Providing for Consideration of H. Con. Res. 85, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 85, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 -- (House of Representatives - April 02, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source