First, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to premature expansion of NATO I would tend to agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but I would remind my colleague that in the context of H.R. 7, Contract for America, there was a great deal of very poignant, strident remarks with respect to the issue of the expansion of NATO, and it is slightly disingenuous to make that attack at this point when those remarks were contained in the Republican sponsored H.R. 7. Second, I tried to listen very carefully to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, who pointed out that they could purchase a missile, a national missile defense, from between $2 and $3 billion. That is not the missile defense system that is contained in the freestanding piece of legislation that will come to the floor over the next several days. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the Congressional Budget Office, in costing the potential of the freestanding piece of legislation dealing with nationalistic defense, would more approximate $8 billion, and that is if we just keep it on the ground. If we go into space with Brilliant Pebbles, et cetera, we could be talking about a missile system well in excess of $30 billion, maybe approaching even $40 billion. So this $2 or $3 billion does not square with the reality.
Ronald Dellums: “First, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to premature expansion of NATO I would tend to agree with the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing NATO expansion and missile defense funding during a committee hearing.
Share
More from Ronald Dellums
I would like to finish my remarks with respect to where we can save money. I mentioned about the time factor slowing that down, save billions of dollars, not a radical idea. Moving away from cold war weapons, saving billions of dollars…
I would suggest that, Mr. Chairman, when one argues that our national defense is the most important or the only responsibility of the Federal Government, I would challenge that assertion. My reading of the Preamble to the Constitution is…
I would simply concur in the explanation of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Spence. The amendment provides that the President must act consistent with United Nations Participation Act, simply…
Mr. Chairman, as I noted during the debate on the rule, I do not think that our very valuable committee process has succeeded fully in considering the weight and the merit of the issue before us. Despite that fact, I think that much has…





