Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC


NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 25, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I very much support the Bradley amendment. At a time when American troops are dying on a daily basis in Iraq, we simply cannot afford to disrupt the military framework that our soldiers rely on every day to help them in their mission and to keep them alive.

I want to say last week I listened to the BRAC hearings and I saw the commissioners ask many questions related to the fact that our military are now in combat. The Pentagon could not answer many of the more important questions that were asked by the BRAC commissioners. This was not the case in previous BRAC rounds. I have been here since 1988, and I have now been through three or four BRAC rounds. The fact of the matter is there were many unanswered questions regarding the future of our military, and it is simply not the right time to be shutting down military facilities here at home. If you listened to the BRAC last week and you listened to the questions, you could see why in fact the Bradley amendment makes sense.

I want to mention one thing about my base, Fort Monmouth, that was mentioned already by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). What many people do not realize, and I will use Fort Monmouth but it could be any base, in the case of Fort Monmouth, though, we have people on a daily basis, soldiers in the field and their commanders that will call back and ask for a particular type of communications or electronic equipment that may have to be altered in a matter of days or a number of weeks in order to be able to be prepared for combat, to defend the soldier in the field, to make sure that they are not wounded, to make sure that they are adequately prepared for combat.

Imagine a situation where in the course of the next 2 or 3 years, that research and development, that operation, that communication, electronics function, is transferred to another location and all that science and all that engineering background is lost. It would be very, very difficult to operate and make sure that that soldier in the field is properly equipped and is able to deal with that particular situation that he or she may face on a daily or weekly basis. That is why it does not make sense to do this in time of war.

Support the Bradley amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

Skip to top
Back to top