The House has ruled out the possibility of cutting defense spending even as politicians vow to balance the budget in seven years. On May 10, the House Rules Committee, chaired by Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY), decided that it will be against congressional rules to even discuss cutting military spending during House consideration of the FY97 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 3230). The bill goes to the floor May 14.

The Rules Committee has the power to determine which amendments can be offered when bills reach the House floor. On May 10, the Committee refused to allow consideration of a number of amendments offered to cut military spending, despite the fact that the bill is already at least $13 billion higher than the President requested.

The following amendments won’t make it to the House floor:

· To cut the overall level of defense spending by $13 billion (Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-CO);
· To reduce the overall spending level to the FY96 level of $264.7 billion (Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL);
· To reduce the overall amount of authorized appropriations by $6 billion (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-TX).

And these are the big cuts. The Rules Committee even rejected an amendment by Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) which would have reduced the FY97 authorization level by one dollar.

“How are we ever going to balance the budget if Congress rules out any chance of cutting excessive defense spending?” asked Jill Lancelot, Legislative Director of TCS.

Crime Pays

For lawmakers-turned-lawbreakers it’s good to be on a government pension. Roll Call newspaper reported on May 2 that ex-Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), headed for prison after pleading guilty to two counts of corruption, will continue to receive his Congressional pension benefits. “Rosty” will pull in over $98,000 in payments in 1996.