[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   MORE ON FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  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 thank the preceding speaker joining us 
in the well, the gentlewoman from North Carolina. I appreciate her 
point of view and especially her last couple of comments. However, I 
thought for a time tonight we had made real progress because it seemed 
the preceding speaker, Mr. Speaker, had decided to back away from the 
terminology ``cut.''
  Let us again state for the record, the proposal offered by your new 
majority in the Congress of the United States, a proposal that for 
child nutritional programs adds $200 million over what President 
Clinton outlines in his budget, a plan that calls for annual increases 
over the next 5 years of 4.5 percent every single year, friends, those 
are increases.
  The numbers, with all due respect, offered by the opposition are 
phantom numbers because they speak of $7 billion in cuts, $7 billion 
that don't even exist.
  The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this: We do confront a deficit of stark 
proportions for us all. In fact, by some estimates since in essence the 
national debt is compounded every nanosecond, it continues to grow, by 
some estimates we confront a national debt that affects every man, 
woman and child in this country to the tune of their share in the 
national debt, for you and me and for everyone else, fast approaching 
$20,000.
  We have a simple choice: Either we can continue to play the tired old 
politics of the past which are akin to a schoolyard game of am-not-are-
too, am-not-are-too, or we can face this serious problem and take a 
look and decide to rein in the growth of spending to what is 
reasonable, to what is rational, and, yes, taking into account the 
inflation rate, what is most effective, and that is behind our notion 
of changing these grants to block grants, to let those on the front 
line fight the battle.
  It is true there is a very real difference in philosophy here, 
because those in the new majority, Mr. Speaker, believe that people on 
the front lines can best fight this battle and believe it is not 
incumbent upon a bureaucracy run amok in Washington, DC to decide how 
best to spend money.

                              {time}  1930

  Your new majority in this Congress realizes that what might work in 
Philadelphia might not work in Phoenix and that people on the front 
lines in the State of Pennsylvania and Arizona and North Carolina and 
across this Union can best decide how to fight the battle.
  But again, the programs are not being cut. Really, this begs a larger 
question, and one I think of stark importance to our Republic. Do we 
face the challenge now and deal with it responsibly, or do we remain 
wedded to the politics of the past?
  We heard with great fanfare my friend on the other side from 
California just repeat all the arguments and all the incendiary 
rhetoric. Let me submit to you that if we fail to deal with this 
problem, if we continue with the same old name-calling, the false 
numbers, in essence those who are wedded to the past, those who are the 
guardians of the past have become, in essence, the enemies of the 
future. For in maintaining a tired old broken-down welfare state, they 
have, in essence, declared war on the next generation of Americans.
  All we ask is this, Mr. Speaker: That we in this body in which it is 
a great honor to serve, that we do what every American family at one 
time or another has to do, Mr. Speaker, to gather around the kitchen 
table and make some hard choices.
  Can good people disagree? Yes. Good people can disagree. And 
certainly there is a difference in philosophy that I delineated.
  But I would challenge the other side to come forward with positive 
programs to tell us where the cuts will come, to tell us where the 
changes will come, instead of trotting out the tired old rhetoric of 
the past.
  The stakes are too high. The future beckons us.
  

                          ____________________