a memo from my Congresswoman, Tammy Baldwin, Dem, WI

[rodeodance]

------ Original Message --------
Subject: News from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:00:01 -0700
From: Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin <[e-mail]>

To: xxxx



June 18, 2005



Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin - Proudly Serving Wisconsin in Congress



Dear Friends,

As the House of Representatives takes up a number of important issues related to international affairs, foreign policy and military expenditures, I write to update you on these issues.

Next week, the world will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the founding of the United Nations (UN) in San Francisco. It was formed in 1945 to foster international cooperation in order to prevent future wars and improve the human condition around the world. It was formed by men and women who had endured World War I and World War II and therefore understood that war should be a last option, never a first resort.

Unfortunately, this Administration has demonstrated time and again that they prefer confrontation rather than cooperation. So while I am terribly disappointed, I am not surprised that neither the President, nor the Secretary of State, nor even the Deputy Secretary of State could find time in their schedules to join the world celebration in San Francisco.

In fact, instead of recognizing the accomplishments of the UN, the House of Representatives took the opportunity today to bash the UN. The House passed legislation that mandates cutting U.S. dues to the UN by 50% unless the UN adopts 39 proposed reforms in an unreasonably short amount of time. Reform of the UN is necessary to make the organization more effective and better equipped to carry out its important global responsibilities. But the approach taken by this legislation is counter-productive to U.S. interests. Full funding of U.S. financial obligations allows the U.S. to make a better case for reform.

I voted against this irresponsible bill. I urged my colleagues to reject a "my way or the highway" approach to diplomacy. Not only does it not work, it is dangerous.

Next week, the House will continue consideration of the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations bill. The bill spends $408 billion in Fiscal Year 2006, and with other defense spending and the war in Iraq, total defense spending in FY 2006 will exceed $490 billion. This will account for 55% of all discretionary spending. In real dollar terms, it will be 20% higher than the average defense budget during the Cold War. We will spend just shy of a million dollars a minute, 24 hours a day, for all 365 days next year.

Not only will this be a record defense budget, it will also be nearly as large as every other country's defense budget in the world combined. Let me emphasize that point. This defense budget will nearly equal all other military spending in the world, including nations that are our allies and nations that are potential adversaries. According to estimates by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, all nations except for the United States are spending a total of $527 billion. This includes our NATO allies like Britain at $49 billion and France at $40 billion, and Japan at $45 billion. Our spending dwarfs that of countries that are considered possible threats to our security: Iran at $3.5 billion, North Korea at $5.5 billion, Syria at $1.6 billion, and Sudan at $500 million.

Why is defense spending so high? One major reason is wasteful, excessively expensive weapons systems. Let me give you two examples.

The F/A-22 Raptor is the most expensive fighter ever built. Originally budgeted at $96 billion for 648 planes, it is now going to cost us $68 billion for 178 planes. In part, because the Pentagon keeps changing its specifications, the planes are now estimated to cost $258 million each, five times the cost of the F-15 and F-16 that they are replacing. This year, we are going to spend $3.8 billion for 24 planes while spending another $480 million for research and development. We are buying a plane that is outrageously over budget and whose mission is unclear. The answer to this dilemma is to end the program, not spend more.

Since 1983, we have spent $100 billion on missile defense. President Bush decided to move forward with deployment of a system that has been inadequately tested. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted last year, the system is "largely unproven." The GAO went on to state that tests so far have been "repetitive and scripted" and that "decision makers in the Defense Department and Congress do not have a full understanding of the overall cost of developing and fielding the Ballistic Missile System and what the system's true capabilities will be." Each year we put more and more resources into this unproven technology that does not address the most likely threats from weapons of mass destruction. Is a nuclear weapon likely to arrive on an intercontinental ballistic missile? Homeland security experts don't believe so. Moving forward with another $7.6 billion this year and plans for at least $50 billion more in coming years does not make military or fiscal sense.

Another major defense expense is the war in Iraq. We have already spent more than $250 billion on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (the vast majority for Iraq). Expect bills to fund these wars to keep coming. This defense appropriations bill sets aside another $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Time and again, the President has requested money to fund the war in Iraq while refusing to answer our questions about this war and provide a comprehensive strategy for bringing our troops home. We must insist that the administration articulate the conditions necessary to bring our troops home, and push them to do that as soon as possible. The administration's refusal to address these questions is quite astounding to me and should be of great concern to all Americans who believe in principles of accountability and checks and balances.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi tried to offer an amendment to require the President to submit to Congress within 30 days a report with a strategy for success in Iraq that identifies the criteria he will use to determine when troops can begin to withdraw. Unfortunately, House Republican leaders refused to allow this debate to occur by using House rules to prevent consideration of Leader Pelosi's amendment. Instead of hiding behind parliamentary maneuvers, it is time for the President and the Republican Leadership to formulate an exit strategy. This strategy must specify our objectives clearly, benchmarks to measure our success or lack of success, and a realistic timeline for withdrawing our troops.

In an otherwise dismal month, I can point to one small, but important success. The House approved an amendment to block funds for using the USA PATRIOT Act authority to investigate bookstore and library records. This amendment passed by a vote of 238 to 187, despite a threatened Presidential veto. This vote was a success attributable to grassroots activists around the country. It shows that we can succeed when we work together.

Thank you for your interest in these critical issues facing our nation. As always, I welcome your thoughts.


Sincerely,

BaldwinSignature.jpg

Tammy Baldwin
Your Member of Congress