Peter Visclosky: “I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment and would state my opposition to it. We have a handful of amendments…”

“I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment and would state my opposition to it. We have a handful of amendments that have been made in order on the bill regarding our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. This is one that urges maintaining the status quo, and others have pushed for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. I firmly believe that a further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory will not negatively impact our deterrence goal. Even under the recently ratified New START Treaty, both the United States and Russia will have more than 1,500 deployed warheads each. Additionally, the treaty contains no limits on nonstrategic nuclear weapons or nondeployed nuclear warheads. With regard to the amendment, I don't think it's responsible to prohibit the United States from carrying out the reductions prescribed by the New START Treaty. That bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty was passed by a wide margin in the United States Senate, according to the Constitution, and it remains in force. I think it is very bad policy to go back on an international treaty obligation that would, in fact, reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world and would, again, reference back a quote that I read in my opening statement because, again, the gentleman is essentially saying let us maintain the status quo. Over the last 12 years, it has gotten us a more expensive military that has grown more expensive, but has not gotten any larger.…”