J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the record will show as the debate continues, our work requirements are very, very tough on work. We require States to make cash welfare recipients go to work after 2 years. Some States will choose a more stringent requirement. I know the great Commonwealth of Virginia has taken an action to actually offer less time. But that is the option of the State and indeed is that not truly federalism in action? After 5 years, recipients would face the ultimate work requirement and that would be the end of all cash welfare. We require States to have 50 percent of adults in one-parent welfare families, that is about 2.5 million families, working by the year 2003. We require States to have 90 percent of two-parent families working by 1998. We define real work with only a few limited exceptions as real private sector work for pay. States that do not meet these standards would lose part of their block grant. That is truly being tough on work. That is truly workfare and not welfare.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and indeed I thank the esteemed chairman of the Rules Committee for again outlining the Rules of this House and indeed our Speaker pro tempore tonight for enforcing those Rules. It is important to remember that we are a society of laws in this body. We are a society that follows rules. And it is worth noting that the Rules of this House in this new majority are far more open than anything offered during the previous 40 years of one party rule by the new minority. I mentioned earlier the tale of the numbers. Would that it were only a fairy tale. Would that these numbers were not reflected in cold, hard facts. But it is time for straight talk with the American people. I refer to the fact that in the last 30 years we have spent at all levels of government in excess of $5 trillion to try and eradicate poverty. We have failed miserably, and it is fair to ask the question why. Why have these programs, perhaps so noble in their intent, failed so abysmally? No. In stark contrast to what the preceding gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] said, it is not a vendetta. It is not some demonization of one group of Americans. It is not our intent to set one group of Americans against another group of Americans. The gentleman himself said welfare reform is needed. Well, as my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], will attest, Mr. Speaker, the debate in coming days the rest of this week will articulate how we are prepared to make changes. Marvin Olasky has offered a new book, entitled ``The Tragedy of American Compassion.'' And the Rules chairman referred to it just a moment ago when he talked about the true meaning of compassion. What is compassionate about a system that leaves to our children and to generations yet unborn a debt of untold trillions that they will have to service, that they will have to pay off? In the past, it was in grand American fashion, no matter if you hailed from the inner city or from rural America, that you would pay off the mortgage and leave a home for the children or leave a farm for the next generation. We have reversed the process under the guardians of the old order. We have basically enjoyed the fruits of the farm and the fruits of the homes and left the mortgage for our children to pay. So your new majority in Congress, Mr. Speaker, has advanced some significant reforms. Let me delineate them for you right now. Part of the problem has been that we continue to allow Federal programs to grow like topsy. We have programs that are duplicative, that are redundant and that, quite frankly, are not a good way to spend the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. So what the GOP welfare bill does is, first, consolidate for cash welfare programs, including AFDC and the JOBS Program, into one block grant. The idea again being that people on the frontlines, in the city, States, and towns know best how to spend that money, know best how to attack those problems, lets in the redundancy and allows these great laboratories of democracy to do what they do best. Indeed, we have seen pilot programs in Wisconsin and in Michigan and we see other States like my home State of Arizona and the great State of North Carolina working to enact workfare programs working on these problems on the frontline. That is where we are talking about. Consolidate these programs into one block grant and allow this battle to be fought more effectively at the State and local level. Our new majority welfare bill also requires recipients to work with 2 years and leave the cash welfare rolls after 5 years. Again, it is this notion, Mr. Speaker, what is reasonable? Is it reasonable to expect in a free economy where we look day after day at classified advertisements in a variety of publications touting the facts that jobs are available, is it fair or reasonable to allow someone to become a prisoner of this failed system? No, we need to offer a way out, and indeed we need to offer incentive to leave the welfare rolls and get involved in work. And that is what our plan does by requiring recipients to work within 2 years and to leave the cash welfare rolls after 5 years. Our plan requires 50 percent of single adult welfare recipients to work no less than 35 hours by the year 2003, a gradual program, not draconian but establishing clear guidelines in a period of time, altogether modest to allow these reforms to take place. It requires 90 percent of two-parent families to have one adult work no less than 35 hours a week by 