Authorizing More Warfare

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, last week this body passed the National Defense Authorization Act. In doing so, yet again, it put a stamp of approval on a more violent, belligerent, and militaristic defense policy.

While my friends in the majority continue to posture about Federal spending, they are eager to authorize billions and billions on military programs and policies that don't make America safer.

During last week's debate over the Defense bill, they voted down an amendment that would have brought the Department of Defense funding levels down to the same 2008 levels they want to impose on domestic discretionary spending. Obviously, the Republicans believe in a blank check for the Pentagon, but austerity for everyone else.

They rejected my amendment to eliminate the V-22 Osprey, a multibillion-dollar aircraft with a performance and safety record so shoddy that even Dick Cheney tried to eliminate it when he was Secretary of Defense. They also rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds for permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that an anonymous officer in Afghanistan was quoted in yesterday's Washington Post as saying, ``We've become addicted to building.'' That officer added that supplemental appropriations, with its billions of dollars for construction, ``have been like crack cocaine for the military.''

It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. The Defense bill includes a radically expanded authorization for the use of military force. It completely undermines the War Powers Act, empowering the President, whichever President, whomever is in that office, to declare war regardless of whether an attack against the United States is imminent, regardless of whether our national security has been threatened. The language doesn't even specify any geographic limitation.

The Republican majority couldn't even bring themselves to support an amendment that called simply for a plan within 60 days to transfer responsibility for Afghanistan's security to Afghanistan--a plan--so we can begin the process of redevelopment. Just a plan within 60 days. As our distinguished Democratic leader said here on the floor last week when we were debating this, who could be against that?

Well, apparently the overwhelming majority of House Republicans could be against it and are against it and voted against it. Then they topped it off by voting to eliminate the modest public investment in the U.S. Institute of Peace, an institute that carries out real, well-respected, lifesaving work on peaceful conflict resolution around the world.

Last night the majority played a game of chicken with the global financial credibility of the United States, holding a vote on the debt ceiling that was designed to fail.

I challenge them: You want meaningful spending cuts as a condition for a debt ceiling increase? Then stop giving the Pentagon unlimited use of the taxpayers' ATM card. Stop putting the full faith and credit of the United States on the line in order to wage more war.

You believe in fiscal discipline, and you think everything should be on the table? Then let's talk about saving $10 billion a month by ending the war in Afghanistan, and let's bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source