The committee's understanding is that the administration's intention in funding KEDO is to deter North Korea's production of nuclear weapons. If it is confirmed that North Korea has in fact developed nuclear weapons and is continuing to do so, or that North Korea has failed to account to the international community for its plutonium stocks, or that KEDO is engaged in borrowings not anticipated by our original agreement to provide financial support, then yes, I think the committee would indeed wish to revisit our support, because the United States should not provide even indirect support for North Korea's energy programs under such circumstances.
James T. Callahan: “The committee's understanding is that the administration's intention in funding KEDO is to deter North Korea's…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of North Korea's nuclear weapons development and U.S. support for KEDO.
Share
More from James T. Callahan
The fact is it costs $44,000 a minute to run this House. It would appear to me that every time they talk about reducing a bill by $10,000, if they are going to spend $44,000 of Social Security money, it looks to me like we are losing…
let me explain my position. This problem is not limited to just one county in Texas, it also is applicable to some portions of Alabama and other States where the same type of incident is taking place. My agreement with the gentleman from…
My question is, to facilitate these multibillionaires who are against this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want an opportunity to offer an amendment which limits the reductions in this tax to the first billion dollars. I think that this will satisfy…
Let me say that he is absolutely right. We did not appropriate one dime, we appropriated $541 million just a few weeks ago. What is the nonproliferation program? When we decided and reached an agreement with the Russians that we would…





