This is part of a continuing campaign of harassment against the Navy's No. 1 program, the No. 1 program of the U.S. Navy. This campaign has had a long, and to date totally unsuccessful, history. We all know the problems in the court systems when individuals flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits. We, in providing procurement funds for the Navy, have had a string of what I consider to be less than good-faith, responsible amendments directed at this program. The amendment before us purports to cut funds from a Navy procurement program and earmark them for the National Guard operations and maintenance fund. As a long-time and strong supporter of the National Guard, I recognize the limited funding the Guard has, and I have worked with my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and the Senator from Kentucky, my cochairman of the National Guard caucus, to fund adequately the Guard component of the total force. But I do not believe that pitting one service against the other, raiding the Navy's No. 1 procurement program, is the way to fill that funding requirement. No, this amendment is not a step forward for good government.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Feingold amendment during a debate on Navy procurement funding.
Share
More from Julian Bond
I dispute his statement that there were 6 years of unlawful activity of the President. He said no court will be able to review the illegality; no independent officials have reviewed it. First, it is my understanding, although I was not one…
When the president says he's for something, it doesn't mean it is going to happen. It just means we now know what he feels and how he thinks about it.
Full equality, it means enjoying all of the rights that everybody else in the country enjoys.
The next amendment I offer, No. 4987, was designed to protect potential home buyers with additional mortgage loan disclosure requirements. I explained and discussed this amendment with the two leaders of the Banking Committee when we had…





