[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 17635]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        PUTTING WASTEFUL DEFENSE SPENDING ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Heinrich). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the cochairs of the National 
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released their draft 
proposal. I don't agree with all of their recommendations, but I am 
encouraged to see that they believe wasteful Pentagon spending can and 
must be a prime target.
  For years I have been calling for substantial cuts in the kinds of 
defense systems and programs, many of them left as relics from the Cold 
War, that are doing absolutely nothing for modern-day military 
preparedness.
  The Congressional Progressive Caucus has outlined specific cuts 
totaling more than $600 billion. I am pleased, for example, that the 
Commission shares our contempt for the V-22 Osprey, which has been 
notorious for cost overruns as well as safety problems that have led to 
the accidental deaths of 30 servicemembers; billions of dollars over 
budget for a weapons system that is killing our own people. Not a good 
deal. Not a good deal for the taxpayers, to say the least.
  Likewise, I am inclined to support the Commission's proposal to 
eliminate one-third of overseas military bases, and I agree that it is 
time to pull the plug on the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting 
Vehicle, which breaks down every 8 hours on average and doesn't steer 
well in water.
  On the other hand, I don't agree with the Commission that any kind of 
salary freeze is the way to go. The last thing we should do is take out 
our fiscal woes on the men and women, civilian or uniformed, combat or 
noncombat, charged with protecting the country.
  My hope instead is that this body will consider some of the other 
Congressional Progressive Caucus recommendations. For example, has our 
military defense system really justified its enormous expense? And what 
about our nuclear weapons stockpile? We could save $15 billion a year 
by reducing that number of warheads to 1,000, which is still enough, 
Mr. Speaker, to blow up that world many, many times over.
  There has been much noise made on the other side of the aisle about 
the size of government and supposedly out-of-control Federal spending. 
But many of the same folks using those talking points haven't exactly 
shown great restraint when it comes to the defense budgets. So I will 
be curious to see when they take over the majority in January, will 
they move to cut bloated defense programs, or does their zeal for 
spending cuts extend only to those domestic programs that are helping 
struggling families get through a recession?
  That bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this: You are not serious about 
closing the deficit unless you are prepared to put military spending on 
the table. By recommending specific cutbacks on the defense side, the 
Deficit Commission has at least started the conversation.
  Of course, the Commission doesn't really address the elephant in the 
room, the ongoing war in Afghanistan and our continued military 
commitment in Iraq. Together their cost has already exceeded $1 
trillion over the last decade. And what have we gotten for the expense? 
A foreign policy blunder of epic proportions, one that has cost 
thousands of Americans their lives without truly stabilizing the 
countries we invaded, without combating terrorism in a meaningful way, 
without advancing our national security interests.
  Fiscal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and enormous cost savings; yet 
one more reason to bring our troops home and bring them home now.

                          ____________________