brothers and sisters ladies and gentlemen It's both a pleasure and a privilege for me to address you this afternoon. I have a number of thoughts and ideas that I would like to share. Let me first say that I appreciate this Podium a guy not often do not often have the opportunity to address such an August body of corporate Executives doesn't tend to be the normal Berkeley constituency. But I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to speak cuz I have a point of view and perspective that I choose to share. I don't have charts and diagrams and pointers which 10 to accompany a corporate presentation. So my thoughts and ideas and my words will have to suffice there's some of you in this room who will agree with everything that I have to say to you right on. There are some of you in this room who will not agree with one word that I have to say to you right on as well. So I deeply appreciate the fact that you are here to hear an alternative perspective my challenges to presented as efficiently as effectively as possible. And there are many of you in this room who will fall between those two extremes and I appreciate your coming. Speaking of charts for just a moment prior to getting into my remarks several years ago. As a member of the California delegation in the Congress. One member of the corporate member of the Aerospace industry was making a presentation to those of us who are members of the California delegation with respect to the B-1 bomber in this is in the early 70s. The program was to cost approximately 20.5 billion dollars. The corporate Executives were making an effort to see these full support of the entire Democratic delegation of the California members of the United States Congress. Executives were going through their flip charts and their points. Following a long and the gentleman turn to me and I happened at that particular moment to be the only member of a racial minority group in the room there a few of us to a Black and Hispanic and the California delegation and he said Mr. Dellums, you will be very very keenly interested in this next chart with respect to the B-1 bomber flip the chart and it said employment potential B1 bomber program and he said you'd be very interested in this and there was some applications in that and I didn't choose to deal with him, but he said 132000 jobs are associated with the development and procurement of the B-1 bomber. and I said That's very interesting. There are number of jobs that have to be carried out in our society for 20.5 billion dollars. I could take a half a billion dollars to administer a federal program employed 1 million human beings around the country and pay them $20,000 annually. If I pay them $10,000 annually with a half a billion dollars to finance the Employment Program. I could employ 2 million human beings you're advocating that this program will allow 132,000 people to be employed in relationship to the B-1 bomber the gentlemen's Corner fell limp. His face turned red and he said Mr. Dellums you make a very effective point. We should never attempt the seller weapon system on the basis of how many jobs it produces but whether or not we need the weapon system, and I said, I think the gentleman please proceed. So charts and diagrams sometimes can work in Reverse. But at least that gives you some idea of how I attempt to approach the subject matter that I choose to present having said that. I would like to turn to the remarks of a brilliant prophetic black man, who walked Among Us for a very short. Of time the name of the Reverend. Dr. Martin Luther King. During the course of his challenge to America's involvement in Vietnam and involvement that many of us defined as illegal immoral and insane. He made a number statement one of which goes as follows. We are dropping bombs in North Vietnam that are exploding in the ghettos in the Barrios of America. I interpreted that to be a magnificent eloquent statement making three simultaneous. commentaries I thought that statement one spoke to the technology of death. 2 to the insanity of the mentality of war and three to the cruel priorities that are the result of building a monument to military Madness so girly distorting our national priorities that it renders us impotent in our capacity to address human misery in the various forms within which visits upon human being and I would choose to speak to all three of those points this afternoon. first to the technology of death you and I live in an era of nuclear weaponry. Someone much more profound and Brilliant than Ron dellums once said now that we have developed a military capacity to use nuclear power Everything Has Changed except the way we think and I humbly choose to attempt to challenge the way we think I am not a member of the Republican Party. But my argument is not a parochial argument. It is not a party argument. I hope that the talks that the United States and the Soviet Union are presently preparing to enter into result in significant reductions in a nuclear Armament and ultimate removal of nuclear weapons from this planet. I hope that we are not moving into these. Talks, simply for the purpose of pastoring, but that there is an objective that removes this incredible Danger from our lives. Because I would have cert that as you and I gather this afternoon that this planet is in imminent danger from the potential of thermonuclear war for three significant and interdependent and interrelated reasons. Number one. Time does not permit me to go into all these areas in great