On the recordMay 25, 2011
All I've got to say about that is, wow. Here we are talking about the DOD and what we should do with savings found in the DOD, and the gentleman from Virginia is bringing up stimulus and TARP and $800 billion, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, a mechanism that is used all too often by the other side. The gentleman mentions the Constitution. Nobody in this room is saying that we shouldn't adequately fund the Department of Defense. That's not what this is about any more than this is about TARP or stimulus or any of the other things that my colleague spoke about. The Constitution also says that it is this body--this body--that will determine how funds are spent. My colleague from Virginia is saying that extra money at the DOD that is saved in a mechanism that we all agree makes sense, that it should be a slush fund, if you will, that the DOD should decide how they use that. The Constitution of the United States is very clear. That's our job. {time} 1720 Nobody is saying that we should underfund defense; that is not what this is about. And I am delighted that the gentleman takes such great pride in having voted against the stimulus and the TARP, which by the way, I would say the day after Chrysler has repaid its government loan 6 years early, the gentleman might revisit his point on that, but that is not what this is about.…





