[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 9, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration of the bill (H.R. 4546) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes:

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, while I support the highest standards 
of equipment and pay for our troops, and acknowledge that the most 
important function of our national government is to ensure the safety 
of our citizens, I could not support H.R. 4546, the FY 2003 Defense 
Authorization Act. The measure over militarizes American goals and 
policies at our economic and political expense.
  Our nation is great. There is no other that can compete with it--
particularly on the battlefield. This is true today, it was true 
yesterday and I will work to ensure that it is true tomorrow and into 
the future. Yet, the $383.3 billion that we authorized for Defense 
(which I might add, does not include the $10 billion authorization the 
President has requested for a terrorism contingency fund) is more than 
the combined defense budgets of the next closest 25 nations. Surely, we 
can afford other national priorities.
  The bill includes $7.8 billion for a National Missile Defense System 
that may or may not materialize. After spending more than $100 billion 
since its inception during the Reagan Administration, National Missile 
Defense tests have had little success and system requirements continue 
to be downgraded. Even if successful, a National Missile Defense System 
would have done nothing to prevent the events of 9-11. Furthermore, the 
Bush Administration's insistence on this system continues our move away 
from strategic international laws that have helped maintain nuclear 
stability since the Second World War.
  The $7.8 billion spent on a National Missile Defense System, alone, 
would shore up our homeland security and provide 21st century 
classrooms to our nation's children. For these reasons,
  Mr. Speaker, I opposed this measure and voted against it on final 
passage.

                          ____________________