{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/king-leads-golden-dome-hearing-questions-scholars-on-costs-and-impacts-to-american-taxpayer", "King Leads Golden Dome Hearing, Questions Scholars on Costs and Impacts to American Taxpayer", "2026-09-29", "2026", "2026-09", "Independent", "Senate", "ME", "Angus S. King, Jr.", "K000383", "www.king.senate.gov", "angusking", "https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/table", "scraper", "To watch or download the exchange, click here\n\nWASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, questioned leading authorities on the costs and impacts of the President\u2019s proposed Golden Dome missile defense project on the American taxpayer. As details surrounding the ambitious military program remain vague, Senator King took the advantage of the open hearing to gain more concrete information from the assembled experts.\n\nIn his exchange with the Honorable David Trachtenberg, a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, the Senator asked how much the Golden Dome would cost the American taxpayer and who and what American territory would be protected by the defense program.\n\nSenator King began his remarks, \u201cFirst I have an issue with how this program is being funded. That is not really your problem, but it\u2019s being funded principally through reconciliation, which is a totally partisan process with very little input from the appropriations committee or the members of this committee. It has very little restrictions in the way of how it can be spent. So I want it on the record, as I mentioned at the beginning, that this is one of the most expensive and important initiatives of this government and it should be one that has broad popular support, indicated by broad support here in the congress. The fact that the vast bulk of it was funded first in the reconciliation last year and is proposed for this year, I think is very bothersome from the point of view of process.\n\n\u201c\u2026The other piece of this that bothers me, I was looking at the president's executive order, which says it will deter and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure, provide for the common defense of its citizens,\u201d Senator King continued. \u201cThe implication of the term golden dome is a national coverage. I think all of you will agree that that is just not in the cards. So, one of the questions that has to be discussed is, who is being protected? And what is the golden dome actually going to do? The nomenclature implies an arch over the entire country that is protected from any kind of missile attack. Would you agree that is not what we are talking about here?\u201d\n\nTrachtenberg replied, \u201cSenator, I would suggest that the nature of golden dome is to try to produce a system capable of a much broader level of defense for the American people and for the country.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo, this means every American citizen can sleep better tonight because they are protected from a missile attack?\u201d Senator King asked.\n\n\u201cWith all due respect, Senator, I don't think that is the appropriate metric to use,\u201d Trachtenberg answered. \u201cI believe the appropriate metric is, as I stated is can we build a system that provides a level of protection that dissuades and discourages.\u201d\n\nSenator King followed up, \u201cTo whom? To whom? Who is being protected and who makes that decision? Are you telling me that every citizen in America can be protected by this system?\n\nTrachtenberg concluded, \u201cNo, I'm not saying every citizen can be protected.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo if that is the case, who decides who is protected and who isn\u2019t?\u201d Senator King asked again.\n\nTrachtenberg replied, \u201cI think that the actual architecture would be, again, I don't have insight into the current architectural plans, but I think it would be deployed probably in phases or in stages, at certain times when the architecture is ready. But I think it should be expansive. I'm a firm believer, Senator, in the old air force recruiting motto, aim high. I think we should aim high on this. We may not get there, I agree. But I would rather aim high than aim low, in terms of what we are attempting to do.\u201d\n\nKing focused his concerns on the actual scope of the program, which portions of the country would be protected, and on obtaining realistic cost estimates.\n\nAs Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces \u2013 which oversees the United States\u2019 nuclear arsenal and posture \u2013 Senator King has been an outspoken voice on the need to address the growing nuclear capacity of our adversaries and to protect the threats by our adversaries to the mainland United States.\n\n###", 1, "2026-09-30T10:57:52Z", "2026-09-30T10:59:04Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/king-leads-golden-dome-hearing-questions-scholars-on-costs-and-impacts-to-american-taxpayer"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8545019663870335, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}