or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC


Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I do have the honor of representing Colorado Springs in my congressional district, which has the Missile Defense Agency and some of these other important assets for our Nation's defense, and I totally oppose this amendment of my colleague's from northern Colorado.

We do have ground-based interceptors on the west coast. We have ground-based interceptors in Alaska. We need them also on the east coast. We need to start planning for that. The money that would be slashed by this amendment would go to starting the planning process, and it doesn't happen overnight. It's a multiyear process. We need to start the planning now so we can defend the heavy population centers on the east coast from intercontinental ballistic missile threats. There are rogue nations in this world that mean us harm. There is the possibility of an accidental launch by a number of countries. We have to have that type of defense. The Institute for Defense Analyses did a study that Congress called for. It said we need an east coast site. Should this amendment pass, that money will not be there to begin that process.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama has been slashing missile defense for 3 years now. This bad amendment would continue that same trend. The CE I interceptor has worked three out of three times. That's a 100 percent record.

I also disagree with the gentleman from New Jersey, who just spoke, who said fix it first and then fund it. It's the other way around. You fund it so you can fix it.

They have it backwards, I'm afraid. A vote for this amendment is really nothing more than a vote against a strong missile defense for the United States. I urge a ``no'' vote.


Back to top