On the recordJune 13, 2013
I thank the chairman of the full committee. I also appreciate what the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), has said. I totally agree with what he has already put forward. Against this amendment, I would have to add that one of the other things it does which is harmful to our national defense is to stop the progress we are making on creating a third site on the eastern coast of the United States for missile defense. The gentleman quoted some Russian television commentator. That has no relevance to what Ground-Based Midcourse Defense is all about. Ground- Based Midcourse Defense is against a rogue missile fired from a North Korea or an Iran or from some country like that or is an accidental single launch from another country. It is not to fight against the Russians or the Chinese. That's not it at all. We have some interceptors already in place in Alaska and in California. The eastern site would add that same capability of defense against a rogue missile on the east coast. I happen to believe that we should be protecting the east coast better than we are today. I think the people of New Jersey, let's say, deserve just as much protection as the people of California, and we have that capability. You said it hasn't defeated jammers and decoys. The North Koreans don't have jammers and decoys. The Iranians aren't even that far along. They're not as far along as the North Koreans. We don't have to have the perfect.…