1998. In a 3-year period, a chance to get that done. And we define work as real, private-sector jobs with concurrent education and training permitted. In other words, it is not the role of our society or our government to provide make-work. We want to grow this economy and allow people to find work in the private sector. Now, in jobless areas it is worth noting, areas plagued by chronic unemployment, indeed many of the areas that our friend from the other side of the aisle mentioned and championed, we allow work to be defined as subsidized work, community work or on-the-job training. So we do provide for those areas where there is chronic unemployment. We do provide every American with the opportunity, the dignity and responsibility of work. We bar Federal cash to unwed parents. Let me repeat this: We bar Federal cash to unwed parents under 18. lost in the debate, with so many members of the liberal media failing to articulate and emphasize this point, while we bar Federal cash payments to unwed parents under the age of 18, this plan will still allow for noncash benefits. Indeed, I refer to Marvin Olasky's book, ``The Tragedy of American Compassion,'' where he chronicles where our society has changed from a caring society to a caretaking society. And I think it is so important to emphasize that, again, we do not seek to demonize or starve or deprive anyone who is truly needy. But what we believe, as we have taken a look at the failed system, that we ought to be able to provide in-kind benefits to those who deserve them, noncash benefits in the forms of staples and those materials vital for life itself to those, but we do cut out cash payments to youngsters. In other words, we don't have the Federal Government giving money to children who continue to have more children. We would bar additional Federal cash for additional children born while the mother is on cash welfare. Why is that important? Again, because under this failed system what we have done in our society by any fair and objective measure is that we have subsidized illegitimacy to the point that one out of every three children is born out of wedlock. My constituents of the Sixth District of Arizona and others I have talked to throughout this country point to illegitimacy as one of the factors, if not the key factor, that can totally undermine our society. So we move to change a failed policy that gives improper incentives to the increase in illegitimacy. We would bar cash to unwed mothers who refuse to cooperate in establishing a child's paternity. Because we understand in our society that we have rights and we have responsibilities, and it is time for the fathers of this country to, if they are willing to father a child, to go through that biological action, to indeed take responsibility for the paternity of that child.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again the current system, and this is the irony. As the gentleman from California mentioned and as indeed our good friend the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] mentions, the current system rewards States for having additional people on cash welfare. In other words, under this not only bankrupt system financially but I would call it a morally bankrupt system, we gauge its success by the numbers of people we can add to the rolls. Now think about this. Under a block grant, States will have a built- in incentive to move people off the cash welfare rolls and into jobs. And block-granting will give them the flexibility to do so. If you doubt it, I would commend, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side and indeed all the American people to look to States like Wisconsin and Michigan where they are working hard to implement real change in the welfare system. So what we need is to unleash the creative power of States and localities to deal with this problem. Additionally the bill creates, and this is worth noting for our friends who choose to deionize or mischaracterize our plans, let us repeat this. The bill creates a $1 billion Federal rainy day borrowing fund for recessions or emergencies, and it allows States to set up their own rainy day funds and pocket any savings over 120 percent of their annual grant amount. That is a powerful incentive for those respective States to save up voluntarily for a rainy day, or given the current level of government spending if we do not curtail it, the inevitable recession that will result.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank you very much. We all wait with interest to see what is hot off the presses in the Committee on Rules, and we thank the gentleman from upstate New York for his valuable service as the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair tonight, as you represent so capably the good people of upstate South Carolina, and it is good to join my good friend from Pennsylvania standing in the well of the House, to address this topic. It is not my intent to invoke any type of negativity in this debate tonight, Mr. Speaker, but I listened with great interest to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who calls the State of New York his home, and listened to so much name calling, so much myth making, as we enter this great debate on welfare reform. And let there be no mistake, this will be a great debate. But again, I would issue a challenge to our friends on the other side of the aisle to come forth with positive, positive welfare reform, because as my friend from Pennsylvania will attest, and indeed, since we are in our first term in the Congress, we have seen and