Every single reduction in strategic systems that the gentleman from California spoke of and the gentleman from Indiana spoke of are taking place; all those reductions are taking place because we signed START I. The Russians signed START I. We signed START I. And we agreed to reduce these nuclear weapons with our own taxpayer dollars. That means the Russians agreed to reduce their systems with rubles, we agreed to reduce our systems at our expense with dollars, and we proceeded on that course to go down approximately from 12,000 nuclear weapons to about 6,000, and we have been proceeding on that course. We never agreed that we would pay the Russians for the reduction that they were making under START I. We never agreed we would subsidize that. But in 1991 we felt that the Russians were so fragile with that new democracy and that attempted democracy that we would help them. So we implemented Nunn-Lugar, and a lot of us agreed with that; it was a good program. The point is that the Russians need to have their feet held to the fire.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the START I treaty and U.S. financial support for Russian disarmament.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Just one other point, and that is in the U.N. Security Council Resolution, under which our troops operate now, which provides for how they are treated in Iraq, expires in December. That is why we need to have a Status of Forces Agreement…
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to talk about duty, honor, and country. Many times, Members of this great body rise to talk about those who wear the uniform of the United States who have fallen in the Iraq or the Afghanistan theater and to recount…
Taking back my time, I don't think we are going to be appropriating any melting shirts, or authorizing any melting shirts. We do serious stuff. And when you have a defense bill which is over $500 billion and it has thousands and thousands…





