I want to note to my colleagues in the full committee and all the Members that this is one of those occasions, as you can see with respect to this substitute amendment, there is solidarity in the Committee on National Security, on the Democrat side, on the Republican side, on all shades of the political spectrum. This is the reason: No matter how much we disagree about weapons systems and about strategies and about budget numbers, we all agree on one thing, one fact that comes home to us every time we have a conflict. When we move out to project American power, we carry that power, whether it is marines or soldiers or ammunition or aircraft and all the logistics that you have to take to a foreign place to fight a war on ships. In Desert Storm we carried 95 percent of our war materiel on ships, not on airplanes, and everybody knows that. South Korea is not going to complain because we want to maintain our shipbuilding base.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of shipbuilding for national security during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
I appreciate the remarks of both Mr. Israel and the ranking member. I am just looking at the language, and it says ``shall offer employment.'' So it clearly says, if I was going to read that as an agency head, I would say that means I must…
If you take the gentleman's argument to its ultimate conclusion, that means the portable jammers, the ones that only weigh a couple of pounds that we gave to our marines to save their lives so they can carry them, because you can't carry…
What we found is that the magnitude of the reduction in contract obligations for R&D is much greater than what you see overall.
But we are in a different situation now. And so we have an opportunity to come up with a strategy that is focused on meeting these new challenges, not simply trying to avoid more harm.





