Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, in response to his question, I am not smoking anything. But to respond to your question, the GAO report makes it very clear that the farmers are being paid double the world price. They are being paid over $600 per ton, whereas the world price is closer to $350.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Connie Morella.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that this is not a complicated issue. It is pretty basic stuff. We have a quota system that is really a relic of the Depression era. It is a system in which if you want to grow peanuts and you do not have a quota, you cannot do it and sell it in the Connecticut market. It is a system that, if you actually had your own store and you wanted to grow peanuts and sell it in your own store, just like some illegal drug, you would not be allowed to do that. You would be arrested, you would be breaking the law. This is a system that I believe most Republicans would find repugnant if it did not have the name farmer attached to it. This is a system where two-thirds of the people who have the quota do not even farm. This is a system that is costing the consumers of this country up to $500 million a year. This is a system that we should no longer have. Japan would love to emulate a system like this. I think they kind of do it for rice and we think it is an outrage. We have a system where if you have a quota you can sell, if you do not have a quota, in this country, an American farmer cannot produce and sell. This system needs to be repealed, and we do it over 7 years.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 2281.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. You can have it.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. SHAYS. I would love to have some time. You have an hour, we have an hour afterwards. Just curious how long you might be going.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to come back in a half-hour, if the gentleman would like to speak, and I will come back in a half-hour.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank my colleague for making this point. The bottom line is we have an extraordinary opportunity. We want to seize this opportunity and we want to work together with the President, who came in with a very conciliatory message, I thought, and with our colleagues on the other side. But we want them to be real numbers, we want there to be structural change in the program. We want to save this country for future generations.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this is that people have said, ``Well, we got into this over 30 years. It should take us 30 years.'' No, we got into debt in 1 year. We are not looking to pay back the debt. We were simply saying, ``Let us not make the debt any larger.'' So we have a 7-year plan. Frankly, a number of us here have said, ``Let us balance the budget sooner with no tax cut,'' but the issue is ultimately balancing the budget, getting our financial house in order. Mr. Speaker, we are not paying back that debt, we are simply saying, ``Let us not make the debt any larger.'' When you talk about the innovation, we have seen extraordinary innovation on the State level. You were a Governor for 8 years. I can remember that we looked at how you did it when we were in the State of Connecticut, because Delaware was doing innovative programs. We looked at what Tennessee is doing and what Arizona is doing with managed health care for nursing care and so on. Why is it that the working American basically is under managed care, but the elderly, who are under taxpayer expense, and the poor, who are under taxpayer expense, are under the traditional old system of fee- for-service? We are still going to allow them to have fee-for-service, but we are eager to encourage them to get into plans that save money and are more efficient and provide better service. Mr. Speaker, we could talk about a lot of issues, and we are basically, I think, running out of time in the next few minutes. We have about 3 minutes. I would be delighted to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is the only private plans that can be offered are plans that offer something better, the same or better. But in order to get people into those private plans, they will have to be better; otherwise the people will stay in the fee for service. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. SHAYS. We are trying to. It is a different kind of mace. It is the mace you hold. But bottom line, Mr. Speaker, we want to get our financial house in order and balance the budget. I get into this whole issue of Medicare, which is really trying to save our trust funds. There is not a Member of Congress who does not represent a number of seniors, and we have had to talk to our constituents about this issue. It has been very interesting to me because what they want, we are giving them. I, as a Member of Congress, pay 28 percent of my health care like any other Federal employee. I do not get anything other than any other Federal employee. I pay 28 percent, and the Government pays 72 percent. The wonderful thing is that we get choice. What do we do with Medicare is we do not increase the copayment or increase the deductible. We keep it at 31.5 percent; the taxpayers pay 68.5 percent, and we give choice. We allow recipients to join plans where they might get eye care, dental care, hearing aid assistance, where they might have their copayments paid for by an HMO if they choose to join an HMO, but they can stay where they are.