detail, but I will try to make my point. Number one. This planet is in imminent danger from the potential of thermonuclear war because we are not moving beyond the concept of nuclear deterrence to the concept of a nuclear war fighting capability in the documents that are the underpinnings and the support of the budget submitted for the military budget for the last several years has stated in part. We must have the capacity to fight to survive and to prevail when a nuclear war I'm a psychiatric social worker by training and I invoke that training at this moment because I think anyone who thinks we can fight survive and win a thermonuclear war is by definition 30 certifiably mentally Disturbed make no mistake about that, but beyond the turn. We are not embracing the concept of a war-fighting capability when McNamara was Secretary of Defense in the 1960s. He was challenged to Define credible nuclear deterrence. And he said once our nation developed a nuclear capacity to destroy 70% of the Soviet Union's economic infrastructure. And 30% of their population is just numbers, but if you consider 30% of our population that is in excessive 60 million, that's a level of Megadeth that none of us in this room either individually or collectively thing to me could comprehend 60 million deaths, but he said to destroy 70% of the economic infrastructure 30% of the population you will have achieved nuclear deterrence that is one side would not attempt to attack the other because the other side could respond and inflict such unacceptable damage that neither side would engage in the insane action of exchanging nuclear weaponry. At that time he said once the United States purchase has a minimum of 450 nuclear weapons. We will have achieved a credible nuclear deterrent after all there are only approximately 228 cities in the entire Soviet Union with a population $25,000 more. Well, my friends brothers and sisters. We live in a nation not with 400 nuclear weapons. We presently have an excessive 10,000 strategic nuclear weapons. Is excessive 15,000 tactical nuclear weapons many of them more powerful than the bombs. We dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki we have now in excess of 25000 total nuclear Arsenal. And if this Administration plans are fully adhered to by the end of this decade. We will add approximately 17000 new nuclear weapons to that Arsenal that presently exceed 25400 nuclear weapons will be a nation and excessive 40,000 nuclear weapons and incredible capacity to destroy life. Why am I suggesting that we're moving beyond returns to warfighting? How many weapons do you need for deterrence after all the simple obvious reality is that we are not exchanging nuclear weapons at this point because both sides know that we have the incredible capacity to destroy each other. Yet at this very moment. We are spending billions of dollars developing research engaging in research development and procurement of nuclear weaponry. That take us from Dirty bombs to clean bombs. Increasing the accuracy so that we can find missile travel several thousand nautical miles and land within pinpoint range of its original Target with developing nuclear weapons that can travel further nuclear weapons that can bring greater levels of death. We're developing anti-satellite technology. And if you consider the satellites in space as the superpowers eyes and ears to look at whether or not the potential for attack is there to develop the capacity to render a superpower blind. Does that have the capacity to bring peace and security to the world or does that bring us to a greater level of danger? When you add up what we're doing and I would suggest any of you who who question simply look at the last 4 years military budgets and you will come to the interesting and in my estimation frightening realization that every single hanias weapon that one could conceive on offense of nuclear weapon is being researches out of being engaged in development is being engaged in with either picturing it or will deploying these nuclear weapons at this very moment. So we're going to be on deterrence to the development of a nuclear war fighting capability with enormous and frightening applications. Checking lie under the guise of modernizing our nuclear forces. We are developing exotic levels of nuclear technology that in my estimation may take the world beyond the bounds of Arms Control never to return a game. And the implications here are frightening because all of us even the most conservative will suggest at some point that we must engage. in arms control, but query If verification the ability to verify an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union is an intercooler and significant part of any treaty Arrangement isn't it a contradiction to simultaneously ask the Congress of the United States using billions of taxpayer dollars to engage in research development procurement and deployment of nuclear weapons that defy verification you snap the rug out from under the very process that you Advocate and we are developing nuclear weapons that at this point rinda verification virtually an obsolete concept the cruise missile for example is a technology is a case in point here is a small compact nuclear weapons that can be deployed virtually anywhere. You can put it on a fishing trawler. Chabad National Technical means which is a long-term two men are satellites looking down. They look down on a fishing trawler. Is that a fishing trawler engaged in the peaceful business or fishing or