[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, my friends from California tell me the 
swallows return to Capistrano. My friends from Ohio tell me the 
buzzards return to Hinkly. And, Madam Speaker, as you and I have come 
to discover during our brief time here in the Congress of the United 
States, and indeed as the people of this Nation are discovering, Madam 
Speaker, liberal Democrats again and again come to the well of this 
House and distort and exaggerate and basically tell falsehoods about 
the aims of this new Republican majority with reference to our Contract 
With America, and especially when it comes to nutrition programs in the 
public schools.
  It is amazing as we take a look at the publications from around the 
country, and I would simply point out to those assembled here, Madam 
Speaker, a very interesting article penned by Nancy Roman in today's 
Washington Times. I hesitate to read the headline because it contains a 
three-letter word that I really do not want to use in the course of 
this discourse, and yet it is part of the Record. The headline reads 
``Democrats Lie About Lunch.'' And the thrust of this article, to read 
the subhead line really sums it up. Madam Speaker, it is worth 
repeating and articulating so that the people of this Nation will 
really know the facts behind this debate. Quoting from the subhead line 
in today's Washington Times: ``The GOP's school lunch program will grow 
by $203 million. The government spends $4.5 billion. The GOP would 
spend $4.7 billion.''
  In other words, Madam Speaker, according to simple mathematics, we 
see an actual increase in this school lunch program of $200 million. 
Simply stated, Madam Speaker, there is no cut, there is no cut. There 
is an increase in spending.
  Now, in fairness to the way this town works, to the way the guardians 
of the old order have done their accounting for the past four decades, 
we should point out that there is some form of reduction, but it is 
only a reduction in the overall increase. Only in Washington would you 
call an increase reduced in some way, shape, fashion or form, acute.
  Indeed, as we have looked at the challenge we face in putting our 
fiscal house in order, I believe that fair minded people, Madam 
Speaker, from both sides of the aisle realize that one of the problems 
we have had continually is in this creative form of accounting, which 
would call that increase acute.
  I listened with great interest to my good friend from Connecticut, 
who stood before this House moments ago and talked about a cooperative 
effort to change the spending habits in this Nation. And I respect my 
good friend from Connecticut because he authored what again inside this 
beltway was a revolutionary concept, but to the rest of us throughout 
the country, Madam Speaker, was a very simple, rational, logical 
concept. And that is that the people who serve in this House, which we 
call the people's House, should live under the same laws as everyone 
else in this country.
  I salute my friend from Connecticut for spearheading that fundamental 
tenet of self-government so vital to this House and so dominant, indeed 
being the cornerstone of reform as adopted in our rules package when we 
were sworn in here earlier this year. I applaud his cooperative spirit. 
In fact, I would say that that cooperative spirit is what we hope to 
build upon in the days ahead, and we call on our good
 friends across the aisle to end the discourse and move forward in the 
constructive debate.

                          ____________________