[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 9 (Monday, January 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H400-H401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE BUDGET AND SUSTAINABLE DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. As we begin this great debate over what our priorities 
are, it's worth reflecting on an article that was written nearly 3 
years ago in the Sunday Times of London by Nobel Prize-winning 
economist Joseph Stiglitz and his associate Linda Bilmes. Here is what 
they write:
  ``The Bush administration was wrong about the benefits of the war''--
talking about the Iraq war--``and was wrong about the costs of the war. 
The President and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. 
Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have 
imagined.
  ``The cost of direct U.S. military operations--not even including 
long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans--already 
exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double 
the cost of the Korean War.
  ``And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to 
be almost 10 times the cost of the first gulf war, almost a third more 
than the cost of the Vietnam war, and twice that of the First World 
War. The only war in our history that cost more was the Second World 
War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting 4 
years, at a total cost, in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation, 
of about $5 trillion.''
  They go on to write that, ``With virtually the entire Armed Forces 
committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop, in 
today's dollars, was less than $100,000.'' That's in 2007 dollars. ``By 
contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.
  ``Most Americans have yet to feel these costs.'' This was written 
almost 3 years ago. ``The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary 
military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a 
sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised 
to pay for it--in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit 
spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, 
that we can have both guns and butter. But, of course, the laws are not 
repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been 
deferred, possibly to another generation.''

[[Page H401]]

  That from Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes almost 3 years ago.
  One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity 
ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes 
more than half our discretionary spending. We have seen countless 
stories of U.S. taxpayer dollars going unaccounted for in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We have had countless high-profile hearings on contractor 
fraud and the lack of oversight at the Department of Defense.
  According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 39 
percent of our income tax dollars last year went to Pentagon spending 
on past and current wars. And Stiglitz, again, has said that the Iraq 
war ``didn't just contribute to the severity of the financial crisis . 
. . it kept us from responding to it effectively. Increased 
indebtedness meant that the government had far less room to maneuver 
than it otherwise would have.'' So what we have is the U.S. financing 
war on borrowed money.
  We must examine our connection between soaring debt and these two 
wars, the war in Iraq and war in Afghanistan. Between 2003 and 2008, 
the U.S. debt increased by almost $4 trillion. A quarter of that debt 
is directly attributed to the war in Iraq. The cost of the war in 
Afghanistan has been over $455 billion to date, and the deadline for 
that keeps sliding past 2014.
  Now, in the nationalpriorities.org, they talk about a sustainable 
defense. And one report says that there are options for reducing 
military spending, saving nearly $1 trillion over the next decade 
without adversely impacting U.S. national security interests. So we can 
have a strong defense, but we're spending so much money, we're 
undermining our ability to be able to provide for the American people 
here at home. And we have to start taking care of things here at home.
  What will we sacrifice? Will we sacrifice the education of our 
children for these wars? Will we sacrifice Social Security for these 
wars? Will we sacrifice Medicare or Medicaid for these wars? Will we 
sacrifice our infrastructure for these wars? Or will we say the war in 
Iraq was based on lies; let's bring these troops home? Will we say that 
Afghanistan is a hopeless, corrupt mess and it's time to bring our 
troops home, and then begin to use the resources of our country, those 
resources that are hard-earned taxpayer dollars, use that money for 
things here at home? Let's have that debate as we talk about cutting 
the budget.

                          ____________________