[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            FOOD ASSISTANCE

  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, today the debate in the House on the 
Personal Responsibility Act will conclude.
  One of the issues that remains as a point of contention is whether 
the Personal Responsibility Act cuts or increases spending for child 
nutrition programs.
  When we spend less, that is a ``cut.''
  The Republican majority calls these cuts ``savings.''
  But, while insisting on calling them savings, they refuse to apply 
the money to deficit reduction.
  Instead, they intend to apply these savings to tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans.
  It may seem confusing--however--let me summarize.
  The Republicans say their bill will ``increase'' spending. To 
increase spending, they want to ``reduce'' spending and call a cut a 
savings--but instead of applying the savings to reduce the deficit, 
they want to apply the savings to a tax cut. By applying the savings to 
a tax cut--they will increase spending. Does that make it more clear?
  Some refer to this logic as ``sincere confusion.''
  In my State of North Carolina, we call it sleight of hand.
  If it was not so sad, it would be very funny.
  

                          ____________________