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the way this started, we are talking about a baseline, and we figured in inflation. Then we said last year, even though we spend more, it is not an increase in spending. I remember when I was first elected in 1987, I would go back home and say, ``We cut spending here and here and here,'' and my constituents would say, ``If you cut spending, how come the spending keeps going up?'' That was a very logical question, and I realized I was using that concept of a baseline budget.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, whatever the numbers ultimately that have come through the addition of negotiations in the budget agreements that happened since, the bottom line is that we were spending hundreds of millions of dollars more each year and to get up to $6.8 billion in the 7th year. The student loan is the one that really gets me the most. We are going to allow that to grow from $24.5 billion to $36 billion. That is a 50-percent increase. It is not a cut; it is an increase. We do something. We are saying to students they have to do something they have not done in the past. Present law is, when they graduate, for 6 months they pay no interest. The Government, taxpayers, pay the interest. Then what we have said is no, students will pay the interest not when they are in school; they pay no interest when they are in school. They will have a 6-month grace period when they pay no return on the loan. But 6 months on, they start to pay the loan back, and we amortize the interest as soon as they graduate. It is a 6-month period. Ultimately, we are saying, yes, students are going to pay more. They still get the same loan. They are going to pay $9 more a month. It is a movie and a Coke. It is a pizza. The bottom line is, it is something that a working person now, having graduated, can pay. It saves the taxpayer $4 billion in the course of 7 years. We still allow that program to grow, though, notwithstanding, from $24.5 billion to $36 billion. Mr. Speaker, just take two more numbers, and then I would like to yield back to my colleagues. On Medicare and Medicare, our numbers were $89 billion; they grow to $127 billion. Only in this place, and in the Senate, maybe at the White House, not maybe, but at the White House, really in this city, when we spend so much more, do people call it a cut. Or in Medicare from $178 billion to $289 billion in the seventh year. This is the number that really gets me. We are going to allow for a significant increase in Medicare on a per beneficiary, per elderly citizen, they get an equivalent of $4,800. In the seventh year that is going to grow to $7,100 per beneficiary. All of our constituents, that is what they will get. Hardly a cut. A very definite increase. We are looking to, what? Control the growth in spending. We spent $9 billion in the last 7 years. We want to spend $12 billion in the next 7. We just do not want to spend $13.3 billion. We want to slow the growth in spending. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague, and then I notice my colleague from Delaware has come, and we can perhaps yield to him.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I happen to have voted for the 1990 budget. I voted for it because I was willing to even vote for a tax increase where there was a slight tax increase to balance the budget. But I used those numbers that were done not by the Congressional Budget Office, but by the Office of Management and Budget, and they were basically the President's numbers. They were basically Dick Darman's numbers, the head of the budget office, and they simply turned out to be extraordinarily unrealistic. I vowed that I would never ever again be unmindful of how the numbers were calculated, and that is why we want the President to be willing to use basically conservative numbers, certainly not numbers that just estimate ourselves out of the problem. What I did like about that budget agreement, and I think my colleague would agree it was an important part, Gramm-Rudman, which was a 5-year plan to get to a balanced budget and sequestered funds. In other words, if one did not reach one's deficit target, there would be automatic cuts. It only dealt with one-third of the budget. Appropriations. Half of the budget, though, are entitlements. This gets me into the whole point of the challenge of balancing the budget. Our first task is to balance our Federal budget, and get our financial house in order. We cannot do it just looking at appropriations. I think my colleague in the chair would recognize that we have been squeezing what we call discretionary spending. We have been cutting back traditional government, but we have allowed the entitlements, in other words, someone who fits the category gets the money, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, foods stamps and so on, certain agricultural subsidies. Fit it and get the money. That is on automatic pilot. It continues each and every year. What the 1990 agreement did, one of the good parts, it said, if we increased the entitlement, we had to come up with the dollars to pay for it, either with a tax increase or a spending cut. What Congress had done to get around Gramm-Rudman was we squeezed the