certainly our friend who is the chairman of the Committee on Rules has been time and time again the phenomenon in this new 104th Congress of folks who I believe fairly could be referred to as the Yeah, buts. ``Yeah, we need welfare reform, but, the positive plan for change being offered inflicts too much pain.'' Indeed, I listened with interest to my good friend the Democrat from New York just a moment ago talk about the civility of this society being threatened. Mr. Speaker, not only is the civility of our society being threatened, but survival of that society is being threatened by a system which threatens to bankrupt this, the grandest of all republics, and which threatens to change the very core of our existence. Some history is in order. Despite the comments of my good friend from New York earlier, the fact is that government at all levels has spent in excess of $5 trillion trying to eradicate poverty. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania showed us, we have this poverty paradox, where the more we spend on poverty it seems, the numbers of the poor increase. It is an incredible paradox. I see our friend the chairman of the Committee on Rules is prepared with a statement now. I would gladly yield time to the gentleman from upstate New York.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and really, Mr. Speaker, before we get into this discussion, I see our good friend uncharacteristically sitting to the left of me, the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Rules, the Honorable Jerry Solomon of upstate New York. You have something you would like to say now, at this juncture?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is worth noting that our legislation creates a $400 million fund to help ease pressures in States with high population growth. It permits States to save unlimited amounts of cash from their block grant in the State rainy day fund for recessions and emergencies, amounts in the rainy day fund in excess of 120 percent of the State's annual block grant amount can be shifted into that Stat's general fund. That is another incentive to move welfare recipients into jobs. Then again the bill also lets States borrow from a billion-dollar Federal rainy day fund which they would have to repay with interest. But finally the bill lets the States shift 30 percent of other block grants, and this is something the other side has chosen to demonize, when in fact it really goes to help children and it really goes to help families who are looking for a hand up and a helping hand instead of a handout, it offers 20 percent of the nutrition block grant into the block grant and vice versa. It really is the ultimate in flexibility. Indeed, and that is the other side of the nutrition issue, if I could digress for a second, when the other side talks about block grants being inherently evil and how 20 percent of those grants could be moved to other areas, that 20 percent provision is custom-made for this opportunity, not to starve children but ensure that their families who may be encountering tough times have the economic wherewithal to survive those times. We offer the ultimate in flexibility, and I might add nothing in any act we have proposed restricts States from offering more of their resources gained either through income tax in some States or other revenue-accruing mechanisms in those States from offering even more money for nutrition programs or for helping the truly needy in those respective States.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I just think it is very important to take to heart the real-life experience of our friend from California and say that it is shared by so many immigrants who came in our open door, came into this country in a legal, orderly fashion, and it is not our intent to harm those who would immigrate to these shores legally but those who would come in through surreptitious means, those who would come here to enjoy the fruits of the labor of American taxpayers without being involved in the system in stark contrast to the fine example so many legal aliens set for us, whether they are immigrants from immediately south of our border who come here legally or so many folks who have immigrated here from Asia and from Europe, so many people from throughout this world who have come here legally seeking a better life and true freedom for their families. No one denies those who would come here legally an opportunity. But yet as the gentleman from California mentions, we must take action that is reasonable to stop the flow of those who would reach these shores illegally to take advantage of a system which we have proven tonight has failed miserably and lacks the very compassion the champions of that failed system so claim extravagantly in their rhetoric.