David Vitter

Despite the President's rhetoric of a world without nuclear weapons, the administration has announced its intention to maintain and modernize the nuclear triad.

We're falling far behind.

To me, this is really important.

Through a combination of funding shortfalls, virtually all of our modernization efforts are delayed or deferred.

The Joint Mission System (JMS) is responsible for Space Situational Awareness (SSA) and command and control (C2) of space forces.

The QDR also states that DOD will collaborate with the Department of Energy (DOE) when it comes to nuclear weapons and supporting infrastructure.

I think the recommendation to remove all non-bomber-related missions from 8th Air Force and Global Strike was implemented, but the recommendation to assign all bombers to the 8th Air Force was not.

So there are real concerns there about compliance?

Our relationship and trust level with the Russians has taken a nose dive. I just think all of that should add up to extreme caution about further nuclear reductions.

I want to express concern with the fact that the funding and the modernization that New START was premised on is not happening.

Our relationship and trust level with Russia has hit a recent all-time low, and yet we are talking about further nuclear reductions.

New START was premised on that. We are not keeping those promises for whatever reason.

Are we not about 34 percent short of the dollar commitment over 5 years that was promised, a $4.1 billion commitment?

Are we not significantly behind what was promised in those discussions?

I voted against it, in part because I did not have confidence that that stuff would happen.

When the Senate passed the New START treaty, there was a very clear set of discussions and agreement that that would be accompanied by major resources and modernization

A lot of us have a concern about the squeeze that community banks are getting in the financial sector.

I would just encourage a strong final set of proposed--or set of rules as strong or stronger than the draft.

I would encourage you to not weaken any elements of your draft.

The basic analysis, the basic metrics, the basic tests you used the first time, will continue?

You do agree that that is the legal requirement?

Is that in some meaningful form not required by law, a 20-year outlook?

It is my understanding that they are not clear 20-year projections.

I do not think it is supposed to be.

AASHTO was one of the first organizations out with your reauthorization priorities. I thank you for that.