It is an old axiom that the only certainty in this world is uncertainty. I do not think anyone here, no matter how you are going to vote on this amendment, can seriously argue that we are not cutting defense in an orderly manner. What we need is certainty in this downsizing. We can downsize the military in this country. We can do it safely without jeopardizing national security, but we must be left to do that job. This approach, this amendment, is wrongheaded. May I suggest to you that some had mentioned about pay. There are 20,000 military households that now qualify for food stamps. That is not anything to be proud of, because we asked these young men and women in uniform, and will, remembering that the only certainty is uncertainty, we will ask them again to go to some foreign land at some unknown hour, some unknown day, some unknown week, some unknown month and year in the future, and lay down their lives for this country. What we are talking about here is a wrongheaded approach to letting us on the committee downsize in a rational, logical manner. Please, defeat this amendment.
Editor's note · Context
Debating an amendment related to military downsizing and its impact on national security.
Share
More from John Tanner
The PAYGO rule, as we have here now as Mr. Ross pointed out, is basically what all of us do in our private lives. We live within our means. We pay our bills, and we hope we have some left to invest in the future. This government has done…
The point of this is that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen, marines, are not dying in the name of the Republican Conference or the Democratic Caucus. They're dying in the name of the United States of America. We owe them a unified…
That is according to the GAO. There were six that were compliant with the Federal management, financial management law. Commerce, Labor, the EPA, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Social Security…
we have seen, as Mr. Boyd pointed out, an unprecedented amount of borrowing take place since 2001. No political leadership in this country has borrowed as much money as quickly as we have seen over the last 80 months or so. That's just…