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have some graphs here to illustrate the differences in the way Republicans approach leadership and the way liberal Democrats approach leadership. The first graph I have here shows how Republicans will increase funding and grow children, not government, through WIC and school lunch programs. The next chart shows how Republicans plan to change welfare for the better. The next chart shows how American families will benefit from meaningful tax relief we sponsor. This final graph shows the Republican plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. Now, look closely. Here is the liberal Democrat plan to cut spending. Here is the liberal Democrat plan to provide tax relief to American families. Here is the liberal Democrat plan to change welfare. Finally, Mr. Speaker, here is their plan in detail, I might add, to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, liberal Democrats offer no vision. Here is our plan. Friends on the other side, it is time to put up or shut up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget, the President estimated that unless things changed, future generations would have to pay an 82-percent tax rate. So when I got this year's budget, I looked furiously to see just how much the situation had improved. Funny thing is, though, the President failed to include that number this time around. That is because instead of going down, the tax rate future generations would have to pay because of the President's fiscal folly has gone up. It has gone up to 84 percent. The liberal Democrats in this Congress and in the White House have declared war on the next generation of Americans. Unless we act now to take control of this bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, our children can look forward to a future of higher interest rates, higher taxes, less opportunity, and ultimately a lower standard of living. Well, we will not let the liberal Democrats make the first generation the first to have a lower standard of living than their parents. We will fight for the future of America. We will not let future generations foot the bill for the liberals' irresponsibility and mismanagement.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the support of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], my good friend, and once again, as we did in committee, let me allay the fears of my good friend from New Mexico because the landowner now in question has decided that we are married, and we are going to stay married with this provision. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Therefore I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 562, a bill to modify the boundary at Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The purpose of this legislation is to allow consistent management of the archeological resources in Walnut Canyon. Walnut Canyon National Monument was established in 1915 to serve and protect the ruins of prehistoric Sinaguan settlements. Within the canyon there are five steep, rocky ridges that extend into the canyon from the rims. Archeological sites cluster around these dramatic features, which were called forts by early archeologists. My legislation would extend the boundary of the monument to include an additional two forts and associated acres currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service to the Walnut Canyon National Monument managed by the Park Service. During consideration at the Resources Committee, an en bloc amendment to H.R. 562 was adopted. This amendment changed the map reference used in this legislation to include 53 acres of land owned by a private property owner adjacent to the current Monument boundary. The landowner in question has asked that this land be included and has indicated his desire to work with the Park Service to bring about a land exchange. The amendment also inserts an authorization for appropriations into the bill. I believe that this language provides an important safeguard for the private landowner should his efforts at exchange fail. Mr. Speaker, my legislation enjoys the strong support of the Flagstaff City Council and the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Speaker, I understand the administration has no objection to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the chairman of the Resources Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the National Parks, Forests, and Lands Subcommittee for their assistance in moving this important bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 562. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 562) to modify the boundaries of Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona, as amended.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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. 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.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say I would associate myself in full with the remarks made by my good friend from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let me also observe though that my liberal colleagues on the other side of the aisle never tire of telling us how much they care for our Nation's children. But if they really cared about children, they would join us in reforming a welfare system whose primary victims are children. Study after study shows that it is children who pay the price for the failed liberal welfare state. They do not learn as well. They have other developmental problems. They are more likely to go on welfare themselves, which starts the cycle all over again. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that welfare in its current form is bad for children. Yet my liberal Democrat colleagues come down here after day, defend the current welfare system, and distort the positive changes we will make. They do not want to end welfare as we know it. They want to spend more and grow it, and they have declared war on the very children they purport to protect.