I rise to commend both the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for reaching agreement on what I think is a good amendment to an amendment. Basically the Nuclear Posture Review raised more questions than it answered; among them, why does it take 10 years to draw down the operationally deployed force; why do we have to maintain a responsive force of the magnitude that was indicated? We may have as many warheads actually deployed in 2012 as we do today. How costly will it be to maintain this force? These are all questions that we need to ask directly, and that is what this amendment will do. It will put these questions back to DOD and get a further addendum or response to clarify NPR on these critical points. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and support it fully.
John Spratt: “I rise to commend both the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Nuclear Posture Review and supporting an amendment for further clarification.
Share
More from John Spratt
Over the last year and a half some truly extraordinary steps have been taken, including the so-called TARP program, the Recovery Act program, and the Fed's own actions to make an extraordinary amount of collateralized loans to its member…
To help put the economy back on its feet, Congress enacted the Troubled Assets Relief Program in October.
This year, Congress has passed and the President has signed into law a $787 billion recovery package to spur demand and create 3 million new jobs.
I think it is a bit irresponsible to at least articulate to the American people, to the Congress, why you think we need a new policy direction.





