Let me tell my colleagues, this is a basic difference between the President of the United States and the Republican majority in the House, the full House, and the American people whom they represent, because we do want to have a defense against incoming ballistic missiles. The President does not want to have a defense against incoming ballistic missiles. In 1991 in the wake of Desert Storm, after we saw those Scud missiles come in and do damage against our troops, we rose as a body in both bodies, the House and the Senate, and we passed a mandate that we should build a defense, a national defense, against incoming ballistic missiles, and that we should have that defense completed by, guess when? 1996. Well, folks, it is 1996, the Berlin Wall was down at that time when we made that mandate, so this was not in consideration of the cold war, and we have not done a thing toward that goal that both Houses set in motion.
On the recordJanuary 3, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the need for a national defense against ballistic missiles.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
May 22, 2008
Taking back my time, I don't think we are going to be appropriating any melting shirts, or authorizing any melting shirts. We do serious stuff. And when you have a defense bill which is over $500 billion and it has thousands and thousands…
Feb 11, 2015
I think it is reflective of another issue in federal contracting, which is access to capital.
Feb 28, 2017
I think the key is deterrence, because I think the truth is, whether it is the scenario that we looked at, the scenarios war games there, there is no certainty of victory if the Russians make a serious move against the Baltics, at least in…