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will depart from my prepared text directly my friend, you know it is an out and out falsehood; we will not take apples nor milk nor any food out of the mouths of the children of this country. Once again, let us engage in some elementary mathematics. We propose, as Republicans, to up the budget spent, to up the allocation to $200 million over what President Clinton asked for in the food program. We propose an increase of 4.5 percent for next year. We propose giving the power to feed these children to people on the front lines fighting the battle. I wish my friends on the other side would stop this demagoguery and deal with the facts, Mr. Speaker. Those are the facts and that is the difference we will make for America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would associate myself fully with the remarks made by my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], and for that matter, I listened with great interest to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland on the other side of the aisle in his call, in his plea for bipartisanship, echoing our good friend and fellow newcomer from Nevada, [Mr. Ensign]. I would implore Members on both sides of the aisle, and indeed, people across this Nation, who have watched with interest, Mr. Speaker, as we have been involved, setting an historic pace for legislation, fulfilling a Contract With America, working to establish a new partnership together, knowing what is at stake, to truly understand the terms of this debate. It has happened again, and doubtless will happen yet still, when those who fail to answer the challenge and call of my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], proffer not new ideas, but, instead, inflammatory rhetoric, and inaccurate rhetoric. For that purpose, once again tonight, I feel it is important as part of the truth squad to share with the American people, Mr. Speaker, the true proposals on spending for the School Lunch Program and for the program we called WIC, Women, Infants, and Children. We start here in 1995 with an expenditure for WIC of almost $3.5 billion. We start with a school lunch expenditure in 1995, for the fiscal year, of $4.5 billion. Note in the succeeding years, the totals always go up. In 1996 for WIC, $3.6 billion. For the School Lunch Program, it is $4.7 billion. Look down to the year 2000. For the WIC Program, there is an increase of almost, or really in excess, of one- half billion dollars, up to $4.2 billion, and an increase in the School Lunch Program, an increase in the School Lunch Program of $1.5--pardon me, $1.1 billion, all the way up to $5.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, how on earth can that be characterized as a cut? Now, the unkindest cut of all is the broad swath of truth that is shunted aside for purposes of political theatrics, for purposes of partisan advantage, for purposes of inflammatory rhetoric. The numbers speak for themselves.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to send these numbers. I believe everyone in the new majority is happy to share these numbers as part of the new proposals. Will there be different delivery systems? Sure.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I think he makes an excellent point. As we engage in this debate, in this new partnership, the American people really should write, write any of us, Members of the House, and ask for these numbers; specifically, the GOP proposed spending on WIC and School Lunch Programs. We will be happy to supply those numbers, and challenge our friends on the other side to talk about this term ``cuts,'' because again, there are no cuts. In the popular imagination, the only ``cuts'' are decreases in future increases in expenditures. Again, only in this culture, only in this curious combination and curious advantage-taking of political opportunism can that term even be bandied about. I guarantee, I say to the gentleman from Georgia, and Mr. Speaker, the families gathered around the kitchen table making hard decisions about the family budget deal with real cuts, not phantom cuts and not theatrics. I noted with interest my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, who really started the special orders tonight, I think his information was inaccurate. This is the real story.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, the top 10 falsehoods of 1995: No. 10, owners and players really care only about the game of baseball; No. 9, Republicans are cutting children's nutrition programs; No. 8, you can trust Connie Chung; No. 7, the protesters around here in recent days are not paid with taxpayer funds; No. 6, the media is fair and unbiased; No. 5, we need more Federal regulations, not less; No. 4, those six Democrats voted against a balanced budget amendment for principle, not for politics; No. 3, Bill Clinton really knows what he is doing in Mexico; No. 2, the President really wants to end welfare as we know it; and, Mr. Speaker, the No. 1 falsehood of 1995 we will get out early tonight.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, earlier today it was my privilege to appear on C-SPAN with one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle from Illinois to discuss the morning newspapers, and a rather lively discussion ensued, and it was very interesting to go over many different articles in the Nation's press. One article, however, we failed to get to, and I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and indeed the attention of the American people, on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, an article entitled ``Protest, Washington Style.'' Quoting from the article now: Newt Gingrich and other speakers were prevented from addressing the National Association of Counties in Washington on Monday after 500 shouting protesters invaded the hotel ballroom and used megaphones to call for higher school lunch funding. Many of the protesters