Elizabeth Furse: “it is not my intention at this time to offer my C-17 amendment, but I would like to take a few moments to speak about…”

“it is not my intention at this time to offer my C-17 amendment, but I would like to take a few moments to speak about that amendment and why I think it is still relevant. I believe that it would have provided more airlift sooner and done it cheaper. With my plan the airlift we need could have been provided for $16 billion less than the Department of Defense's plan. Mine would have provided for a total of 32 C-17's, and we would have got our remaining airlift that we need from commercial and military alternatives. When any of us goes shopping, Mr. Chairman, we look for value, and defense spending is no different. We need to get the best value out of every defense dollar. But it we continue on an excessive and unnecessary course, the American taxpayers do not get value, they get soaked. We have military needs that we cannot afford right now: Communities facing base closure, veterans health care in which we must spend our military dollars more wisely so we meet our needs. There are several concerns I would have addressed in my amendment. One is jobs. I think people fail to realize that my alternative, Mr. Chairman, would have created thousands of jobs through a building of the Boeing 747, the Lockheed C-5 or the McDonnell Douglas MD-11. And then we must talk about military needs. If we spend all our airlift dollars on the C-17, we will not have enough money to replace our airlift needs when we lay down the C-141's.”