let me make clear to my friend, as I think he knows, I am for building and deploying a ground-based system that is treaty-compliant to start with. I candidly acknowledge that before we are finished with it, we will probably want to go back to that treaty, change it significantly, so we can allow space-based sensors and multiple site deployment. What I am saying now is if you push that issue, if you force it now, you are going to risk ratification of START-II. If START-II is not ratified, then ballistic missile defense against 8,000 warheads as opposed to 3,000 warheads is a much different thing. I do not know where we are coming up with the money to maintain START-level offensive systems without, and at the same time to pay for, the development and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. That is a coherent position. I am for protecting ourselves against ballistic missiles that may be launched against this country.
John Spratt: “let me make clear to my friend, as I think he knows, I am for building and deploying a ground-based system that is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of missile defense systems and the START-II treaty.
Share
More from John Spratt
I ask unanimous consent that before concluding that members who did not have an opportunity to ask questions of our witness be given 7 days to submit questions for the record.
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…
When President Obama was sworn into office at the beginning of this year, the economy was in deep contraction and jobs were being lost at a rate of 741,000 per month.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic legislation, arguably the most important vote we here today will ever take in this Chamber. Today fulfills a promise made 100 years ago by Theodore Roosevelt when he first called for…