is it in fact a launching pad for cruise missile? Even the Pentagon will say to you with the Spectra cruise missile technology. One of the problems they have not resolved is the issue of verification is the president of the United States can go on television and say to you we must be able to verify because we quote can I trust the Soviets? Then I be harming that whole concept by developing technology that takes us beyond the bounds of Arms Control know you carpet people hear you all understand the concept of obsolescence. So it's very easy to sell the American people on the notion of modernization. Your toaster gets old and modern one. Your television said gets absolutely updated. Your telephone is old get a modern one your missiles get old modernized it. So we conditioned the American people to believe in modernization Things become Obsolete and if you're not thinking then you can say whatever makes a lot of sense if my toaster can get old in my car can get old nuclear weapons can get on. But the question is what do you replace these weapons with if these weapons are more deadly if these weapons are more accurate if these weapons can go a longer range and carry a greater capacity to destroy you must ask yourself. What is the ultimate purpose? If we are saying we would never start a nuclear war then why then are we engaging in the activity of building more expensive more accurate and greater weapons to destroy if we're talking about using them second as opposed to using them first. Why do we need all this madness now? We have a you all are familiar with the Turn oxymoron which simply means that it's a phrase that has a an apparent contradiction. Now, this is my bias, but my example of an oxymoron is right-wing intellectual and I think that that is an oxymoron, but they happen to be my personal bias and but I share that with you. Now with respect to nuclear weaponry the concept of the bill down is the nuclear oxymoron because we generally talk about build up rather than bill down it so many people have rallied around this concept probably many of you in this room to build on makes a lot of sense. From other people's perspective not from mine. Let me tell you why. Ron don't you believe in arms control. My response is yes what we have the ultimate concept for you. It's called the bill down. What is the bill down? Do you give us to Old missiles and will replace them with one shiny new modernize missile? An overnight run Hocus Pocus magic. We will reduce American nuclear Arsenal by 50% Isn't this something you want? Well, if you want to gain is thinking at a rather superficial level suddenly you bring down the nuclear Arsenal by 50% but a game I asked the question. What is the capacity of the weapon that is now replaced the two weapons? Why is it more expensive? Why is it more accurate? Why does it carry a greater payload when I cannot travel further? Why does it now have these exotic new modernize capacities that render the human input the arms control negotiations virtually infinite because you lose the capacity to verify So the concept of the bill down may had a rather superficial almost not intellectual level makes sense. But once you begin to Pro beyond the surface, this is an absurd and very dangerous concept third point that I make. This planet is imminent danger. Not only because we're going beyond the turns to a war fighting capability. Not only because we're developing under the guise of modernizing a nuclear forces new Weaponry that develop the capacity to destroy life and take us beyond the bounds of arms control but we are now deploy nuclear weapons that in my estimation will take the world to the brink of thermonuclear war making War by accident by mistaken by miscalculation that much more possible number of weapons. So I could talk about I think the MX missile is a first strike War fighting Weapon by virtue of how it's being deployed invites preemptive strike concept first drag Concepts launch on warning concept, but I want to focus for a few moments on the deployment of the year of missile what we euphemistically refer to as the Euro missile. But we're building it. We're pushing the deployment. We're the ones without finger on the on the button. And if anyone thinks that if a war starts in Europe that in some way I could be contained you're living in the Never Never Land. We are to call it a world bomb rather than a Euro missile even more accurately in American missile missile is a euphemism but the two weapons the cruise missiles being deployed in Europe and the Pershing missile being deployed in Europe. I've mentioned the cruise missile very exotic technology that goes beyond verification, but it also has another quality the cruise missile is a weapon that can travel low to the ground at subsonic speed with me that has the capacity to arrive on target without any warning because it can't defy radar. Now consider this each of you individually in the Solitude of your own mind if I have the capacity to ring you with cruise missile technology that you knew could reach you without running. Is that calculated to make your day? Is that calculated to heighten your level of stability and security and feelings of peace? Obviously it is not we are ringing the Soviets with cruise missile technology. They are now in response beginning to ring us with cruise missile technology. And the danger of cruise missile technology is that it can arrive on target without warning which means that I've level of paranoia is increased and it forces us to