[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3314-H3315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CRITICISMS OF THE RESCISSIONS PACKAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, we will no doubt hear a great deal of 
criticism of this rescissions package as cutting too much, too fast, or 
that vital programs are being cut unfairly. I can understand that 
feeling. All of us have had to have a little bit trimmed on various 
programs that are pet projects or pet laws that we thought were working 
very effectively. Obviously, because of the size and scope of the bill 
which we passed this morning--and I think justly--this rescissions 
package offers ample opportunity for objection on the part of those who 
are opposed to spending cuts. Likewise, amendments were proposed and 
might have been proposed by those who would rather see alternative cuts 
to those contained in the bill. I attempted to offer an amendment to 
rescue the summer youth program which is vital to most urban cities in 
this country and was eliminated in the stealth of night, 1:30 a.m., 
over the chairman's objection. And we were not able to offer it because 
of the time situation on the floor and the fact that we had to preside 
over a committee that could only be held this morning when the House 
was in session.
  We hope that will be worked out in conference and I am confident that 
between the other body and the House conferees, it will be worked out 
in conference.
  The point I want to make is in some ways the bill does not go far 
enough. For instance, the rescission bill that came before us does not 
make a single cut or rescission in the military construction program. 
That budget category has been totally spared from the budget knife. 
While this Congress does not want to cut needed funding for military 
housing and for facilities critical to the national defense, to argue 
that every single dollar in the military construction program is of a 
critical nature is nonsense. We should be as rigorous in our efforts to 
cut wasteful spending in military programs as we are in social 
programs.
  Let me give one example of such waste. The Navy is preparing to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars to homeport up to 3 nuclear aircraft 
carriers in San Diego. The fiscal year 1995 military construction 
budget contains $18.3 million for dredging San Diego Bay to accommodate 
those carriers and directs that the Navy spend another $5.1 million for 
the design of facilities necessary to homeport these carriers. This 
represents a costly down payment on what may be a three-quarters of a 
billion dollars boondoggle duplicating existing facilities the Navy is 
proposing to eliminate in the base closure process.
  Engineering reports suggested that the Navy could homeport these same 
carriers in Long Beach for $25 million or less. At the same time, the 
Los Angeles Times has reported in a March 3 story that the Navy's plan 
to dispose of the spoils of this dredging may very well be illegal. 
Thus, the project may not even be allowed to go forward. Yet the Navy 
is proposing that we spend in excess of $100 million in next year's 
[[Page H3315]] military construction budget with more to come in future 
budgets.
  All told we may be wasting as much as $750 million for this project.
  I have asked the General Accounting Office to look into this matter 
and to detail the costs involved. This is exactly the type of 
rescission we should have made. The Navy does not even know if it can 
spend this money. Certainly it cannot spend this money in this fiscal 
year. Meanwhile, far less expensive
 alternatives are available that build on existing infrastructure 
instead of needlessly duplicating what we already have.

  At the same time that vital readiness programs are underfunded, when 
we are grounding aircraft and cutting training, when some military 
families are having to use food stamps, when Army divisions are not 
combat prepared, this Congress should be going over each and every 
program to determine if it is really necessary or it could be done at 
less cost.
  Unfortunately, I am not given the opportunity to offer an amendment 
to rescind the funding in that bill because while we had to, I think 
quite correctly, find the funding in the chapter where we were either 
trying to add or subtract money, I would hope next time we have a 
rescission bill that we could go anywhere in that bill to find the 
funding and anywhere in the appropriations for a given year to find the 
funding.
  While I supported the bill, I would like to see that type of 
flexibility provided in a rule from the Committee on Rules because last 
night it was impossible to amend portions of the bill once an amendment 
had already been made and that makes no sense.

                          ____________________