On the recordJuly 7, 2011
First of all, what we are saying is they get an increase. So, if you vote against this amendment, apparently you believe that they are 101\1/2\ percent efficient at the current level, because you're giving them, we would say, a 101\1/2\ percent increase. You must believe it's a 103 percent increase, those who vote against this. People pay lip service where there are some inefficiencies, but you will not get at them unless there is some limit to the spending. I particularly want to address the very odd notion that we should decide what we need to spend on the military today by using as a standard what the situation was 51 years ago. That's the problem. Fifty-one years ago, Germany was divided. The Communists controlled Czechoslovakia and Poland and Hungary and East Germany. Our Western allies were poor, and they were still recovering from 1945. The Soviet Union was very strong. That's precisely the problem. This budget out of the Appropriations Committee and from the administration, which is also incorrect on this, acts as if it were still 1960. The fact is that it is no longer appropriate for the rest of the world to expect us to put out so much of the burden. That's what the issue is. The gentleman from Oklahoma said, oh, well, we'll have to cut this here and that there. Why? Why don't we cut some of the money we spend in Europe, in Japan and in other wealthy and secure nations?…
Source
govinfo.gov




