On the recordDecember 22, 2010
Just briefly on the remarks about the missile defense, I have served as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and ranking member and have been involved in it for quite a few years. I think the language affirms the continued development of the two-stage, ground-based interceptor. Then, I guess, I accept the language that says ``as a technological and strategic hedge.'' But I would just say to my colleagues, the reason we are at this point is because, during the negotiations with the Russians concerning the New START treaty, the administration, responding to Russian objections about missile defense--which were so unfounded and I could never fathom--the administration agreed, in September of last year, unilaterally, and to the utter surprise of Poland and the Czech Republic, to cancel the planned two-stage GBI that was to be deployed in 2016 in Poland. It was a great embarrassment to our allies. They had been negotiating with us for many years on this project. They had stood firm for it, and the administration then promised this phase four SM-3 Block 2B. But it was not on the drawing board, not under development, and cannot be completed until 2020 if we as a Congress fund it over that decade. The President certainly will not be in office at that time. So I am uneasy about this whole matter of missile defense. I think the administration made a colossal error in giving up on the planned two-stage strategic policy. But this language is better than no language.…