preemptive strategies strategies known as launch on warning which means that we have to launch our weapons even on the warning that were under attack not necessarily on the realization that were under attack. And Professor on Chamberlain the professor emeritus of the University of California who was a member of the Manhattan Project said in testimony before I committed if the world ever moved to a point where our weapons are placed in a launch on warning situation. We have placed the world in such a frightening and dangerous and absurd posture that the potential of thermonuclear war is increased beyond our comprehension. But let me move the cruise missile aside and focus on what I perceived to be in even more dangerous deployment the deployment of the Pershing missile in Europe. This weapon is being deployed in West Germany 6 to 10 minutes from the Soviet Union and I want you to keep that 6 to 10 minutes in your mind's eye because I want to come back to it. The Pershing missile is considered the most accurate Warhead. This country's ever developed. It can travel between 1200 and 1500 nautical miles, which means that it can strike deeply into the Soviet Union deeply into the Soviet Union within 6 to 10 minutes. On more occasions than you and I in this room would feel comfortable with our computers. And remember we're the number one computer capability in the world. I was sophisticated computers have malfunctioned and communicated to the people observing these weapons while you and I split slept peacefully that the United States was under imminent attack from the Soviet Union. We've even scrambled into the air on Red Alert because of these mistakes, we've come to the brink of nuclear war because of these computer malfunctions, but it takes a nuclear weapon traveling between the United States and the Soviet Union and vice-versa between 25 and 40 minutes. Which means the people who observe this communication had 10 to 15 minutes to determine whether the wrong tape was placed in a computer where the computer had made a mistake or had malfunction of broken down or whatever 10 to 15 minutes. Now, let's go back to the 6 to 10 minutes that I asked you to put in your mind's eye bring it front and center. Now. Remember this weapon is not deployed in United States traveling 25 to 40 minutes. This weapon is now in West Germany 6 to 10 minutes from its potential Target asked this question. What would be the Soviets respond to their computers at some point malfunction? And communicated that they were under imminent attack from the United States nuclear forces. How much time do they have? Do they have the tuna 15 minutes that we have to determine whether our computers were. Malfunctioning or not the only 6 to 10 minutes before it's on target. So they have virtually no time my friend no time, which means one? That the Soviets of forced them to place their weapons in a launch on warning Pastor the pentagon's phrases using illusion. meaning of missiles great stress here Great stress even on our side. We know that intention. We have to let these weapons go because we would be thinking using a loser now if that doesn't frighten you consider this the United States is the number one computer capability in the world Soviet Union did not second. I think Japan second computer capability in the world by definition by our standards. The Soviet Union is a third-rate computer capability. The president of United States has gone on television and said to the American people we must not we cannot we shall not export sophisticated computer capability to the Soviet Union. My response to that is Mister president if you and your wisdom or the lack of it, I'm crazy enough to deploy this weapon in Europe. Then I want the Soviets to have the best computer capability that we can afford my life in the life of our children and our children's children may depend upon it. Think about the absurdity of this policy on the one hand with placing you normal stress on a third-rate computer capability and on the other hand we choose to deny them the expertise and computer capability that we have is almost suicidal. This is a level of insanity that defies understanding. A number of my colleagues have made this argument on the floor have said Ron. I'm glad a lot of members weren't on the floor. Cuz if everybody was on the floor that's beat by itself with fighting the devil you can win it. Which means that they are not suggesting that our arguments to stop deployment delayed diploma de la negociacion to go forward is not a valid argument, but they lack the political courage to step forward because someone in their constituency potential candidate might say you're soft on defense which means you soft on the stove yet, which means you're soft on communism in nobody can beat that in the United States and really truly being America. And that's the game that gets played and I'm saying to you that the argument that I presented you with the respect of the danger by nuclear weapons is not a parochial argument. I'm not making a black or a white audience. It's not a partisan argument. I'm not making a democratic argument to a republican audience. It's not a left-wing argument that I'm making to a right-wing group. This is an argument that I challenge you into that. I challenge you thought process at Challenger reasoning. These weapons are dangerous and I'm saying that we have made political decision to deploy these weapons. And the political decision is resulting in objective danger that threatens Our Lives. Nuclear