[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3273-H3274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      EXPLANATION OF INABILITY TO SUPPORT CURRENT RESCISSION BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am for dismantling the 
Great Society programs and the Roosevelt New Deal, but I do not believe 
that the solution is merely to cut, cap, or pass the buck to the 
States. No, we cannot legislate on appropriation bills, but we have yet 
to offer alternatives as Republicans.
  [[Page H3274]] Mr. Speaker, I have struggled to support the 
rescission bill. As a loyal Republican with one of the highest 
conservative ratings, and with a strong desire to reduce our deficit, I 
want to support this bill, but I regrettably, Mr. Speaker, cannot in 
its present form. It troubles me that cuts, caps, and passing the 
problems off to the States, the Pontius Pilate approach to governing, a 
policy that we have taken of late, seems to disproportionately affect 
the elderly, women, African-Americans, and other minorities, veterans, 
and children.
  Approximately 90 percent of the appropriation cuts have come from 
only 2 of the 13 appropriation subcommittees. The rule confines 
amendments to the same two areas. Where is the fairness?
  It saddens me, when discussions rescissions, that the weakest links 
in our chain are the first to be affected. In the past I have proudly 
supported the amendments of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to 
cut appropriation bills by 1 percent or 2 percent across the board. It 
was fair.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask every Member to put aside the logic of how 
the cuts are not really cuts, or how the people receiving the benefits 
are not truly going to be hurt. How ridiculous. To a degree, it is as 
disingenuous as some Members referring to the health care self-
insurance tax break legislation as a bill to help small business people 
before the vote, and then bragging about how it was the first salvo 
against affirmative action after the vote.
                              {time}  2350

  Hoodwink is a term that comes to mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I am for reducing our deficit, I am for helping our 
urban areas. For example, I believe that welfare dollars going to able-
bodied and non-elderly recipients should be given in the form of loans, 
with the recipients being required to pay back or work off a portion if 
not all of the loan. This change would allow us to derive a significant 
sum of money each year that would help us reduce our deficit.
  Just as important, Mr. Speaker, it would force all people to 
understand that they will no longer get something for nothing. It 
represents a true end to welfare.
  Summer jobs. Instead of just eliminating the program, let's replace 
it with something better, like tax credits to employers who hire 
indigent youngsters.
  And housing, Mr. Speaker. Cutting public housing by nearly 25 percent 
without a better solution is truly an enigma.
  It has been said that we must be concerned with our children's 
future. No one will argue with that position. But for the less 
fortunate children in America, they are merely concerned about getting 
past tomorrow.
  Oh, yes, it does get worse. We are telling the most despondent and 
the most vulnerable people in our society that we have changed our 
minds on having certain programs. When asked what are we offering 
instead at this time, the answer is, ``Nothing.'' Yet we want these 
highly vulnerable people to believe in our system. It is a sad message, 
Mr. Speaker. It is a sad message. It is truly a classic example of 
adding insult to injury. We should strive to improve our Nation by 
strengthening our weakest link, not by crushing it.

                          ____________________