[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           BASELINE BUDGETING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little bit about phony 
baselines, which is where the gentleman on the other side of the aisle 
left off before the time expired. That is a funny place here inside the 
Beltway in Washington, DC.
  The Pentagon gets its own special baseline. That is, at the Pentagon 
things are very expensive, you know, over there at the Pentagon. So 
they get not only the inflation that seniors get on Social Security or 
the inflation that anybody else might think about, they get their own 
special inflation index. And at the Pentagon a cut is a decrease in the 
increase.
  So say next year the Pentagon determines its own little special 
inflation index is 6 percent. If they only get a 5 percent increase in 
their $271 billion budget, that is if they only get an increase around 
$11 billion, if they only get $10 billion, that is a decrease, and we 
would hear screams from that side of the aisle. We heard screams 
earlier.
  We have appropriated more money for the Pentagon this year. God 
forbid we should ask them to produce something. It costs extra.
  We had to come up with a supplemental bill to pay for the Pentagon to 
do something. They couldn't squeeze it out of their $271 billion 
budget.
  Now with the nutrition programs, of course, they apply a different 
ruler. That is, are there going to be more kids going to school next 
year? Yes; is food going to be more expensive next year? Yes.
  There might even be a little bit of an increase in the wages for the 
people who cook those meals in the schools. A lot of them are getting 
minimum wage, and if we increase the minimum wage they will get a 
little bit more. Now in their world those increases don't count. Only 
increases in inflation for the Pentagon count.
  So here is the world we are looking at. We know there will be more 
kids in school. We know there will be more need for those kids.
  I visited a school lunch last week and talked about it last Monday 
night on the floor. So I won't repeat the stories about how hungry 
those kids are on Mondays and Fridays and what the needy really is. But 
the point is, in their world we will only give them enough money to 
increase it just a little bit. And if there are more kids, the portions 
get smaller. Or if there are more kids, ketchup becomes a vegetable 
again, whatever. We are just--can't afford those things.
  But we can afford an infinite amount of money for the Pentagon. That 
is what is wrong with this debate. Let's put our priorities in order 
here. This debate is about priorities.
  What will make America stronger tomorrow? Is it hungry kids who can't 
learn because we cut back on the school lunch program, the school 
breakfast program? Or is it imaginary programs like star wars and the 
fat defense contractors taking people out to dinner every night on the 
Federal budget, which we all know goes on with these Pentagon 
lobbyists.
  So I would like to put it in that perspective. And let's just 
remember, when it comes to the Pentagon, a decrease and an increase is 
a cut, but when it comes to school lunches, a decrease in a real need 
is not a cut.
  That is what the Republicans are trying to feed us here. It is about 
as real as feeding people ketchup and calling it a vegetable
  They talk a lot about the bureaucrats. I checked that out. I was 
disturbed about that. I thought, well, maybe they are right.
  We could eliminate some of these administrative cuts if we eliminated 
every administrator. That is from the woman who runs the program 
downtown here in Washington, DC., down to the person who takes the 
little lunch tickets, to the person who cooks in the school. That is if 
Congress could miraculously appropriate the money and deliver the food 
straight to the kids with no one in between. That would be one-eighth 
of the cuts the Republicans are making in the real needs of these 
programs.
  So it is a lie. It is a lie to say we just want to eliminate the 
bureaucrats. No, you can't just eliminate the bureaucrats. Where are 
you going to get the other seven-eighths of your cut?
  The gentleman, Mr. Olver, made a great point. How is it they can talk 
about $7 billion, ``b'', billion dollars, in savings in school 
nutrition programs, WIC programs and other children's nutrition 
programs and then tell us there aren't any cuts.
  I would like to make $7 billion in savings over at the Pentagon, and 
I would be happy to tell the Pentagon that those things don't 
constitute cuts. But we would hear screams from that side of the aisle 
because it is a different standard. It is a different ruler when it 
comes to kids. They come after the Pentagon.


                          ____________________