arms race the great moral issue of our time. It's not a white issue is not a black issue is all about issue because of nuclear weapon is an equal-opportunity destroy. You could care less about your race Creed color national origin in a very interesting thing about a nuclear weapon. It's almost a tragic end rather poetically disturb reality. That a nuclear bomb has been able to do something. None of our political movements have been totally able to realize total equality in the total universality of our vulnerability In the shadow of the nuclear bomb black brown red yellow and white guy equally if you drop a bomb you can live in a penthouse on the basement you die equally gays and straights die equal Jews and Gentiles Donna equally rich and poor die equally employed and unemployed. I equally men and women die equally young and old is equally we have all been forced to come to grips with the equality of our human existence. And the tragedy is that many of us have not come to grips with it, but it seems to me that if we can understand our quality of the shadow of a nuclear bomb we ought to be able to understand on equality in the sunlight of the politics of peace. and disarmament I could spend a lot of time on this issue, but I simply want to say number one. Mine Luther King 20 years ago challenge the technology of death that is unfinished business. We must continue to chat with the technology of death. Many of our children are frightened to death that they would not realize their adulthood. A society that prejudice children is a society on its way to dying because our children are our future. And we have a profound obligation to turn this planet over to the children and they to their children's children. There's something very wrong. I cannot get up in the morning and hug my children and tell them I love them in my chop to the floor of Congress knowing willfully that I am voting to perpetuate Weaponry that ultimately will be that destruction. I cannot do it. This job does not mean that much. We have to challenge this madness. Having said that let me move to the second point I said that Martin Luther King's comment challenge. The mentality of War many of us during the era of Vietnam said that peace is not simply withdrawing from Vietnam. It's withdrawing from the mentality of War. I now go to a foreign policy. The Cold War has masqueraded as American foreign policy for too long. The Notions of pax Americana has dominated on political thought that days over days dead. We not have to realize a different orientation. Look at our role in the world a new Fresh. I suggested that many of our colleagues have taken a picture of the world with the cameras of their minds and against the backdrop of that photo make a number of important decisions on the floor of Congress. And the tragic reality is that they took a picture of the world 20 30 40 years ago and threw away the camera if you update your picture the world the world is very different. I challenge a militaristic interventionist foreign policy. First Asset Management as a manifest itself for example in Central America. How can we as a Democratic Society committed to the Notions of Peace continue to perpetuate the funding of a group of people whose dedicated? Objective is the overthrow of a country and we are not at war with we're not at war with Nicaragua. But we continue to pour funds into the hands of people in a not-so-secret war to overthrow these people that defines all of our principles of democratic understanding didn't we learn something in Vietnam hear game replace the prestige a superpower on the line engaging in warlock activity and chilling and death as a way of addressing the human mystery of people when we have a powerful Nation ought to be setting the example to the world that we can solve our differences politically around the table and negotiate without the cruelty of the insanity of War if we have a superpower become the Ideal of the world and we lack the capacity to sit down to engage in political negotiation peaceful negotiation. What do all the other nations do but emulate we need a bigger bomb. We need a bigger gun. We need more planes. Let's engage in war and is taking place all over the world. We're involved right here, but what better place than in this Hemisphere and what greater moment then now to demonstrate to the world the power and the capacity of sitting down around the negotiating table. We don't need to continue to kill third world people as we March toward this continue to March to the drummer of The Cold War as I said before it has masqueraded as American foreign policy for too many years has to be rejected. secondly our commitment to human rights I choose to not speak about South Africa. If we as a nation are committed to human rights. Then how can we not stand up as a nation in total unity and oppose the cruelty and the insanity of apartheid in South Africa? number one remember back too short years ago with Martin Luther King walked Among Us. He challenged for civil rights in the South and the number of people said well racism and prejudice and discrimination violations of civil rights. Are taking place all over America not just in the South? Why are you focusing just on the South Martin Luther King had a response to that it wasn't that he was naive enough not to understand that these cruelties did not exist above. The number of states that make up the the South but he understood that because of the institutionalized nature the racism the historic and symbolic