[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5763-H5764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           HOUSE DEFENSE BILL SEEKS TO ADD FAT TO DOD BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the floor to talk about 
the great debate that is going to be beginning today on the defense 
bill. We are going to start today on the defense bill, but the real 
problem is we are not going to be able to do much about the defense 
bill.
  I find this a remarkable situation that we are in really for the 
first time since I have been here. You see, the President asked for a 
number, the Pentagon asked for a number, the Senate came up with about 
the same number. But in the House, they have added $9.5 billion to that 
number. We are going to force-feed the Pentagon with all sorts of 
things they do not even want. The problem is, we are going to get 
exactly 1 hour to debate on this and this is going to be during the 
rule, because the rule does not allow any amendments to take that fat 
out. Seventy-three percent of the amendments offered to the Committee 
on Rules were denied. Seventy-three percent.
  I had an amendment that brought the number back down to the Pentagon 
number, the President's number, the Senate's number, and that was 
denied. When this rule is passed today, it is going to hermetically 
seal the fat in this DOD budget.
  I suppose you can say, if you want to, there should be different 
criteria for the Pentagon than there are other places. But the Pentagon 
is not even asking for this different criteria. They are saying they 
can do very well on $9.5 billion. I think from the example of the last 
few days with the celebration of O'Grady coming home and being so 
generous in showing how well trained he was as well as the Marines that 
picked him up, the Pentagon knows what it is doing, and so why are we 
insisting we have to add all these pet rocks to the budget at a time 
when funding is so dear around here?
  You have seen all of the pain that has gone on with this cutting in 
many other areas. If you look at the budget and look at where we are 
really cutting, we are cutting the things that affect real people, real 
people, like my family, people who need educational loans, people who 
need housing, people who need health care, people who want school 
lunches. Those are the kinds of things we are cutting. Then we are 
giving the Pentagon things they do not even ask for. Go figure. It does 
not make any sense at all.
  I was looking at some of the things we could do if we had this $9.5 
billion. One of the first things that jumped up is $9.5 billion would 
double the amount of biomedical research at the National Institutes of 
Health. Double it.
  Think. What does the average American fear the most? Are they more 
[[Page H5764]] afraid of coming down with cancer? Are they more afraid 
of heart disease? Are they more afraid of many of the other illnesses 
that we still have not conquered yet? Or are they sleeping with a night 
light thinking that some enemy is going to overrun America and that if 
we do not insist the Pentagon get even more money than they have asked 
for, it is all over for us?
  The average American I know is much more frightened about the 
progress we have not made on many diseases, and I think they might want 
this $9.5 billion to go to deficit reduction. But if it did not go to 
deficit reduction, I would certainly think if we insisted it had to be 
spent some way, many people I know would much prefer it be spent trying 
to find some answers to diseases that their families have suffered from 
that have been suffering from cutbacks in funding rather than insisting 
that we give a bunch of weapons systems that people do not want and do 
not even know where we would use them.
  This money could be used to clean up 380 Superfund sites. We have 
been cutting the funding for cleaning up environmental Superfund sites. 
Again, I think many Americans would much prefer to see Superfund sites 
cleaned up because they are much more frightened of what we have done 
to the environment and the fact that we are playing so fast and loose 
and pretending like this planet is really just in a chapter 11 closeout 
sale. A lot of people would prefer we spent it that way if you are 
going to insist we spend it. There are need-based causes over there.
  When we look at what you could do for breast cancer. Ninety-five 
million mammograms could be bought for that. You want to know how many 
mammograms that is? More than we could ever want. But that is a way we 
could go if you wanted to do that.
  It would cover child care costs totally for every young children at 
the highest quality, for 2.5 million children in America. We all know 
that we are way short on child care slots.
  Mr. Speaker, many things are there and I must say, we ought to do 
what is need based and not protect it the way this rule is going to 
protect this added fat to the budget.


                          ____________________