I suspect the ultimate irony of this is that in a year or two from now, if this becomes law, that we will have Members arguing that we need to increase defense spending because the nuclear threat from Russia has not been reduced, and the reason it will not have been reduced is because we have tried to attach extraneous conditions to one of the most effective programs we have ever seen in reducing the central security threat to this country. Now, where in the world is the common sense in trying to perpetrate this kind of public policy? Does the gentleman have any idea how this could end up being helpful to our national security?
David Skaggs: “I suspect the ultimate irony of this is that in a year or two from now, if this becomes law, that we will have Members…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of proposed defense spending legislation.
Share
More from David Skaggs
I understand there is some frustration on the other side about all of this. This resolution has been cleverly drafted to appear, at first reading, perhaps, even to be innocuous. But let me just suggest to my colleagues that we ought not to…
It seems to me it might extend then to, for instance, opposing the Helms-Burton legislation which has certain extraterritorial effects that run into serious opposition from our friends around the world.
Mr. Chairman, continuing, what this is really about on the merits is whether we want a country in which all Americans have access to fair employment treatment by their Federal Government. It is as simple as that. It is not about quotas…
Yesterday we heard news of horrible massacres of ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces in Kosovo: women, children, the elderly all shot in cold blood. The same reports say that these massacres may now spur NATO to take military action. As…