implications that Civil Rights was a journey upon which this entire nation must Embark, but he knew that it had to start in the south of this country. Will I believe that if my father the king were alive today and on this podium I believe he would say to you that human rights is a journey upon which this entire world must embark. The world must awaken to the reality of the Dignity of human beings and the right of equality of human being the right of freedom of the human being the right to engage in the Democratic process. So being involved in shaping and determining the politics that affect your life the world have to awaken to that. That's the future of this planet if it is to survive the realization of human rights for all of his people. But if this planet is to pursue that Journey South Africa's, where's my start? Racial Supremacy in the context of 1985 if it were not so horrible so deadly and so crippling it would be almost laughable, but we cannot laugh because it is reality and in South Africa people died as a result. if we as a nation believe in the Dignity of human beings If you we as a nation agree on the equality of human beings if we as a nation believe in individual rights and human freedoms. How can we not stand up in unified opposition to apartheid? This is not an issue that should divide America should be an issue that unifies America. It's interesting that the left and the right has spoken on the question of South Africa. But where is the middle? Where is middle of the road moderate America on this question? I call it the extremism of the middle extremely devoid of Courage extremely the board of wisdom extremely the board of the capacity to see extremely devoid of principle and integrity extremely devoid of any positions. So we play games in the middle but apartheid is not something that we can play with. It is not a game. It is a reality. No. All American tattoo be about that business, but then Corporate America can say but we have to make money. If we don't sell it to them someone else will. It was supposed to be one nation. Then how can I values in a principal's marchesan One Direction? In a political statement marches in One Direction and are economics Marshalls in another Direction. I thought we One Nation that's contradictory but in the long run Corporate America stands to lose. Because what we have started down this road and and believe me these protests in front of the Embassy in Washington DC and not some local matter. It's going to grow it's going to get bigger because we understood that once we took this issue on and we could not stop until we realize something not consider this those of you who think strictly in dollars and cents. The Ledger As we become more forceful. Suppose for example the 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus Then followed by the black Mayors in the city council persons in the school board persons in the junior college board members Etc walked into the offices around the country and said take out all of the equipment of all corporations that are propping up racial Supremacy in apartheid in South Africa the ripple effect across this country could be stream namakkal and believe me that step will be taken. I cannot stand to see the taxpayers money that I'm responsible for bring Machinery into my office that supports the death in The Killing and the destruction of human beings in South Africa totally beyond all of the values in the principle that we are sensible Spas now in the short run intermediate run in the long run the potential here is astronomical and believe me standing in front of the embassy and singing We Shall Overcome and being arrested and spending the night in jail may be seen by a few people at something radical Chic, but that's only one step. I'm saying to you that the many other steps that we will begin to Embark upon. But I don't think that ought to be about intimidation it ought to be about the realization that it is immoral to be in bed with South Africa. It is immoral to support racial Supremacy. It is a moral and ethical to everything that we are statistically is found to the world. For us to continue to be involved in propping up apartheid. So I think that we ought to be involved in the business of divesting getting out now buthelezi says we need you there, but I understand that in the context of black South Africa. This is a discredited spokesperson. This is not Bishop tutu. This is not other human beings making this statement and some will say but if we stay there rhyme we will begin to expand the black middle-class and overtime. The black middle-class will interact with the white middle-class and we'll get Beyond racial Supremacy journalism. Patronizing expedient staff that does not address. The misery does not address the reality. We have to challenge apartheid and in the context of your boardrooms and York corporate executive meetings. This issue must be addressed and to those of you in this room. Who a black you have a profound obligation. It's not just those of us in the political Arena who must stand up and express our courage Martin Luther King died for black to become members of corporate America not to buy the blind perspective than myopic views but to sensitize them but to bring the prospective. But if you suddenly bought a split-level and live in Suburbia and vote conservative and vote Reagan, you lost where I came died. You lost why we fought in the 1960s. You want to continue to communicate? Continue to talk we must grow as a nation. We