Military Modernization and Readiness Bill

[afleitch]

From the confirmation hearing:

'I am going to break ranks here; I oppose it as it stands. While I believe military upgrades are necessary as part of a long term change in world affairs, I do not believe bulk investment of this nature will help where it matters most; our troops. Until we can be 100% certain that each and every one of our troops on the ground and all our military personel have the equiptment, resource and financial support that they requre both on and off duty then we should not spend what has been outlined in the bill on other hardware.

I believe in a miltary funded from the bottom up. We can never be certain and in fact we pray that each plane, and each missile will never be put to use but we can be 100% sure that our soldiers will.

I will only support this bill if material and financial provision is made for our military personel.'

I would therefore urge the Senate to consider a possible amendment of the nature outlined above.

[afleitch]

In other words, you picked a nice number and went with that.

No; it got the amendement 'noticed.' I would support a reasonable reduction in the figure outlined, but it pales in comparison with the figures you were prepared to throw around without any consideration for the men on the ground.

[afleitch]

While I can support an up-grading programme, I'm afraid that I can't support this without a more detailed breakdown as to how the $3 billion will be spent.

I believe it is for the military to allocate these funds where it sees fit; where these funds will be directed to are already outlined in the amendment - 'efficient light weaponry, body armor, clothing, equipment, improved sanitation and accommodation and other such materials' so I see no need to further breakdown the figures. 

It is up to us to secure the funding, or raise or lower it as is deemed necessary by the Senate. It is up to the miltary to spend it.

[afleitch]

I urge senators who have not voted to consider voting in favour of this bill with it's amendments. While it is claimed that the $3bn that I have urged to be ring-fenced has not been properly costed or attributed; where this funding will be targeted to is already outlined in the text of the bill and needs no further elaboration.

The very fact that Senator Jake made no provision for increasing the funding to improve the facilities and weaponry of our armed forces on the ground in the first instance while budgeting for somewhat excessive military hardware that god willing will never be used makes me doubt the reasons given for now opposing his own bill.

[afleitch]

I urge the Senator to withdraw his accusations that I am 'dishonourable'

In the amendment I layed out where the $3bn would be spent. As it would be impossible to list each and every item no matter how miscellaneous and then budget each and everyone one of them. The moment such a list were drawn up it would be instantly out of date. I trust the armed forces to know what they require and I trust them to budget it more accurately than any Senator or Secretary could. Indeed, I could not based on the figures that I could find with regards this information online; so I made the amendment specific, but flexable.

The arbitary figure of $3billion; approximately 1 billion a year was reached through the figures avaliable. It comes on top of what is already invested; it is a boost and nothing more on top of the $109 billion spent on military personell. I would have proposed an even greater increase if it had the backing and I would have supported a further amendment to do so. I also believe that you too Mr Senator would have proposed greater spending and wider miltiary development if you believed it would pass securely without compromising the programs listed in the bill.

I have made clear my disatisfaction at the Senates lack of response to the budget requests I made when I entered office, in short I believe the office is underfunded and I supported your bill.  But I believe strongly that if you propose a bill with the intent to 'modernise and ready' the military you cannot do so from the top up which is why introduced this measure and yes Mr Senator it is a token gesture because I can bet your bottom dollar this would not have gone down well with the boys on the ground if it had passed as it originally stood.

[afleitch]

Yes, we've all seen the mass disgust when new funding allocated for new weapon systems. Oh wait, we've yet to, ever.

And we all saw how difficult it was to research the cost of new aircraft systems and which programs to fund them under. Or not...

If thats all you have to say on the matter then that's fine. I can't explain myself more clearly unless you want me to cost how much it costs the army each year in things like socks or disposable razors.

Your programs are specific, mine is not and never can be because it covers such a wide range as I have alreay explained.