Jim Cooper

I personally would like to, you know, eliminate sequestration entirely.

I appreciate the witnesses. I just wanted to make an announcement that, in an effort to be constructive, Congressman Paul Ryan and I have introduced today a bill that would give the Pentagon complete flexibility in making spending…

This is not a foreign threat; this is a self-inflicted wound.

I just wish we could lock you in one room and get a consensus proposal and then force Congress to act on that.

I hate to ask the painful question about how sequestration will affect your work.

I hope, perhaps, one side or the other will relent and we can have a conference committee, regular order, and actually maybe agree on a budget.

I am not for holding Space Command or any part of the military hostage until I get what I want.

So reprogramming authority would help reduce the chaos or help the command. I am for it.

I would just like to point out for the record that the Commander of Space Command in his testimony said that he needed flexibility.

This does not suggest reducing the amount of cuts. It is just allowing some flexibility.

I want to give my colleagues a heads-up--and this doesn't have to be my amendment--but I would encourage my colleagues to jointly work together to figure out some way of granting flexibility here.

I would just like to add my welcome to yours, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses.

What are the risks and benefits of having ICBMs on high-alert?

How can further nuclear weapons reductions beyond New START strengthen national and security?

What are your thoughts on more cost-effective alternatives for U.S. nuclear deterrence that could assure our allies of the U.S. strong commitment to nuclear umbrella?

How can we reduce the risk of miscalculation in a crisis?

Have improvements to yield or accuracy in reaching targets changed the targeting requirements and/or reduced the number of nuclear weapons required?

Has Russia reciprocated in the past when the United States has pursued 'unilateral' reductions?

It almost seems to me that we need to have a couple of closed-session hearings so that we can talk about some things that cannot be aired in public.

What we have here today is like a battle of the Ph.D.s, so I look forward to the different testimonies.

I look forward to examining these matters today. They are important to the Nation's security.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience and courtesy of the witnesses here as we explore these important issues.

Washington should carefully examine going below New START levels of warheads and launchers.

We need to continually revise the effectiveness of what arsenal we have.

I hope that we can approach these vitally important national issues with an air of civility and calm.