On the recordJune 14, 2013
I'm convinced that the arguments against missile defense are the same today that they were the day that President Reagan proposed it: you can't do it, it costs too much, and it's provocative to try. And it doesn't really matter how the threat evolves, what North Korea or Iran do, and it doesn't really matter how the technology evolves. We just had a successful test just a few months ago. The events and facts don't matter. The arguments are still the same, and they will always be the same because some people just don't want to defend the country against missile attack. This committee pushed in 2010, in 2011, and in 2012 to have more interceptors on the west coast. The President opposed it every step of the way. It didn't happen. And then, all of a sudden, with North Korea this year, the President changes his mind and says, Oh, maybe you all were right after all. At least the President changed his mind. Unfortunately, it seems like some people cannot even do that. A lot of us think the administration is not doing enough, but to do less would be negligent, and I think we should reject this amendment. Mr. McKEON. Might I inquire how much time we have remaining? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining. Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of our committee, Mr. Franks.
