David Obey: “this amendment goes to the military training account. Last year the military training account was funded at $39 million.…”

“this amendment goes to the military training account. Last year the military training account was funded at $39 million. This year, despite the fact that the bill is being cut by around $1 billion, this account is going to receive a $6 million increase to $45 million. That is an increase of 15 percent, out of only 3 accounts that have received an increase in the bill, and it seems to me that that is not proportional under the circumstances. With the end of the cold war, it seems to me that we ought to have a greater recognition than we have, that we simply cannot afford to be raising some of these military accounts while virtually everything else in the budget is being cut. I support and continue to support an IMET program in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, places like that. I also think it is useful in developing countries to try to have a military relationship of some kind. But I would ask why on Earth the United States should spend $25,000 or $50,000 for countries like Austria, Finland, Spain, Portugal, countries which are relatively high-income countries? I understand that the basis of these programs is reciprocal training arrangements, and I am all for that. But I see no reason why, if these are so valuable, that the countries who are on the receiving end of the training should not be paying for the cost.”