The problem here is we are not dealing with the amendment as the gentleman from Massachusetts would rewrite it. We are dealing with the amendment as it is written, because that is the amendment that is going to be dealt with by DOD lawyers. It says, ``No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the Department of Defense may be used for a space-based national defense missile program.'' The point is we have to deal with the law as it is written, not as he would rewrite it. If he is going to rewrite it, I would recommend he come back next year with another text. This thing would basically put a freeze on the programs that we have right now.
Andrew P. Hunter: “The problem here is we are not dealing with the amendment as the gentleman from Massachusetts would rewrite it. We are…”
On the recordMay 9, 2002
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to funding for the Department of Defense during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Feb 28, 2017
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.
Feb 11, 2015
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.
Feb 28, 2017
It is my belief that, collectively, NATO is not yet at a maturity level sufficient to effectively incorporate cyber technologies that exploit critical Russian infrastructure.





