yes, we did not go after wasteful spending in the last 8 years. 
Well, this budget doesn't do it. It is in our budget. We talk about 
program integrity. We talk about making sure that seniors are taken 
care of with their Social Security, and we talk about preventing fraud 
and abuse. That fraud and abuse gives us an $11 return for every dollar 
we've invested.
  Tax compliance: Instead of letting the wealthy get away with huge tax 
breaks that hardworking Americans don't get, we actually have a tax 
compliance feature in this budget that actually makes sure we get $5 
for every dollar invested.
  Medicare-Medicaid: The fraud and abuse that's going on in there with 
wealthy people trying to game the system at the mercy of hardworking 
individuals and seniors who are destitute is abominable. For getting 
after that fraud and abuse in our budget, we actually talk about the 
fact that there's a $1.60 return for every dollar invested. Most 
importantly, I think we recognize that the States are the incubators of 
a lot of innovation. There is a partnership fund established where we 
can do some creative work.
  A lot of this work has been done in my home State of Oregon. It 
yielded tremendous benefits when I was in charge of the appropriations 
process back there.
  The last comment I'd make, Madam Speaker, as to what is not in the 
Republican budget that is in the Democrat budget is: We talk about 
performance management. We actually make sure that agencies are held 
accountable for every single tax dollar that's being spent, and I'm 
sorry to say that that's nowhere in the Republican budget.
  Mr. DREIER. 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----
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The budget doesn't have anything for the rebates 
because the program isn't in the budget. The budget allows----
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, let me just--
--
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. Give me the courtesy----


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will suspend. Both the 
gentlemen will suspend.
  The gentlemen must remember to respect the gavel and not talk over 
each other, and yield and reclaim time in an orderly way to have the 
debate recorded.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, who controls the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At that time, the Chair couldn't tell who 
had the time. The gentleman controls his time.

[[Page 9693]]


  Mr. DREIER. I think that I control all the time on our side, Madam 
Speaker, and I think that I've been yielded to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. While the 
gentleman is talking over the Member to whom he has yielded time, it is 
difficult to understand who actually has the time.
  Mr. DREIER. 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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the time that the gentleman was speaking, 
the gentleman from Oregon was using the time that had been yielded to 
him.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, there was no amount of time yielded to him, Madam 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I may----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Members will respect the gavel. They will yield and reclaim time in 
an orderly manner and attempt not to talk over each other so that their 
comments can be recorded properly.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I be recognized?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. DREIER. 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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman needs to respect the gavel, 
and the gentleman needs to understand that all comments need to be 
recorded, and when comments in the nature of rebuttal are being made 
without a clear yielding or reclaiming of time, it is difficult for the 
official reporters to make sure that they have all of the comments.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. In attempting not to be a potted plant but to 
respond, there is no detail in terms of a cap-and-trade proposal. There 
is an----
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The purpose of a budget resolution is to provide a 
framework, and if the House and the Senate provide a framework that 
involves a fee on carbon pollution, then we will have the chance to 
work our will. There is, in this bill, a framework to move forward.
  Mr. DREIER. 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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must ask Members to bear in mind 
the principle that proper courtesy in the process of yielding and 
reclaiming time in debate, and especially in asking another to yield, 
helps to foster the spirit of mutual comity that elevates our 
deliberations above mere argument.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of how much time remains 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'd like to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, nobody can make guarantees, but the 
framework is to allow the body to work its will. There's no tax. 
There's an opportunity for us to have a framework to fight carbon 
pollution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Maffei).
  Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, after 8 years of failed policies under the 
last administration, we have inherited a massive, unprecedented budget 
deficit projected to be well over $1 trillion before the current 
President took office. While growing our economy is a major component 
of the budget, reducing the deficit is a top priority for everyone.
  The budget before us today will cut the deficit by two-thirds by the 
end of 2013 with a combination of spending cuts. Now, I'd like to 
correct the excesses overnight, but like steering a sailboat, it takes 
some time to turn us around while still not capsizing.
  Some say we should chop everything except defense in the interest of 
leaving less debt to our children, but the fiscal deficit is not the 
only thing the policies of the last 8 years has left us with:
  We have a huge education deficit, Madam Speaker, where children in 
urban and rural areas in my district don't have decent schools 
available to them. We have a health care deficit where people even with 
insurance cannot get the preventative care they need to avoid bigger 
problems. We have an infrastructure deficit, as demonstrated by leaky 
sewers and crumbling roads and bridges in my district.
  If we reduce the deficit a little more, it will still be substantial 
thanks to the policies of the past, but it will leave our children with 
poor education, inadequate health care and crumbling infrastructure. 
Are we really serving their best interests by doing this?
  We must invest in the economy to get rid of the structural deficit 
that we inherited. Just as someone might take a second mortgage to fix 
the structural integrity of their family house, we must do this as 
well. We may have a somewhat bigger mortgage, but we will have a strong 
house to pass on to our kids. That's what this Obama budget does. 
Otherwise, we will leave our children with a somewhat smaller mortgage 
but with no house, with no education, with poor health, and with Third 
World infrastructure.
  That's not why the people of the 25th District of New York elected 
me. That's not why people elected the 44th President of the United 
States. The President's budget makes these tough decisions that the 
people sent us here to make. We must support it and we must support the 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I'd like to yield a minute and a half to our hardworking 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have to confess that it's a little 
tough to be here on the floor and be accused of wanting to keep money 
from the hardworking Americans, as Republicans, when I have had a bill 
I have been begging to be allowed to come to the floor that gives a tax 
holiday to every hardworking American in the country--to everybody. 
Even those who

