[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


THE TRUE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS FOR SPENDING ON THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 
                               AND ON WIC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would associate myself fully with the 
remarks made by my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston], and for that matter, I listened with great interest to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Maryland on the other side of the aisle 
in his call, in his plea for bipartisanship, echoing our good friend 
and fellow newcomer from Nevada, [Mr. Ensign].
  I would implore Members on both sides of the aisle, and indeed, 
people across this Nation, who have watched with interest, Mr. Speaker, 
as we have been involved, setting an historic pace for legislation, 
fulfilling a Contract With America, working to establish a new 
partnership together, knowing what is at stake, to truly understand the 
terms of this debate.
  It has happened again, and doubtless will happen yet still, when 
those who fail to answer the challenge and call of my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], proffer not new ideas, but, 
instead, inflammatory rhetoric, and inaccurate rhetoric.
  For that purpose, once again tonight, I feel it is important as part 
of the truth squad to share with the American people, Mr. Speaker, the 
true proposals on spending for the School Lunch Program and for the 
program we called WIC, Women, Infants, and Children.
  We start here in 1995 with an expenditure for WIC of almost $3.5 
billion. We start with a school lunch expenditure in 1995, for the 
fiscal year, of $4.5 billion. Note in the succeeding years, the totals 
always go up. In 1996 for WIC, $3.6 billion. For the School Lunch 
Program, it is $4.7 billion. Look down to the year 2000. For the WIC 
Program, there is an increase of almost, or really in excess, of one-
half billion dollars, up to $4.2 billion, and an increase in the School 
Lunch Program, an increase in the School Lunch Program of $1.5--pardon 
me, $1.1 billion, all the way up to $5.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, how on 
earth can that be characterized as a cut?
  Now, the unkindest cut of all is the broad swath of truth that is 
shunted aside for purposes of political theatrics, for purposes of 
partisan advantage, for purposes of inflammatory rhetoric. The numbers 
speak for themselves.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed about that. Somebody is 
lying. Are you lying, or is the gentleman from Georgia lying? If the 
taxpayers of America want to have those numbers, will you be willing to 
send them to them? Are you going to stand behind them?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to send these numbers. I 
believe everyone in the new majority is happy to share these numbers as 
part of the new proposals. Will there be different delivery systems? 
Sure.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, let's do this. Let's say 
if you are represented by a Democrat, write and get a copy of these. 
Send them to your representative and ask him why those numbers are not 
the truth.
  If you are a Republican, we are going to send them to you. Let us 
just talk to the Democrat district tonight: Write and ask for those 
numbers.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I 
think he makes an excellent point. As we engage in this debate, in this 
new partnership, the American people really should write, write any of 
us, Members of the House, and ask for these numbers; specifically, the 
GOP proposed spending on WIC and School Lunch Programs.
  We will be happy to supply those numbers, and challenge our friends 
on the other side to talk about this term ``cuts,'' because again, 
there are no cuts. In the popular imagination, the only ``cuts'' are 
decreases in future increases in expenditures. Again, only in this 
culture, only in this curious combination and curious advantage-taking 
of political opportunism can that term even be bandied about.
  I guarantee, I say to the gentleman from Georgia, and Mr. Speaker, 
the families gathered around the kitchen table making hard decisions 
about the family budget deal with real cuts, not phantom cuts and not 
theatrics.
  I noted with interest my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, 
who really started the special orders tonight, I think his information 
was inaccurate. This is the real story.


                          ____________________