Mr. Chairman, with about 10 legislative weeks left in the 104th Congress, I think it is a good time to examine the priorities of the new majority. The Republicans have relentlessly attacked education and health care and environmental protection, energy conservation, crime control. The minimum wage remains unlivable, corporate welfare unstoppable. The deficit is going to go up each of the next 2 years under the plan that was adopted last night while taxes are deliberately increased on working families who earn under $25,000 a year. But spending on unrequested and unneeded weapons systems is off the charts: billions of dollars for new missile defense systems to defend against hypothetical or imagined enemies that do not exist, millions for further development of the B-2 bomber, many millions more for other aircraft and hardware the Pentagon says it does not need to defend either our shores or our interests. This defense budget is an utter perverse reading of the peace dividend the end of the cold war was supposed to produce. It makes you wonder who really wants to balance the budget. Makes you wonder who is really willing to make tough choices of shared sacrifice. Both the President's budget and the coalition budget are fair and more human, more honest, more realistic plans to balance the budget in 6 years.
John W. Olver: “Mr. Chairman, with about 10 legislative weeks left in the 104th Congress, I think it is a good time to examine the…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing budget priorities and defense spending during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John W. Olver
I think I'm doing the correct thing there. And I'll yield, again, for the continuation of what the gentleman from California is saying.
This amendment again, as the gentleman has said, is an amendment that would freeze at the level of the 2012 funding here for salaries and expenses of the Office of Community Planning and Development. Now, this office, it turns out…
I will be very brief. I merely want to concur in the position of the chairman of the subcommittee, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered…
I oppose this amendment strongly, but not because I like a VMT, particularly, and not that I do not understand that in rural areas this can be very burdensome. However, we have to have additional revenue. The reason our infrastructure is…





