On the recordJuly 12, 2017
I am stunned to think that this is somehow the equivalent of unilateral disarmament. The amendment says that the funding level for this new program would remain at the current fiscal year level until the administration submits a nuclear posture review to Congress that indicates a detailed assessment of why we need the weapon. If what the gentleman says is true--and I get mixed signals from the Secretary--then they can easily do that. They are not cut off. It has nothing to do with unilateral disarmament. We have more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy these countries many times over. My friend, Mr. Smith, talks about other priorities, from cybersecurity to what is happening with ISIS. Lavishing funds on programs that have not yet been justified and can't meet this test is not worthy. You have other things that you want to help the Department of Defense do, which I think we share. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge approval of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
