let me just reiterate the theme that the chairman just elaborated on is, I think, a very important one for all of the Members to understand, and that is that this should not be, this bill should not be, a competition between whether or not we are going to give a pay raise to the troops or we are going to have the right equipment for them to use in a military conflict. It should not be a conflict. It should not be either-or. What we have done in this bill is come up with an additional funding that allows us to have a 3 percent pay raise, it allows us to give the $300 million that the Marines need in ammunition to be able to fight the two war scenario, it enables us to get the 96 million M-16 bullets that they were short under the administration's budget, it enables us to have the theater defense and to start on the national defense just like the one that we are giving the State of Israel. It enables us to do all those things that are important in terms of being able to project American military power and carry out foreign policy. This is a complete package, and the gentleman has done a superlative job in bringing this thing together on the committee level and bringing it to the floor. Let us pass this bill. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing military funding and troop pay during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
We have general officers, flag officers who go over to Iraq, Afghanistan just as they have gone to every war theater we've fought in. They talk to their colleagues. Their colleagues give them the facts as they see the facts. They come…
That would have meant jobs for the American workers, and it would have meant that we kept a lot of that talent pool, that industrial base capability, in the United States. This would have been a huge win for American workers and it would…
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.
I think what today's hearing and what this situation and NATO's eastern flank highlights is the fact that we don't have a tremendous amount of time to wait around for the next great Army to show up in 10 to 15 to 20 years.





