[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           BE ALL YOU CAN BE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to take the well today 
wearing this ribbon which was given to me by the Girl Scouts, because 
the Girl Scouts today are asking adults to wear this ribbon and be the 
best that they can be. I think that that is a good motto for all of us 
as Americans. We probably ought to do it everyday, but this is a 
special day and I, as an ex-Girl Scout and a mother of a Girl Scout, am 
very, very proud to be here and be talking about that.
  So I got to thinking, well, now, if you took this and applied it to 
the Federal Government in Washington, why do people get so frustrated 
with this and what would ``be the best we could be'' mean at the 
Federal level?
  Well, it seems to me that one of the things that we don't do at the 
Federal level is model what the average family does at their kitchen 
table. At the average family kitchen table when times get tough, the 
last thing they do to make budget ends meet is cut the children. They 
will try to hold the children harmless from budget cuts absolutely as 
long as possible, and yet this week, the first thing we are going to do 
as we try to find the first round of budget cuts, and these are just 
for big tax cuts and they are for disaster relief in California, we are 
going to cut children. That is going to be our very first thing, our 
very first budget cut act. Heaven only knows what we will do to them 
when we get to the next round where we are dealing with the deficit.
  Now I remind you that children did not cause this deficit, nor are 
they asking for big tax cuts. They would just like a school lunch, 
thank you, and they did not cause the disaster in California or other 
places. But I think the thing that is really harming and the reason I 
think our priorities are so wrong right now is that while this body has 
been discussing risk assessment, risk assessment, risk assessment, and 
we were doing this all across the board when it came to regulations, 
and many people agree, yes, we should look at that, but why are we not 
looking at the risk assessment on the next generation of children which 
will people America's 21st century if we continue on with these budget 
cuts?
  Now, what are some of the things that we know? When I chaired the 
Committee on Children, Youth and Families, we had all sorts of CEOs 
from corporate America join us looking at the cost-effectiveness of 
Federal dollars spent for children, and the best money you can save is 
investing in a young child, because you are saving it later on, saving 
it later on.
  We got all sorts of incredible numbers that are a big surprise. If 
you vaccinate every child--and as you well know, America is way behind 
in vaccinating children, many Third World countries do a much better 
job--the studies we have been showed is that it is $14 to the taxpayer 
later on. So one dollar for a vaccination, every one dollar spent on 
that saved $14 later on. That is not a bad deal. I have never been able 
to invest my money like that in any other area.
  When you put children into Head Start, for every dollar we spent on 
Head Start, you could show a $6 saving in special education that the 
taxpayer would pick up. For feeding children, for every dollar you 
spent in WIC and for every dollar you were spending in child nutrition 
programs, you way more than made the money back in not having to spend 
it in Medicaid.
  You know, we go around all the time, too, saying children must say no 
to this, children must say no to this, we must give them things to say 
yes to, and that is what we are doing. We are taking a lot of the same 
``yes to's'' away.
  We are totally taking away summer jobs. We are taking away many of 
the youth programs. We are cutting back many of the others so that 
localities are going to be really strapped, and I must say, as the 
prior gentlewoman from Oregon said, when you are taking 63 percent of 
these cuts out of a group of programs that only make up 12 percent of 
the discretionary budget. I think we are going down real heavy on the 
kids.
  This is not across the board. We are not going after $600 toilet 
seats. Oh, no. those are sacred cows. We are not going after other 
things. No no, those are sacred cows. Why? Because they have political 
action committees that can come protect them with all sorts of money 
for campaigns. They can organize and they can vote.
  Children don't vote. They don't have political action committees, and 
I think if we are going to be the best that we can be, we have got to 
reconsider these cuts this week because I think it is really--maybe you 
think it is penny wise, but it is long term and pound foolish.


                          ____________________