I know that the ranking member on the Committee on National Security has spoken to the Speaker, has spoken to all sorts of people. We feel this is one of the most fundamental issues there, and we thought people had come here to debate reasonable levels of expenditures. To deny our side the right to offer a very basic amendment that would bring the defense budget, the bloated defense budget, in my opinion, back down to where the Commander in Chief had it and the Pentagon had it I think would be absolutely outrageous, so I am glad to hear the Committee on Rules has not done that and that is a malicious rumor, and I certainly hope the gentleman from New York will not do that, or we are going to have to declare war or something.
Patricia Schroeder: “I know that the ranking member on the Committee on National Security has spoken to the Speaker, has spoken to all sorts…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the defense budget and the right to propose amendments during a debate.
Share
More from Patricia Schroeder
here are six reasons to vote against the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization conference report: First, the measure provides: $11.3 billion more than the Pentagon requested overall, $7 billion more than requested for procurement, $3.8…
I wanted this body to hear what the gentlewoman said because that has been our position all along. We do not wish to hurt good mothers. That was the President's position. That is still our position. I was the one who went to the Committee…
I was really pleased to hear the Speaker say he did not have an objection to it, and was wondering, since it appears to have been cleared and so noncontroversial, could we get it out and could we get it passed?
I am here today, first of all, to say that over the weekend I was very pleased to hear the Speaker say he had no problem with reporting to the floor the bill that I have been pushing for a very long time. That is a bill that takes the…