discretionary spending coming out of the Committee on Appropriations, and they increased the entitlement. They did not get it through an annual vote of Congress; they did it through a mandatory expenditure. We are taking on entitlements. We are not cutting them. We are slowing the growth. One of the big criticisms is that we are doing cuts to the earned income tax credit, a very important program for the working poor. They pay no taxes because they do not make enough. The Federal Government gives them something back to get them to get beyond that working-poor status. We want to slow the growth of that program because under existing law that would go to $35,000. We want to keep it around $30,000, and we want it to apply to families and not to single individuals in particular. But we still allow that program to grow from $19.9 billion to $25.4 billion. That is an increase in spending; not a cut. We are changing the program but we are increasing spending. The School Lunch Program, which was something that has always distressed me, and I bring it up when we have the opportunity, the President is going to schools and telling young children that they are not going to have a school lunch, when we are going to go from $5.2 billion to $6.8 billion. That is not a cut; that is an increase. We are allowing it to grow about 4.5 percent a year instead of 5.2.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I have the other side of that story.

Mr. SHAYS. A little older.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unusual to have a special order with such a seasoned veteran at the helm as Speaker. I thank you for your willingness to take this time from your busy schedule to allow the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], and myself to make a few comments about what we have been faced with and what we will be facing in the months to come. I would start by saying a lot of good people are leaving Congress, a lot of people I have tremendous respect for. One of their comments is they are leaving because it is not a fun place anymore; that there is some animosity between parties and among chambers. I was thinking, you know, the reason goes far more than that, because there is some disagreement that is quite significant. But I contend that some of my colleagues who are leaving are leaving when we need them the most and when the heavy lifting has really begun. In a way, they are escaping the responsibility for dealing with the crisis that has just been pushed for that next Congress to deal with. For decades we knew that we were getting ourselves deeper in a hole. At the end of the Vietnam war, if I went to 1974, the national debt was about $430 billion. That is the debt, not the deficits. That national debt has grown to $4.9 trillion, a tenfold increase since the last great war. We have a tenfold increase since the last great war in Vietnam. It was not called a war, but it clearly was a major expenditure on the part of the United States. So we fought the Revolutionary War, we fought the War of 1812, we actually fought the war with the pirates and their taking some of our sailors in the Mediterranean. We fought the Civil War, we fought the war with the Indians throughout the course of our history, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam war, the Korean war, and we have a debt of $435 billion. Then what happened? That debt has just gone up almost exponentially in the last 22 years. I contend it has gone that way because both Republicans and Democrats have, for whatever reason, agreed that they would not give in on what they did not want to give in on. Democrats did not want to give in on the growth of entitlements, and some of my Republican colleagues did not want to give in on defense spending. They both agreed to deficit spend in the process. We find ourselves in a tremendously difficult situation with a lot of large debt, and now the heavy lifting begins. We are taking on a lot of special interests, because this Republican majority, candidly, wants to get our financial house in order. Ultimately we can only succeed if the President wants to be part of that effort. He should be an equal partner to it. The bottom line is we need to do some heavy lifting. So yes, this is not a fun place anymore. It is not a fun place because we are having to do some very significant effort. I will just make a few more comments before I yield to my colleague from Michigan. Prime Minister Rabin, before he died, made it very clear that he was elected by adults to represent the children. I think that is a good message for all of us, we are elected by adults to represent the children. If we are concerned about the children, we have to be concerned about the national debt and the kind of burden we are placing on our children and our children's children. So we are setting about to accomplish three major tasks: One is to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget in 7 years or less; another is to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, from bankruptcy. I know my colleague at the chair, representing Florida, is representing so many constituents who in fact are receiving Medicare. This fund is going insolvent, Medicare part B is going insolvent this year. More money is going out of the fund than coming in from the payroll tax. We want to save the trust fund from insolvency. The third thing we are eager to do is to transform