This bill has elicited a great deal of rather passionate and emotional debate. As important as the subject matter is, I think there has been more passion and more emotion than the bill, by its terms, certainly warrants. It is a bill that says we perceive there are certain threats to the national security of the United States, and it is a policy consideration that they should be addressed by the deployment of a system as soon as practicable. I can assure my friends throughout the Chamber, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I am not going to preside over the sacrifice of our readiness to a ballistic missile system, theater or national, that is not ready for deployment, is not proven, and demonstrated to be practical and affordable in the context of our other national security needs. There is nothing in H.R. 7 that indicates otherwise. But there is nothing in this bill that dictates any requirement that we sacrifice other programs of priorities as we separate them out as we go through the authorizing and appropriations process.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of H.R. 7 on national security and military readiness.
Share
More from Herbert H. Bateman
We are in a very, very difficult situation today, confronting one of the most dismal range of policy choices the House has ever had to make. We are forced to do that, in part because notwithstanding my imploring him to do that, and others…
Mr. Chairman, I guess the bottom line here is that we often get embroiled in these formula debates here in the House. And I have heard some seemingly convincing arguments on the other side enumerating the number of States that would…
I will comment that this debate is about priorities. The priority here is the overriding priority of providing for our national defense which is not only an obligation, it is a constitutional obligation, and this amendment would strike at…





