On the recordMay 17, 2012
I think this amendment is very curious when the Secretary of Defense came out with a new defense strategy last year, and they came out and said that the long-range strike fighter is one of their top priorities. And yet a Member of their own party is trying to do away with that. As you know, gentlemen, over 50 percent of the cuts so far have come from our national defense. And there's only a few things we're supposed to be doing here in Congress, and one of them is provide for the common defense. I have the honor of representing the B 2 bombers at Whiteman Air Force Base, and I couldn't be prouder of the good work that they are doing. But we have 19, right now, aircraft. If we approve this amendment, it would be over 50 years old by the time that we would be moving forward with looking at the future, and we'd have the B 2s at 75 years old. I would use his analogy and say a family would not wait until the car is 50 years old, broken down in the garage and won't start before they go consider advancing and getting a new car. We need to be proactive. We need to make sure that our defense industry remains strong. We need to be proactive. We need to oppose this amendment and continue to support our long-range strike fighters.
