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.