had been bused in from out of town, prompting Mr. Gingrich to ask some pointed questions. Why weren't they at work? Who are they? Who paid them? Well, it turns out the protest was organized by the left wing activist group, ACORN, a frequent recipient of Federal and state grants. The Washington Times reports that 42 participants in President Clinton's new national service program are working for ACRON at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1.1 million. Several operate out of ACORN's Washington, D.C. offices. We may never know if federally funded `volunteers' helped ruin meetings for 2,000 county officials, but we hope Congress plans some oversight hearings on the groups involved in Mr. Clinton's service program. It was interesting today, Mr. Speaker, to see yet more protesters arrive here on Capitol Hill. And I find it especially interesting that it appears that some of these protesters are subsidized with tax money from you and me and from the American people, so now we have really reached a new low in the concept of protest. And please don't misunderstand. I uphold the first amendment and applaud the first amendment, and certainly people have a right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. But the problem comes as certainly there is a cloud of suspicion that what we have now are protesters subsidized with tax money here to champion the tired old policies of the past. And what is even more true, and I will come back to this fact until the American people have it clear in their minds, all this talk about cutting the school lunch programs, about cutting the Federal nutrition programs, can only be characterized as false. Again, the numbers speak for themselves. This new Republican majority is willing to fund these programs $200 million in excess of what President Clinton has called for this year. And moreover, we called for increases of 4.5 percent. Now the guardians of the old order bankrupt of any new ideas come here and march to the will of this House and say, No, no, those are cuts. Again, only in Washington can it be considered a cut when you reduce a future planned increase. My friends on the other side are upset because the increase will not be 5.1 percent. Instead, the increase is allegations, amidst the misreading of numbers, amidst this phantom number of $7 billion with imaginary money that is not even there, who has been harmed? We know who has been scared. Name for me the school children, show me the schools that are being deprived of lunches. They are not there. Again, it is the policy of this new majority to empower people, to enfranchise people and not to hold down people in the form of a permanent underclass but to truly feed the needy and to give the opportunities to feed the needy in the classrooms, the people who really need it, to have that opportunity at the local level. But the money is not being taken away. And with reference to people coming to lobby us, to come to see us, I thought it was very interesting that in previous weeks folks would come bringing cut-out dolls of this nature and they would list names of very, very small children. Now, look, it is obvious a 3-year-old, precocious though she might be, did not assemble this doll. This was something done by adults, from government bureaucrats who have paid money into political action committees that have funded the tired old order 10 to 1 over Republicans. That is part of the problem. That is the real story. That is what we will move to correct.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have a great deal of affection and admiration for the gentleman who preceded me here in the well. I was pleased to see that he was back at school as were many of my liberal Democrat colleagues yesterday. But the fact is that with all due respect, my friends should not spend time exclusively in the lunchroom, they should go back to math class, because here are the simple facts of this case. We are actually increasing $200 million in excess of what the President is calling for in school nutrition programs. We are calling for a 4.5-percent increase in these school nutrition programs. Yes, we are asking to fine tune the responsibility to give the responsibility to people on the front lines fighting the battle, but friends, it is an increase. Only in Washington can an increase be called a cut and be called heartless and mean spirited when in fact we are public spirited trying to get control of this problem, trying to feed the truly needy and trying not to make this a crass political issue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the United States legal system should not imitate Judge Wapner's ``People's Court.'' Our entrepreneurs should not be threatened by organizations like 1-800-LAWYER that encourage American citizens to sue everyone and anyone with little or no reason. Right now, our legal system is well intentioned, but is not structured with any common sense. We have the chance to provide this common sense with lawsuit abuse and product liability reform. We cannot continue to allow trial lawyers to enrich themselves at the expense of well-intentioned citizens. We have citizens in this country afraid to practice their business or produce certain products for fear of being sued. We have Americans who are not getting replacement heart valves because the company that manufactured them was afraid of being bankrupted by an enormous lawsuit. Let us put an end to out of control litigation and get the legal system in this country back on the right track, as we continue to enact our Contract With America.