What is appropriate to this gentleman is to put in the Armed Services bill what we need to defend the country. That means we hold hearings like the ones we had on aircraft safety, on Army and Marine ammo, on the needs of the Navy, on the needs of the bomber force, and we put together a bill that we think does that. And sometimes, as in the case of the F-117, Congress is right and the Pentagon is wrong. When we said we need F-117's, they said, no, you can kill the program now. We said, no, we need them. So we do not always agree. But the idea the gentleman has put forth that the Pentagon is always right and that Congress cannot have any different idea about a weapon system, so if we are off 1 percent, we are wrong, I think the idea the gentleman puts forth is highly invalid. I am telling the gentleman again, the increases we put together were 95 percent requested by the Army, the Air Force, and the Marines.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Armed Services bill and the role of Congress in defense spending.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Let me take back my time and explain to the gentleman why it's important to have report language. You start programs and you also put policies in place. If you put those in the bill and those are locked into law and then you get a call…
Once again, the gentlelady talked about a strategic framework agreement. That does manifest security commitments, and that does have to be ratified. But that is not the Status of Forces Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement is simply…
I put my initiatives, and I don't call them earmarks because I don't think they are illegitimate, I put them on the Internet. As I learned in my ill-fated national campaign, people aren't paying a lot of attention to my Internet site. But…
What we found is that the magnitude of the reduction in contract obligations for R&D is much greater than what you see overall.





