this bill and its provisions for funding of the next phase of the F-22 development is supported by the Department of Defense, by the House Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Appropriations, and by the distinguished membership of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations. This amendment to cut the spending for the F-22 program is opposed by the Department of Defense, by the House Committee on Armed Services, by the House Committee on Appropriations, and the subcommittee chaired by the distinguished gentleman from California. That fact should tell us something; and what it tells us is my position, as well: Oppose this amendment, which is a gutting amendment. Mr. Chairman, equipment, no matter how good, does not guarantee victory on the battlefield. But bad equipment, no matter how competent the training of the individuals who use it, no matter how highly motivated is the motivation of those who use it, will guarantee defeat. The F-22 has already proved itself, even in this stage of development, as the most superb fighter ever conceived by the mind of man. The technology that has already been proven, even in these early stages of its development, are utterly awesome. We need to show our fighting men and women and we need to show the rest of the world that America remains committed to providing the world cutting edge technology.
Bob Barr: “this bill and its provisions for funding of the next phase of the F-22 development is supported by the Department of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing funding for the F-22 development and opposing an amendment to cut its spending.
Share
More from Bob Barr
We do need to end the perception of too big to fail. It is an absolutely critical element.
It shows the INS going into the wastebasket of history. In reality, Mr. Chairman, it is not harsh enough. It ought to be going through a shredder on the way to a wastebasket. For this agency and what it has done, we need to shred it…
I think it is absolutely critical--and here I think Mr. Miller and I agree--that we change the basic nature of regulation in our system so that there are big buffers and we can internalize the costs.
I think there does need to be transparency in the process once the firm is in resolution with the opportunity for judicial review.





