[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        REPUBLICAN DEFENSE CHOICES--A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House the 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as a member of the 
International Relations Committee and as a mother of a small child. 
Throughout our lives, we are confronted with tough choices. As a Member 
of this body, I am constantly faced with tough choices.
  The Republicans came up with a program that included their tough 
choices. The Contract With America is a political platform of tough 
choices. I respect that they presented us a program of tough choices. I 
just happen to vehemently disagree with the choices that they've made.
  When I sit down in my car, before I start the engine, I check my side 
mirrors and my rear-view mirror. But when I set out on the road, I'd 
better have my eyes fixed on what is in front of me. Or else, my 
experience on the road could be a disaster for me and for everyone else 
trying to share the road with me.
  Well, that's kinda like what the Republicans have done with H.R. 7, 
now H.R. 872, the national security plank of the Republican contract.
  They've made some tough choices, but I must stop right here and say 
that their choices could be disaster for the world.
  Yes, they strapped in their seatbelts, but they want to take us 
backward, not forward. They have revved up the engine, stepped on the 
gas, but the car is in reverse. And they're looking at the world from 
the rear-view mirror.
  This is a prescription for disaster.
  The Republicans are rushing, as a part of their contract, to penalize 
the poor, discriminate against legal immigrants, pander to the rich, 
and--what brings me here this evening--through the National Security 
part of the contract, they add insult to injury by also asking this 
House to invest scarce dollars in yesterday's boondoggle.
  The Republicans have chosen to look through the rear-view mirror--as 
if blinded by the light of the future--they chose to look behind 
instead.
  Why in the world do we need to go back to star wars? We have already 
spent $36 billion on missile defense, $20 billion more are in the 
works. Isn't that enough? And they don't even define the threat, 
anyway.
  This is the same party that says that Government is too big. This is 
the same party that says that kids don't deserve to eat subsidized 
lunch in school; that pregnant women don't need to have subsidized 
nutrition so that they can give birth to healthy babies. This is the 
same party that said that we don't have enough money to put 100,000 
cops on the streets, but Government spending for an elaborate and 
controversial missile defense in space is OK.
  Rather than asking for money for star wars, the Republicans could 
have asked for money to clean up the contaminated bases that coexist 
with our communities.
  Rather than asking for star wars, the Republicans could have looked 
at ways that we could constructively engage with the rest of the world 
through multilateralism and collective security.
  And, finally, they could have looked at promising weapons systems 
that bear more relation to the type of defense we need for our future, 
based on a forward looking projection of U.S. global interests and the 
U.S. global threat. Instead, the Republicans have jerked their knees so 
far into the past that this bill, just like many of the other contract 
bills, just flat out lacks credibility.
  Tomorrow, we will debate the so-called National Security 
Revitalization Act. The choices will be made perfectly clear.
  We can go back to yesterday's boondoggle and revive star wars, but 
only at a critical cost.
  This bill does not provide for us a forward-looking vision of the 
world and the U.S. role in it.
  This bill does not provide us with a rationale of a cooperative 
relationship with the rest of the world.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not even leave jingoism behind.
  And finally, this bill just makes some bad choices for the millions 
of moms like me who care about the world and the country that we leave 
for our children.

                          ____________________