this caretaking social and corporate welfare state, it is just not welfare for the poor, it is welfare for corporations, and move it, transform it, into a caring, opportunity society, where everyone has an opportunity to succeed. It is not a hands-off, we do not care. It is a very much hands-on. But instead of giving the people the food, we want to give them the seed. In the process of doing these three things, getting our financial house in order and balancing the budget, saving Medicare from bankruptcy and transforming the social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society, we are talking about change. In the process of this change, we have made a number of people who want the status quo, we are confronting them. I would contend rather than being critical of my colleagues, and particularly our freshmen, bless our freshmen's hearts, that we should be appreciative that these, many of them business men and women, said ``I ran for this job to get our financial house in order. If I lose the next election, so be it. This is not my life. My country is my life, my family is my life, God is my life. But being here is not my life.'' They are willing to risk defeat in the process of doing something right. So we have this special order just to talk about some of what we want to do and why we think it is so important. With and I yield to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. The gentleman has asked a very important question, and I would like to get into that issue; but what I first want to do is be very clear about what we are doing, because I am not all that clear about what the President is doing. I am clear about what he is saying in terms of his message, and I want to compliment the President on a few issues. And the gentleman is welcome to stay, but I want to go through a few key points; and I might have time at the end that we would have this type of analysis of the President's presentation. We are not cutting the earned income tax credit; it is growing. The Student Loan Program is growing. The student lunches are growing. Student loans are growing by 50 percent. Every student is going to get the same amount of loans under our plan as they would get under the President's plan. There is a difference. We are saying, with the students in that period of when they graduate to when they get a job, and we allow a 6- month, what they call grace period, interest free, we are going to have that interest paid by that student, but we are going to allow that interest to be amortized during the entire repayment of the loan. It amounts to $9 more a month. It is a movie theater and popcorn. It is a pizza. It is something that we are asking students to do. They will still have all the loans, but it is $9 more a month, and that is because we do not want the taxpayer to pay that. We are saving, admittedly, $4 billion in the next 7 years, the taxpayers are. Medicaid is growing from $89 to $127 billion. Medicare is growing from $178 to $289 billion. Medicare is the one that really gets me. Medicare is growing at 7.2 percent more a year, and we did it by not increasing copayments and not increasing the deduction or increasing the cost of the premium to the beneficiary. We leave it at 31.5 percent. The taxpayers will pay 68.5 percent. We left it at 31.5 percent. Under existing law, it would have dropped to 25 percent. Why would we ask the taxpayers to pay even more? We want to be at 31.5 percent. As health care costs go up, 31.5 percent is going to be slightly higher, but the taxpayers are going to pay slightly higher at 68.5 percent, because they pay the balance of it. The bottom line is, we are looking to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget, and we are doing it by cutting some programs in discretionary spending and slowing the growth of entitlements, which are 50 percent of the budget. They are on automatic pilot, and we are looking to change that, and we are doing it for our children. Now, when we get to Medicare, in particular, we know it is starting to go insolvent. What does that mean? This year, more money is going out of the Medicare Part A fund that pays for our hospitals than is coming in; and in the seventh year, all of it is out of the fund; there is no money left. Then the only way we pay for Medicare Part A is, the money goes into the fund and it immediately disappears and it will not be enough to pay for all the costs of Medicare Part A. So we are looking to restore $132 billion of funds to put into that system, to slow the takeout and to provide the funds to be in that system until the year 2010. And when I think about this, I am thinking about Medicare, it is growing at 7.2 percent a year. Per beneficiary, it is $4,800 to $7,100. And I am going to say it again: Only in this place, when you spend so much more, do people call it a cut. It is a 49-percent increase to beneficiaries. Let me go through one last part. When we get to this third part, we want to get our financial house in order. We want to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, from bankruptcy. Transforming this caretaking, social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society is a very big part of what we are about. Instead of giving people the food, we want them to learn how to grow the food. Instead of giving them the food, we are giving them the seed to grow the food. We are looking to make people