[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17973-17974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           BUDGET PRIORITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, in the 1980s, at the height of the so-
called Reagan revolution, Congress passed a Budget Act which made 
trickle down economics the policy of the land. Under the banner of 
fiscal conservatism, that budget provided for large increases in 
military spending, along with sweeping tax cuts that mainly benefited 
the wealthy. The theory was that the money would trickle down to 
regular folks, but we regular folks only got trickled on.
  In fact, we got so tired of being trickled on that we voted George 
Bush out of the White House and put Bill Clinton in. The result, as was 
predicted by the liberals at the time, was the largest debt in the 
history of the world.
  However, let us fast forward to the 1990s where the Republican 
Contract on America has been totally discredited and they would like us 
to forget that they shut down the government in order to force our 
President to accept their twisted priorities. Instead, because 
Democrats stood up to the Republican bullying, we are now experiencing 
Bill Clinton's economy where job growth is up, unemployment is down, 
homeownership is up and interest rates are down. The deficit is down 
and the budget surplus is up.
  Unfortunately, the Republican Congress' response to all of this is 
predictable. Increase military spending and go back to the same old 
trickle down theories that produced the largest debt in the history of 
the free world; this time a trillion dollar tax cut to their wealthy 
fat cat buddies and an increase

[[Page 17974]]

in military spending as they embark upon a desperate effort to 
recapture the glory days of Ronald Reagan's trickle down.
  Amazingly, they think we have forgotten. They figure that by changing 
the name to compassionate conservatism they can fool us, but that is 
just not so. In the FY 2000 budget, the United States will spend more 
on the interest on Ronald Reagan's debt than on the entire Medicare 
program. The FY 2000 budget also commits half of all Federal 
discretionary spending to military programs.
  Now, there are some good things in the military budget that I 
strongly support: Cooperative threat reduction programs, increases in 
pay for members of our uniformed services, and increased benefits for 
America's veterans. However, the tremendous excesses in the military 
budget compelled me to oppose it. The current defense strategy calls on 
the military to be prepared to fight two significant wars at the same 
time, without any allies, and while maintaining a credible military 
reserve. The bottom line is that we maintain a Cold War era military 
and its incumbent costs irrespective of any realistic assessment of the 
threat to our national security. We also maintain at tremendous expense 
a Cold War nuclear arsenal.
  I strongly believe we must leave behind the military structure and 
devices that we depended upon to win the Cold War and prepare for the 
real world of today and tomorrow. Instead, we are layering unrealistic 
demands on top of Cold War needs. As a result, the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill became a Christmas tree, laden with 
gifts of pork for everyone, and the rate of the increase in military 
spending now threatens Social Security, low income housing and 
nutrition programs.
  It is clear to me that our national security cannot be measured in 
bombers alone. I believe our national security depends equally on our 
domestic programs and on constructive foreign policy initiatives. We 
can no longer continue to spend nearly half of all of our Federal 
discretionary dollars on military programs. This misplaced priority 
compromises our national security by shortchanging our investments in 
programs that make for real security: A healthy, well-educated, 
properly housed citizenry.
  Does the U.S. really need a military that is big enough to 
simultaneously fight two major regional wars alone? Why does the U.S. 
need to continue to station 100,000 troops in Europe? Europe cannot 
defend itself? Why is the United States spending $35 billion per year 
to maintain over 6,000 nuclear weapons on high alert against an enemy 
that no longer exists? Why should the U.S. spend another $11 billion on 
a missile defense system that is technologically infeasible and 
strategically destabilizing? Why not close the military bases that the 
Department of Defense no longer needs and support converting them into 
profitable commercial and industrial centers? Why should the DOD get 
more money when it cannot even find over $9 billion worth of inventory 
and continues to give away millions in over payments to contractors?
  More money is not the answer to Pentagon waste. Instead, we should 
end the obsolete U.S. Cold War military, invest instead in developing 
multilateral civil institutions such as the organization for 
cooperation and security in Europe. These steps will reduce the cost of 
the U.S. Government by more than $40 billion a year.

                          ____________________