must grow Beyond Insanity was go beyond a bigotry in South Africa looms as an incredible symbol that we must challenge. It is healthy for this country. And what better time for Black America to stand up then in a moment when people are straight arm and that's thinking that maybe with a little too Progressive. In both parties what greater moment to say to Americans to say to the world. We will not turn back the clock. That world has to walk forward and we March forward to meet our Collective Destiny. We have a responsibility, but it should not just be the responsibility of the blacks. the sisters in the room Who are there because the struggle for women's liberation? And the incredible motivation that the women's Liberation movement was given by the Kings and the others who died trying to challenge for equality and justice. Because many of you the brothers here who are non-black you have a responsibility. We talk about a society that brings us together Martin Luther King died trying to bring us Beyond race. Martin Luther King said the generosity was more than throwing a few crumbs to a beggar, but dealing with those circumstances that give rise to Poverty that give rides at create the beggar that create the front of the mound nutrition. So it's not just the food stuff that we must send. We must be part of a process that moves us Beyond this so what I'm suggesting in this second point of my presentation, Is that we must Embrace now a foreign policy that speaks to World Peace. And World Peace not as some lofty objective, but as an imperative the world's dangerous. 10 to 15 years ago. I talked about peace and lofty terms not talked about peace and very practical reality-oriented Turn The World Is A Dangerous Place piece of the only option that we have a foreign policy based upon peace based upon nuclear disarmament based upon a commitment to Human Rights human Freedom human dignity in human evolution. Move beyond the concept of the Cold War the title obsolete concept did not serve us. Well as we evolve to the decade of the 1980s move into the 90s and move to the 21st century. Finally to the question of human priorities, which was the third point that I thought Martin Luther King spoke to eloquently. When I first went to Congress America's military budget 1971. I'm going to just now give you a picture how much money we spend on the military budget 1971 America's military budget was approximately 79 billion dollars in fiscal 1981 Ten Years Later America's military budget that escalated to 173 billion dollars in fiscal 1982 and went up to 218 billion fiscal 83 what the 244.5 billion fiscal 8420 265 billion fiscal 1985 budget authority to the tune of 297 billion dollars and this year. If you add in atomic energy project devoted to military activity with talking about a military budget slightly in excess of 322 billion dollars per annum and Rising rapidly. Now if that doesn't shock you during the decade of the 1980s America spent 1 trillion dollars on the military budget 1 trillion dollars and remember during the first part of the decade of the 70s. We were involved in Prosecuting war in Vietnam, but in the course of the 1980s, we will probably exceed three point somewhere between three and four trillion dollars on American military budget. on a military function alone triple to quadruple the military budget in short span of ten years question. Can you address the human misery of people? Can you deal with the human priorities that must be addressed and make this incredible commitment to military hardware in military capability to answer that. Let me turn to a document that was recently published by the center for budget and policy priorities in Washington DC a report called falling behind. It documents the plight of Black America during the four years of the Reagan Administration, but they're similar data for other minorities women and senior citizens. For blacks in terms of income at every level to the most affluent to the poorest blacks in America everyone suffer that verse lie in terms of economic purchasing power the family constellation hit the hardest was the black family with one working one stayed home to take care of the children that family lost a minimum of $2,000 per annum in purchasing power with respect to unemployment white unemployment in America went down during the Reagan Administration black unemployment went up in terms of poverty, 9.9 million blacks live in poverty, 1.4 million and poverty today more than were in poverty in January of 1981. When this Administration took office one out of every two children 6 years of age of younger in Black America live in poverty, 47% of all black children in America now live in poverty one out of three black senior citizens in America now, Live in poverty one out of three black women of prime working age 18 to 55. Now live in poverty one out of every four black men in America same Prime working-age now lives in poverty. If you take the poorest 20% of our society the poor 20% of our society earned 4.7% of all the income in America the top 20% of our economy earn 47.2% of all of income in America. How does that have impact upon Black America half of the black families in America live in the bottom 20% not in the mid-range is certainly not at the top. So one looks and then every single program interesting ly enough obviously should not be a surprise to any of you that blacks were and minorities were significant constituents of the program those programs took this proportion of cuts. disproportionate