[[Page 9694]]

don't make enough to pay income tax would get a FICA holiday.
  So, to be lectured about our not wanting hardworking Americans to 
have a break, give me a break. The bill is there. Let it come to the 
floor. I'm told by people all over the Hill and all over America: 
Please, see if you can't get the Democratic leadership to give us this 
holiday.
  Then we have a marriage penalty that is exacerbated in this budget, 
made even worse. Then who do you think is going to pay for this extra 
energy tax? It'll be passed on, and the people who earn the least will 
get hurt the most.
  The real secret about this budget, Madam Speaker, should not be lost 
in this one act. Secretary of State Clinton was sent to beg the Chinese 
to keep loaning us money. What does that say for our future? We're 
quickly approaching the irreversible in this spending. It has to stop.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the Budget Committee, Ms. 
Schwartz.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, let me first say that, I think, this is 
a very important debate.
  Last night, it was suggested that we have not debated this budget 
when, in fact, we had 14 hours of markup, of conversation about the 
debate in the Budget Committee, and of course, we had hours last night 
and hours this morning. This budget resolution is a statement of our 
priorities, of our values and of our goals, and it gives direction to 
the Congress this next year and for years ahead.
  The fact is that the President's budget, embraced by the Democratic 
Congress and modified slightly by us, as is our responsibility, is a 
change in the direction to this Nation. It is honest. It is fiscally 
responsible after years of not being so, and it is extremely difficult, 
and it recognizes the difficulty that we have inherited: the economy, 
which is, of course, in great difficulty, and the fiscal situation for 
our Nation, reflected by the $1.3 trillion deficit that President Obama 
and this Democratic Congress have inherited from President Bush and the 
Republican Congress.

                              {time}  1030

  It reflects and understands that we have a large debt in this 
country, and it restores fiscal discipline by commitment to cut that 
deficit in half in 5 years and to restore fiscal responsibility and 
fiscal policies that will rebuild this economy and rebuild our Nation.
  It is clear that the Republicans want to go back to those failed 
policies that led us to this moment, and we simply cannot let that 
happen.
  The President and the Democratic budget does, in fact, provide relief 
for our families and our businesses. It restores fiscal discipline and 
a commitment to cut that deficit in half in 5 years. And very 
importantly, it makes clear that we have to make investments in our 
people, in our businesses, and in our Nation if we're going to grow 
economically and restore fiscal discipline.
  So it sets the opportunity for the debate on three critical issues: 
on energy independence, on education, and on health care reform. That 
is the way we are going to rebuild this economy, and we are going to 
make those investments, and that's what this budget does. And I hope it 
will be embraced by this Congress and this Nation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend if he has any 
further speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We have no further speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

[[Page 9695]]

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________