[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3541-H3542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  WELFARE REFORM AND DEFICIT REDUCTION

  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, it is good to see my good friend from Ohio 
in the chair tonight.
  At the outset, I yield to my good friend from Georgia for a moment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say one thing about the Deal alternative. I do 
agree, Mr. Speaker, with the previous speaker. It is the best 
alternative that is out there, not as good as H.R. 4, the Republican 
plan, but in terms of an alternative, I agree that the moderate 
Democrats are showing some leadership over there, and I hope maybe you 
can inspire your official leaders to show some leadership, too.
  One thing though I do want to say about the Democrats' newfound 
interest in deficit reduction is that, you know, for since 1969, the 
Democrats have controlled the House, and each year we have a new debt. 
Now, I say since 1969; that is the last time we had a balanced budget, 
but year after year the deficit has gone up.
  But I say this: It is a Republican and A Democrat obligation to 
address it, because I believe both parties created the deficit, and I 
am glad now that both of us are talking about it, and let us have this 
one-upmanship. Let us see who can top each other's deficit-reduction 
plan. That is what two parties are all about.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I just wanted to reemphasize the fact if we are really 
truly talking about deficit reduction that all of what we have been 
talking about in terms of cuts, rescissions, and certainly in the 
welfare reform and the 
[[Page H3542]] moneys that we can save should be going to deficit 
reduction, and I would certainly encourage the gentlemen when those 
amendments are offered and certainly when we talk about the lockbox 
aspects of putting those moneys towards deficit reduction, that we will 
see that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I note with interest the 
gentlewoman from Arkansas preceded me in this Chamber by one term, part 
of the 103rd Congress, I know not her voting record personally, but I 
do not know the former majority is on record as voting for the largest 
tax increase in history, a tax increase which hit so many Americans in 
the wallet as to be just grossly unfair, and went on with the gasoline 
tax the average impact of which being in excess of an average of $400 
per year in additional energy payments for every family in America, 
regardless of their socioeconomic status. So I would contend with the 
lady and my other good friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not 
believe we can tax ourselves to prosperity, and nor, although there are 
certainly some noble aspects to the notion of a deficit lockbox, I 
believe we have to return the money to the people who earned that money 
in the first place.
  If I could speak for just a few moments on the 5 minutes I have, I 
thank my good friends on the other side for their restraint. I would 
also add that I certainly welcome tonight's meaningful dialog in stark 
contrast to the hysterics we heard earlier today.
  I mentioned that earlier today during the debate I cannot for the 
life of me understand why anyone from any political party would choose 
to compare their opposition to the Third Reich of Nazi Germany or to 
slave holders. I believe that was inexcusable, but I
 welcome certainly the tone tonight which has changed.

  You and I just happen to have a difference of opinion. I think we 
also have a different interpretation on some of the numbers, but let me 
yield in the interests of fairness to my friend from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I just want to say that we have also seen three 
consecutive years of deficit reduction. I would just like to encourage 
the gentleman to make sure that he knows that there are those of us who 
are speaking out for deficit reduction.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I would point out that deficit 
reduction came at the expense of hard-working taxpayers who would like 
to keep more of their money in their own pocket, and if we cut taxes 
and cut the deficit and build this economy, then that will be the 
answer for everyone including those trapped right now in the prison, if 
you will, of welfare, and a system that is broken, and we all agree is 
in need of some radical change.
  We asked for that type of change, and that is what we are working to 
do with your majority bill, H.R. 4. We welcome your thoughts on it, but 
we would ask you to take a much closer look at the numbers you purport 
with reference to the Federal lunch program. One is tempted to recall 
the words of our good friend from California, ``There you go again,'' 
not talking about the real numbers. We call for increases in the school 
lunch program of 4.5 percent over the next 5 years, an increase over 5 
years of $1.1 billion in expenditures, and we are getting the job done 
while we are hearing a lot of rhetoric.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I would like to reference your remarks where you just said there was 
an increase in school lunch program, and I want to, and I appreciate 
the time to respond to that, there is not an increase in the school 
lunch program. There is a cut.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentlewoman has to understand how on Earth can you 
increase a program, now, in fairness, if you are saying there is a 
reduction in anticipated increases, I would certainly contend that is 
an interesting way to define a cut.
  Ms. PELOSI. I wish the gentleman would wait until my time so we can 
continue.


                          ____________________