responsible. This gets me to the President's presentation. The President gave a speech that Ronald Reagan, for the most part, would have been proud to give, and I would be. He talked about personal responsibility. He talked about downsizing Government, making it smaller. He talked about what we have been fighting for during this last year. And I want to be respectful of the President, because he was respectful of us and he is our President. To his credit, he said that this Republican Congress is trying to do some heavy lifting and get our financial house in order. He acknowledged that, and in the end, he acknowledged what we have done with congressional accountability and the gift ban and lobby disclosure. He said it happened under this Congress, and I consider that a positive and honest statement. I also believe in a lot of what he said about cherishing our children and our family, and dealing with crime and dealing with education issues, and the need, in fact he scolded Congress on the environment, and I happen to agree with his scolding of Congress on that one issue. The pendulum is too far this way, and unfortunately, I think too many of us on our side of the aisle want to go too far the other way. We may have an honest disagreement on that, but that is democracy. But the bottom line is, I wrestle with this, 12-year-olds having babies. I wrestle with 14-year-olds selling drugs. I wrestle with 15- year-olds killing each other and 18-year-olds who cannot read their diplomas. I wrestle with 24-year-olds who do not have a job, not because jobs do not exist, but because those McDonald's jobs are dead- end jobs. My dad, bless his heart, would have said to me, Son, how many hours are you working there? I would have said, 10. He would have said, Son, it just increased to 12 or 15. No job is a dead end, because it teaches you to come to work on time and to get up in the morning and to be of service. And it teaches you that you get something in return. And so I just make this point, that if we succeed in balancing the budget, if we succeed in saving our trust funds, but we do not transform this social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society, we have ultimately failed. And I say that as a moderate. I say, as someone who recognizes that some of what Government has done, and some of what I have voted to have Government do, has failed. Could I ask the Speaker how much time we have left. I want to make sure I am thoughtful of my colleague who has joined me.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman points out, there is a tremendous balance in that whole effort. The bottom line is, the President talked about personal responsibility, and that is where it is at. I would like to close by making this point. I know there are a number of Members of Congress who are not running again. Some of them happen to be moderate Members. And the news media said they are not running again because this is no longer a fun place or that this is no longer a nice place. And I just want to take a little bit of a different view of that issue. Mr. Speaker, my view is, very frankly, this is not a fun place anymore. Why would it be a fun place? Because we are doing heavy lifting. There is nothing fun about having to confront the elderly and the young and every other special interest group and say, We are going to have to do some things differently to save this country from bankruptcy. It is not a fun place. But what bothers me is that some of the people who are leaving were here as this country went down into a deep hole of debt, and now that we are in this deep hole of debt and we have to get out of this deep hole of debt, at least stop the deficits, they are quitting. So I contend that they may be quitting, not because this is not a fun place anymore because people are not nice, but because we have to do heavy lifting. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, we are doing heavy lifting. This is an epic battle. We are not going to necessarily agree with our colleagues on the other side. We should continue this battle and fight it out.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House. Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Rabin made it very clear that he felt that politicians, elected officials, were elected by adults to represent the children, and that is in fact what our responsibility ultimately is, to represent the children and to leave this country a better place than we found it. When I was elected in the statehouse in 1974, really at the end of the Vietnam War, our national debt was $430 billion. In the 22 years since the end of the Vietnam war, our national debt has grown to $4.9 trillion. We have seen a tenfold increase since the last really extensive war. So we fought the Revolutionary War, we fought the war with the pirates, we fought the War of 1812, we fought the Civil War, we fought the Spanish-American War, we fought World War I, we fought World War II, we fought the Korean war, we fought the Vietnam war, and our national debt was about $430 billion. Admittedly those dollars bought more in past years, but since then our national debt has grown to $4.9 trillion. I was elected to the statehouse, and I looked at Congress with some awe, that it is an amazing place. It is a magnificent opportunity to serve in Congress. But I looked as a State legislator and said I have to balance our State budget in