Floor Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich On the FY '04 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill
The following is a press release from July 8, 2003 by Kucinich's office in Congress.
***
Floor Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) On the FY '04 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill
Today, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Member on the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations Committee gave the following speech today on the House floor:
"In one quick hour of debate, Congress will spend $368 billion on the military. Amazingly, this massive sum does not fund our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we want to use our armed forces, the taxpayers have to pay extra. We all know the President will be back asking for more billions of more taxpayer dollars for these operations.
"This bill funds the wrong defense priorities that will do little to provide for a more secure America. We fund weapons systems that we all know won't work and will be subject to spiraling upward costs. And yet we cannot fully fund education needs at home.
"The only needs this Congress will take care of today are the profit gouging defense contractors. I suggest we rename the bill the Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, United Defense, Raytheon, Boeing, and General Dynamics Welfare Act of 2003.
"Unlike the Republican majority, I do not believe we should heavily deficit spend to further enrich defense contractors. We can heavily invest in education and reduce the deficit by cutting National Missile Defense, the F22 fighter plane, the V22 Osprey, spaced based weapons and other unnecessary and wasteful programs.
"I believe we should cancel National Missile Defense, a savings of $8.9 billion because it reduces our security here at home. It steals money from more effective security options and because it won't work as promised, it leaves us more vulnerable.
"National Missile Defense doesn't work. It has failed three tests that were much simpler than real life scenarios. It will not be subject to a real life test before deployment in 2004. The only conclusion I can draw is that proponents don't care if this weapon system works and that harms rather than protects Americans.
"Any country that decides to attack the US with a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon is likely to use a less expensive and more covert delivery method than long-range missiles, such as smuggling it on a ship or truck.
"National Missile Defense would offer no protection against such an attack. And because we waste so much money on this system, we leave our homeland security system under funded and unable to protect from the real threats such as ship or truck attacks.
"We can also significantly reduce our ship building programs funded at $11.5 billion. Our Navy is not threatened by any other navy, yet it offers little protection from today's real threats. We would do far more for our nation's security by shifting some of these funds to the Coast Guard.
"It would immediately save lives to cancel the V-22 aircraft program, a savings of $1.5 billion in FY 2004. This aircraft has killed 30 Marines because it is an unsafe design that cannot be relied upon. I cannot support funds for such an unsafe aircraft.
"The F22 fighter plane is a relic of the cold war that suits no purpose in a modern air force. Our current air fighters are more than capable and far less expensive. The F22 continues to be subject to massive cost over runs, and continued development problems making it an unaffordable plane. The $3.6 billon saved in FY 2004 would raise a lot of teacher salaries, providing our children a better education.
"I believe we should roll back our spending in research and development of unnecessary and expense weapons systems such as the Army's Comanche helicopter, a savings of $1.1 billion, the Joint Strike Fighter, a savings of $4.2 billion, the Space-Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS), a savings of $617 million, and the Space-Based Radar, a savings of $174 million. Do we want to start a new war in space or finish the war against deteriorating public schools? I believe we do more for America by repairing our school infrastructure.
"The saving proposed here amount to a significant investment in education. I have highlighted $30 billion in unnecessary defense spending that can be immediately invested in education for our children. A thorough review of the Pentagon budget would likely reveal another $30 billion in defense waste and unnecessary programs.
"Today only 12 percent of the 17 million low-income children eligible for childcare subsidies receive assistance. Only 23 percent of all families with children younger than 6 have one parent working and one parent staying at home. And today the average cost of child care for a four year old in an urban area center is more than the average cost of public college tuition in all but one state. I ask, who will care for our children? I say, we can.
"With $60 billion we could have universal prekindergarten and childcare in this nation. I have a bill before this Congress, the Universal Prekindergarten Act, that would establish and expand prekindergarten programs to ensure all children ages 3 to 5 have access to a high-quality, full-day, full-calendar year prekindergarten education.
"Spending taxpayer dollars is about setting priorities based on the real needs of Americans. The fictional risk of ballistic missiles and Cold War armies that no longer exist cannot be used to justify our current defense spending. Yet our children, and their future well-being should be our top priority. If we truly care about our children, we will invest the wasted and unnecessary defense spending into their future now. Our nation will be stronger as a result."
Subscribe to this blog's feed