Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. In one quick hour of debate, Congress will spend $368 billion on the military. Amazingly, this massive sum does not fund our troops in…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. In one quick hour of debate, Congress will spend $368 billion on the military. Amazingly, this massive sum does not fund our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we want to use our Armed Forces, the taxpayers will have to use extra. We all know that the President will be back asking for more billions of more taxpayer dollars for these operations.
This bill funds the wrong defense priorities that will do little to provide for a more secure America. It will fund weapons systems that we all know will not work and will be subject to spiraling upward costs; and yet we cannot fully fund education needs at home. The only needs this Congress will take care of today are the profit-gouging defense contractors. Perhaps we should rename this bill the Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, United Defense, Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics Welfare Act of 2003.
Unlike the Republican majority, I do not believe we should heavily deficit spend to further enrich defense contractors. We can heavily invest in education and reduce the deficit by cutting national missile defense, the F22 fighter plane, the V22 Osprey, space-based weapons and other unnecessary and wasteful programs.
I believe we should cancel the national missile defense, a savings of $8.9 billion, because it reduces our security here at home, it steals money for more effective security options, and because it will not work as promised, it leaves us more vulnerable.
National missile defense does not work. It has failed three tests that were much simpler than real-life scenarios. It will not be subject to a real-life test before deployment in 2004. The only conclusion I can draw is that proponents do not care. They do not care if this weapons system works and it harms rather than protects Americans. Any country that decides to attack the United States with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is more likely to use a less expensive and more covert delivery method than long-range missiles, such as smuggling it on a ship or a truck.
National missile defense would offer no protection against such an attack, and because we waste so much money on this system, we leave our homeland security system underfunded and unable to protect from real threats. We can also significantly reduce our ship-building programs funded at $11.5 billion. Our Navy is not threatened by any other navy; yet it offers little protection from today's real threats. We would do far more for our Nation's security by shifting some of these funds to the Coast Guard.
It would immediately save lives to cancel the V-22 aircraft program, a savings of $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2004. This aircraft has killed 30 Marines because it has an unsafe design that cannot be relied upon. I cannot support funds for such a program.
The F-22 fighter plane is a relic of the Cold War that suits no purpose in a modern Air Force. Our current airfighters are more than capable and far less expensive. The F-22 continues to be subject to massive cost overruns and continued development problems, making it an unaffordable plane. The $3.6 billion saved in fiscal year 2004 would raise a lot of teachers' salaries, providing our children with better education.
I believe we should roll back our spending in research and development of unnecessary expensive weapons systems such as Army's Comanche helicopter, a savings of $1.1 billion; the Joint Strike Fighter, a savings of $4.2 billion; the Space-Based Infra-Red System, a savings of $617 million; and the Space-Based Radar, a savings of $174 million.
Do we want to start a new war in space, or do we want to finish the struggle against deteriorating public schools? I believe we can do more for America by our repairing our school infrastructure. The savings proposed here amount to a significant investment in education. I have highlighted $30 billion in unnecessary defense spending, and this money can be immediately invested in education for our children. A thorough review of the Pentagon budget would likely reveal another $30 billion in defense waste and unnecessary programs.
Today only 12 percent of the 17 million low-income children eligible for child care subsidies receives assistance. Only 23 percent of all families with children younger than 6 have one parent working and one parent staying at home. And today the average cost of child care for a 4-year old in an urban-area center is more than the average cost of public college tuition in all but one State.
I ask who will care for our children? And I say that we can. With $60 billion we could have universal prekindergarten and child care in this Nation. I have a bill before this Congress, the Universal Prekindergarten Act, that would establish and expand prekindergarten programs to ensure that all children ages 3 to 5 have access to high- quality, full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education.
It is time to set our priorities straight. We are arming ourselves to the teeth, and we are missing a chance to make sure our children have decent education.
Amendment Offered by Mr. De Fazio