One strike is not a policy. What it was, was a very clear message about keeping the norms against the use of chemical weapons.

What are nuclear weapons for? Why do we have them? When would we consider using them?

We need to reestablish a forum to talk with the Russians on strategic stability issues.

we should no longer provide cover for that posture of them pretending to be a responsible actor.

I want to welcome you to this hearing on 'Threats to Space Assets and Implications for Homeland Security.'

Thank the gentleman.

Well, I want to thank the witnesses for your participation today. This has been a very important topic to help us focus on it also, but raise awareness that we need to be taking some action.

I mean, the big winner in today's hearing, Vladimir Putin.

I thought it was a swing and a miss for a couple of problems.

If he does watch television, Mr. President, please, please, please, stop talking about this.

It is just irrational to me that he thinks -- the President of the United States thinks that this helps his cause on what is a big kafuffle.

I thought the biggest swing and a miss was they had their appointee, the director of national intelligence for the Obama administration who served for eight years come out and said two important things. One, that there was no collusion.

What are the key drivers of the U.S. nuclear modernization program?

Our O&I Subcommittee had a hearing focused on the huge backlog of deferred maintenance at NNSA's facilities.

But the proposed budget for State and foreign operations has rather draconian cuts.

In joint support operations, they have eradicated 13 million marijuana plants. They have seized tons of marijuana, illegal weapons, and so forth, all to the tune of $25 billion.

My area was ground zero 14 years ago at the outset of an OxyContin rage that raged across the country.

I want to encourage you to talk with the White House people, especially OMB, and see if we can negotiate a number.

The DSB report indicates that U.S. nuclear force planning must do a better job anticipating threats and be ready to respond to them.

Please talk us through the following recommendation the DSB made: 'The DSB strongly recommends that all major acquisitions be born with a nuclear survivability requirement derived from projected threat scenarios relevant to the range of…

What could be done by DOD--and more broadly DOE and the nation--to 'reestablish the knowledge base in nuclear matters...?'

The December DSB report says that 'Despite the `peace dividend' at the end of the Cold War, the DSB remains unconvinced that downplaying the nation's nuclear deterrent would lead other nations to do the same.'

Please describe why the DSB thinks it is important to truly flex all of the muscles needed to build nuclear weapons from scratch?

The recent uptick in priority for nuclear force modernization in both departments sends a strong message of U.S. commitment to the deterrent, but it comes after 25 years of downplaying (and poorly resourcing) the mission.

In short, 'nuclear' still matters, nuclear is in a class of its own, and nuclear cannot be wished away.