Connecticut. I cannot let it be unbalanced. I understand when times are bad you might have a year or two when you want to generate economic activity and get out of a recession, but you would not just have this systematic deficit spending that has added tenfold to our national debt. When I was elected in 1987, I vowed that the most important thing would be to save our country from bankruptcy. Not to ``balance the budget,'' but, no, to save it from bankruptcy, to not mortgage this country so that our children would not have a country. I became part of an effort that the gentleman from Ohio [John Kasich] started in 1989, at least that is the first time I remember voting for one of his major deficit reduction bills, and there were 38 of us that voted for it. Each year that number kept increasing. We have three main objections as this Republican majority: We want to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget; we want to save our trust funds from bankruptcy, particularly Medicare from insolvency, as it is going now to bankruptcy in the year 2002, 7 years from now, now 6 years from now; and, third, we want to transform this caretaking social and corporate welfare state into a caring opportunity society. Now, on the first area, getting our financial house in order, as a Member of Congress, I vote on one-third of the budget. I do not vote on entitlements, unless we make a proactive effort to change. What comes out of the Committee on Appropriations is one third of the budget. When I was in the statehouse, it was basically 100 percent of the budget, except for the debt issue. So we vote only one-third of the budget. Gramm-Rudman focused on one-third of the budget. You control the budget by appropriations, but it was only one-third. Then entitlements kept growing so that they are now half of our budget. What we are looking to do, this is the first Congress, and Wednesday are doing something that Leon Panetta, the Chief of Staff, the former head of the OMB, but then the former chairman of the Committee on the Budget said we have to do, that we will only get a handle on our budget and get our financial house in order if we look to control the growth of entitlements. So I take tremendous pride in being part of an effort with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, who have been willing to take on every special interest to represent the children to get our financial house in order so that we do not have such large debt. And this debt is consuming 42 percent of all of our savings. Now, what does that mean? It means that when people save money for new plant and equipment, to have it be invested in this country, 42 percent of it gets taken away to fund our national debt. So what are we doing? We are cutting some discretionary programs. We are doing that. We are downsizing Government. We are looking to have the Commerce Department not be a department anymore, to downsize and reduce the number of departments and become more efficient and not have 11 layers of decision makers within our departments; but to reduce that, like we have in the private sector. But when I hear the word ``cut,'' it applies to some things and not others. We are not cutting the earned income tax credit. We are not cutting the school lunch program. We are not cutting the student loan program. We are not cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Maybe we should in some instances be cutting some programs. We are not. We are allowing them to grow. They are going to grow and grow and grow, but we are trying to slow their growth. The bottom line to this is what the earned income tax credit is is a payment that the Federal Government makes to the working poor. We are going to continue that, but it is not going to go to married couples without children, it is not going to go to single people. And we ultimately are going to cap it so it does not go to people making incomes of $35,000 or more. We are going to allow the earned income tax credit to grow from $19 to $25 billion. The School Lunch Program is to grow from $5.2 to $6.8 billion. The Student Loan Program is to grow from $24 to $36 billion; that one really gets me. We are getting student loans. They are growing by 50 percent. Only in this place and in this city, when you cut the growth and allow it to continue to grow by 50 percent, do people say you are spending less.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, I will yield briefly.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes a liberal is the person who sees someone drowning out 50 feet from the pier and runs to the end of the pier and grabs 100 feet of rope and throws this excess rope. The rope is dangling around the person, and finally it is taut and ready to be pulled in, and that liberal takes the rope, drops it, and says, I have done my good deed and on to the next. I have criticism of conservatives if they take this position: They see someone drowning 50 feet out and they take 25 feet of rope and say, Here, I will throw 25 feet of rope. You swim halfway, and I will meet you and pull you in. They may need 50 feet of rope, but they may need something more, and I believe this side of the aisle has not taken that view. It has taken the view that we need not only give people the seed, but show them how to grow the food. But we do not necessarily give them the food indefinitely. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].