Mr. Speaker, last night we heard two speeches about priorities and values. The Senate majority leader said, and I quote, ``The President claims to embrace the future while clinging to the policies of the past.'' This bill is clearly an improvement over the one that we worked on before, and I commend the conferees for their hard work, but the Republicans claim this bill, like the one before it, embraces the future of the U.S. defense policy. But the U.S. defense will not sail smoothly toward the future, because this bill is anchored by the policies of the past. The Republicans speak of the need to balance budgets, cut fat, make difficult choices, but the Republicans are not making these difficult choices in defense. This bill does not make cuts, it gives the Pentagon $7 billion more than they asked for. The Department of Defense will grow stronger when it is allowed to become leaner, more efficient and equipped for the challenges in a new world order. This bill, however, builds up programs that the Department of Defense was moving away from, like the B-2, the ballistic missile defense, and the cuts in the Department of Defense environmental cleanup programs.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing U.S. defense policy and budget allocations during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Pat Meehan
I have great concern that what this is going to create is going to be retaliatory measures on the part of the Canadian authorities.
Why did the Administration allow $100 billion to flow to Iran, in light of this precedent, before requiring that they pay the obligations that they owe to the victims of Iranian terror?
Are we looking at the possibility that there could be significant retaliatory measures if, in fact, we don't find a way in which there can be collaboration and equal treatment for the Canadian vessels?
The point of it is though, that he has used this power without certifying why it is in the best interests of the United States to return $100 billion to Iran to continue to pursue terror.





