The gentleman now raises a question about theater ballistic missiles. The proponent of the amendment before the body at this point has squarely put that issue before us, saying that that is a significant priority. However, the gentleman's discussion in this bill is about national missile defense systems, and we are saying that is tens of billions of dollars, and it is going in the wrong direction, because it does not speak to the likelihood of what might be a provocation. That is a terrorist provocation, not an over the horizon missile.
Ronald Dellums: “The gentleman now raises a question about theater ballistic missiles. The proponent of the amendment before the body at…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of national missile defense systems during a debate.
Share
More from Ronald Dellums
One very quick response to the gentleman is: The logic. Do we build up to build down. To build up we are going to spend billions of dollars and we know we are ultimately going to build down. That is the answer to the gentleman's point…
The gentleman knows for over a decade, the quarter of a century I have been here, I have never tried to impugn anyone's integrity. It was not designed to challenge the gentleman. I am always prepared to debate on the substance. I thank the…
To establish some reality to people who are listening to this debate, we already have 350 of these missiles. The debate is whether we buy 84 additional ones. I am saying that is the build up to build down. In my proposal we can stay within…
There is considerable concern, I would like to say to my distinguished colleague from Colorado, at both the local level and the Federal level, that the environmental cleanup proposed by the Department of the Army for the Presidio in San…





