Let me introduce an objective source. We passed in 1991 the Missile Defense Act calling for the deployment of a limited defense system by 1996. It originated in the Senate. It also called for a study by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office and by the Secretary of Defense to be submitted to Congress in 6 months, and I have that study here. It came in 1992 from the Bush administration. On page 41, here is the conclusion: For a limited defense system, according to SDIO estimates, acquiring six limited defense sites in brilliant eyes is expected to raise the total cost of the limited defense system, they recommended six sites, on the order of $35 billion, 1991 money. This is a limited defense system, Bush administration, $35 billion, and they say this is a preliminary estimate. What happens if you add brilliant pebbles, which was not included, next page? The anticipated incremental cost of acquiring such a space-based interceptor system involving 1,000 brilliant pebbles as part of the overall architecture would be about $11 billion in 1991 money, including associated technology-based activities. That is $46 billion. This came from the Bush Defense Department, officially submitted to Congress.
John Spratt: “Let me introduce an objective source. We passed in 1991 the Missile Defense Act calling for the deployment of a limited…”
On the recordFebruary 15, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the costs associated with the Missile Defense Act and related studies during a floor speech.
Share
More from John Spratt
Feb 4, 2010
To supplement my remarks about statutory PAYGO, I would like to include in the Record the attached section of the bill. Madam Speaker, at the outset of the 1990s, the Congress passed the Budget Enforcement Act for a simple purpose: to…
Jul 19, 2010
I join other members of the South Carolina delegation in cheering the University of South Carolina baseball team and Coach Ray Tanner for winning the 2010 College World Series. I extend special congratulations to Coach Tanner for being…
Jun 18, 2009
Insurance companies should not be allowed to cherry pick those who they cover based upon pre-existing conditions.





