I want to thank the last speaker for his statement and for his wonderful contribution on the Armed Services Committee in terms of working the jammer issues, and lots of other Members who have worked these important force protection issues. I think that we have proven on the committee that the wisdom of the committee and lots of Members who have gotten personally involved in this force protection issue have matched and at some times exceeded the Pentagon's own projections and projects. I am reminded also that we manufactured and fielded 10,000 portable jammers, so that troops who are on foot could also have jammers, which had not been planned by the Pentagon. So I think he makes a good point. Of course, having these funds that are available in these supplementals that we can direct to force protection is a key aspect of our responsibility.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing force protection issues and the effectiveness of portable jammers for troops.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Just one other point, and that is in the U.N. Security Council Resolution, under which our troops operate now, which provides for how they are treated in Iraq, expires in December. That is why we need to have a Status of Forces Agreement…
You cannot throw money at the problem, and we do not need to be investing government dollars where the private sector is going to invest its own dollars.
Taking back my time, I don't think we are going to be appropriating any melting shirts, or authorizing any melting shirts. We do serious stuff. And when you have a defense bill which is over $500 billion and it has thousands and thousands…
But let me register my objection to the Rules Committee's determination that one of the amendments that I had offered was not made in order, and that is the amendment that goes to the so-called tanker deal. Let me just explain to my…