cut as we allow the military budget to escalate rapidly and extensively over and an incredible. Of time summarized would dropping bombs in North Vietnam exploding in the ghettos in the Barrios of America it spoke to the technology of death. Instead of issues that have not died and issues that we must continue to address this country needs to go to the table with the Soviet Union and we need to sit down and talk earnestly not the pasture because I worried that during that time we'll build every single offensive weapon for the next 5 16 years while I was standing there talking about the Star Wars concept and just a quick aside Star Wars this naive notion that in some way the scientists can take us to the brilliant moment when we can neutralize all these nuclear weapons as if we never started down this road in the first place to do it will cost you between a minimum of five hundred billion and 1 trillion dollars. Even if you build it you may have a weapon system with 90 to 98% accuracy efficiency. And even at that level 2% would provide a level of Mega Death and destruction that is not acceptable creating nuclear winter and the potential for death and starvation and suicide on this planet beyond all of our ability to comprehend. So that's not a reasonable notion. And then remember I mentioned the cruise missiles that travel low-to-the-ground query. How can a a a Star Wars system way out in space shoot down a missile that flying low to the ground. We already have the technology than get beyond that Madness but we're going to spend billions of dollars moving toward that technology. It'll take care of a lot of contract to take care of a lot of Engineers. It'll take care of a lot of scientist. But what will it do to this Society on the one hand we met at some point develop a level of nuclear technology that will take us Beyond. Social and human institutions ability to control or the bottom a drop out of our economy from the sheer weight of a bloated and wasteful and unnecessary and dangerous military budget neither alternative alternative. It seems to me is acceptable. Secondly. We have to move toward a rational foreign policy based on the realities of of this planet as we move to the decade of the 1980s and thirdly the concept of National Security should also mean our domestic security. We must have a say Values that guide us through this time. Do we write off the poor? Do we write off the young people crippled by drug addiction in our society? Do we write off all of the human beings do we fight and senior citizens? Do we allow unemployment to Skyrocket? Do we allow the infrastructure of our Urban centers to deteriorate because we lack the resources and the commitment to pass bonds engage in taxes or engagement on social responsibility Corporate America. Can I solve all these problems? We have to have a public sector and it must be vital and it must be committed and it must speak to values finally a budget reflects priorities in a priority and priority reflect values. We have to move from a position of understanding. What are human values are at this moment if we want to reduce our 200 billion dollar budget deficit. Let's not do it on the backs of the poor the unemployed at the senior citizens to Black Brown's other third world people and poor whites. Let's not do it on the back of the farmers in California and in Minnesota some of whom are taking their lives because suddenly everything they believe in is gone and dead as we say to the farmers to hell with you. The future is Corporate farming. What if we ever get to that point then my constituents of harm because we ever get the carpet corporate farming Cheap food is no longer reality show Ron dellums stand in Coalition and unity with the farmers of Minnesota as we challenge this Administration in terms of its insensitive position, but it apparently now seems to be turning around as people start to scream and tension starts to increase but we can reduce the deficit by looking at the military budget not scrambling for numbers will not auctioneers. We should be debating policy. If our policy is to reduce the threat of nuclear war you save money if we committed to an interventionist militaristic foreign policy you save money if you're not committed to duplication and wasting redundancy, you can save money in the in the American military budget we can cut 50 to 60 billion dollars in this military budget without taking this much National Security away from the United States. The question is whether we have the political will to do it. Let me conclude I started by talking about Martin Luther King. Brilliant prophetic black man walked Among Us for a relatively short. Of time eulogize when he died as a modern civil rights leader a definition of perception of him that I thoroughly and totally and unequivocally reject. This was an extraordinary human being with great capacity to see many years Beyond his own. Walk Among Us for a short. Of time, but in that short period of time he went from Montgomery where it started to Memphis where he died, he went to MIT manhood to Ultimate martyrdom in from the depths of misery to the top of the mountain is that magnificent and Brilliant black man could walk that distance reaching to his brothers and sisters are you and I can join hands on that very same journey and take American the world from Madness to humanity from exploitation to equality and from racism sexism and chauvinism freedom and some water. Peace, and I humbly join you in this effort and thank you very much.