John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: on the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third, and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we kept our promise; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, since Lyndon Johnson first launched the Great Society programs of the 1960s this country has now spent over $5 trillion to defeat poverty, a war that we have since lost and lost miserably. You know, some people around here try to define compassion as how much money we can give to people and how many people we can put on welfare and how many people we can make dependent on a system that has failed that has destroyed the family. That has had crime rate skyrocket over the last 30 years, that has seen out-of-wedlock birth and we need to abandon that system and start over. Incremental welfare reform will not work. President Clinton said it is time to honor and reward people who work hard and play by the rules. The administration knows that our welfare system is broken. The people who defend our current welfare system want to keep people, or at least they seem to at least want to keep people in poverty. That can be the only justification for defending the current welfare system. We are here and we were sent here to revolutionize the welfare system. It does not work. Government cannot be compassionate by definition because the word compassion means ``to suffer with.'' Only individuals can suffer with other individuals, to offer them a hand up instead of a handout. Our welfare system was intended to be a safety net in between work. If you happened to get in trouble, there was a safety net. What was intended to be a safety net has now become a hammock that, in time, becomes like a spider web that just entraps people and they cannot get out of it. When I was campaigning, I would go through and meet different people, and I have a brochure and one of the things in the brochure talked about mandatory work for welfare recipients. Single mothers that I met with, that was the thing that they picked up on almost immediately every time that I met them. Mandatory work for people that are out there struggling, and they know that their tax dollars are going to pay for somebody that could be working, but is not. That is the hallmark of our welfare plan that will be voted on later this month. You know, our country is a great country. And we have been known to be an opportunity society that has attracted people from around the world. But to continue to keep people in poverty is wrong. It is morally wrong. This is not a question of economics; this is a question of morality. It is morally wrong to keep people in poverty by making them dependent on a system that they just don't see any way that they can get out of. I believe that our country needs to become that opportunity society once again. We need to encourage small businesses and jobs, encourage entrepreneurs that are going to get out there and create opportunities for minorities and women and all people. We need to look for economic principles that don't benefit the rich, that don't benefit the middle class or the poor, they benefit all classes of people, young and old, black and white, Hispanic. It does not matter. We need to have principles that look for situations where all classes of people win. Instead of saying it is the Republicans or the Democrats, we need to put partisanship aside. I have only been here a short time and the partisanship of this place is sickening on committees and on the House floor. We need to put that aside and work for the American people. We were all sent here to solve the problems that a lot of this government has created. We were sent here to solve those problems, and we need to get down to doing the business that the American people sent us here to do. In conclusion, let me say that I am proud to represent the people of Nevada. They are hard-working people with the work ethic, I think, that is known throughout the West. And because of that work ethic, they sent me here to get people off of welfare and into work.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, by the close of business today, the House will have taken another great strike toward its commitment to greater fiscal responsibility. The House's approval of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act, will ensure that the budget President Clinton sends to Capitol Hill today, and the budgets of future Presidents, are no longer considered dead on arrival. Congress will have to start paying attention to what's in those budgets. The Line-Item Veto Act, along with the balanced budget amendment, are the only measures strong enough to hold Congress accountable for its spending. The line-item veto is crucial in our efforts to eliminate wasteful pork in the budget because the President can require the Congress to justify, with the veto, its spending priorities. Current rescission powers granted to the President have failed miserably because the law simply allows Congress to sit on its hands and do nothing. Forty years of hand sitting has given us an annual deficit of $200 billion. Mr. Chairman, 43 of our Nation's Governors have the power to pare down wasteful pork-barrel spending. Beginning today, we take yet another step and recognize that Washington should live under the same discipline that our State governments have exercised for some time. Support for the line-item veto is bipartisan; 77 percent of Americans favor it. In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Republican Congress will give line-item veto authority to our Democratic President. Passage of the Line-Item Veto Act will give future Presidents--Republicans and Democrats--the necessary authority to scrutinize every dollar of discretionary spending. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Line- Item Veto Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.