This is a net cut in missile defense. This is not a matter of taking money from something that we don't need and moving it to something we urgently need. This is a net cut of $764 million. Now, my great friend from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) made the point we spent well over $100 billion on missile defense since Ronald Reagan reminded us that we live in the age of missiles. On the other hand, the strike on 9/11 probably cost us, in terms of economic destruction, $500 billion plus. We can't afford not to have robust missile defense. That means you take down incoming missiles at all phases, in boost phase, in midcourse, and, lastly, in terminal phase. We need robust missile defense. We need to defend this country. We need to restore this money, and the Franks amendment is right on target.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing funding for missile defense during a House committee meeting.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
You cannot throw money at the problem, and we do not need to be investing government dollars where the private sector is going to invest its own dollars.
The government needs to be very discriminating about how it approaches and how it invests its R&D dollars.
once again, these Status of Forces Agreements, which are pretty run of the mill, do not manifest security commitments by the United States to protect the countries that they are made with. They talk about the treatment and describe the…
Let me take back my time and explain to the gentleman why it's important to have report language. You start programs and you also put policies in place. If you put those in the bill and those are locked into law and then you get a call…





