National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my bipartisan amendment with Senator Lee calling for a ``think first'' assessment of recent Russian violations of the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the response of the United States.

The INF Treaty has been the bedrock of European security for nearly three decades, and Congress must ask a few reasonable questions before we fund a missile research and development program that our military leaders have not asked for, that our allies do not want, that would undermine the spirit and intent of our longstanding treaty commitment, and that would make the world a more dangerous place.

No one is more concerned about Russia's recent aggression than I am.

From their annexation of Crimea to their meddling in our election and the elections of our allies, Russia's behavior must be met with a firm and unequivocal response.

Last month, I traveled to the Baltics to see firsthand the threat Russia poses to NATO allies and to meet with senior U.S. Army officials and local political leaders. On that trip, one thing was abundantly clear: We need to be tough in the face of Russian provocation, but we also need to be smart. That is what our amendment is about today. It isn't about playing politics; it is about smart, strategic, informed toughness that advances the interests of the United States of America.

The INF treaty, negotiated and signed by President Reagan nearly 30 years ago, erased an entire class of nuclear weapons from the European continent. It eliminated ground-launched missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers--roughly up to twice the distance between Moscow and Paris. This is also the same class of missile that Russia deployed earlier this year, in violation of the treaty.

Russia's treaty violations have been widely reported. There is no question that bringing Russia back into compliance with the treaty must be a top priority. Russian compliance is in the best interest of the United States, it is in the best interest of our European and Asia Pacific allies, and it is ultimately in the best interest of the Russian Federation. But this is a tough job. Our military leaders have told us they see no indication that Russia plans to resume honoring its treaty obligations anytime soon.

In the short term, we must ensure that Russia does not gain a military advantage from its violation and that Russia--Russia--takes the blame on the world stage for breaking this treaty. We cannot accomplish these goals by signaling to the world that we have lost faith in the very treaty we seek to preserve. But that is exactly what section 1635 of the NDAA would do. This section calls for the ``establishment of a research and development program for a dual- capable, road-mobile, ground-launched missile system with a maximum range of 5,500 kilometers''--or, in plain language, the development of a new nuclear missile that we have publicly sworn never to test or deploy.

The proposed R&D program is in itself not a violation of the INF treaty, which only bans testing and deployment, but there is no denying that such a missile program is a violation of the spirit and intent of our treaty commitment, and that is exactly how our allies and adversaries alike will see it.

The reality of this proposal is crystal clear: Either we are authorizing millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on research and development of a missile we never intend to build or test, or we are pushing the door wide open to an upcoming violation of the INF Treaty.

In opening that door, we would be signaling not only to the Russians but also to our treaty partners around the world that the United States is preparing to walk away from a nuclear treaty commitment. In sending that signal, we are basically giving Russia the excuse it is looking for to shed remaining international constraints, to justify an acceleration of its intermediate-range nuclear program, and to spark a new contest of nuclear escalation. Such a move can quickly increase the number of nuclear weapons deployed throughout the world and send the globe into a second cold war reality--a reality where we live with the constant threat that one preemptive move, one miscalculation could wipe away everything we hold dear.

Supporters claim that a new missile is needed not only to compete with Russia but also to counter a more assertive China, which is not bound by the agreement. But I have seen no evidence to support these arguments. If anything, a tit-for-tat response is more likely to embolden Putin to up the ante by deploying some more missiles and perhaps withdrawing from the INF Treaty altogether.

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Paul Selva, has already told us that a new intermediate-range missile is not necessary to hold targets in China at risk.

To ensure that our response to Russian treaty violations is based in international strategy rather than just in knee-jerk responses, Senator Lee and I are offering a commonsense amendment requiring that before we spend a dime of taxpayer money on the proposed missile program, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State should work together to address a few critical questions.

First, what is the status, capability, and threat posed to our allies by Russia's new ground-launched cruise missile?

Secretary Mattis has stated that Russia's treaty violation would not provide Russia with a ``significant military advantage.'' Is this still the Secretary's assessment? General Selva has said: ``Given the location of the specific missile and the deployment, [the Russians] don't gain any advantage in Europe.'' Is this still the general's assessment? We should not blindly commit taxpayer money and undermine our treaty commitment without understanding the threat.

Second, does our military believe that a new ground-launched, intermediate-range missile that is not compliant with our treaty obligations is our most effective response to Russia? The Pentagon did not request funding for a new intermediate-range missile. According to a report by the Pentagon just last year, there are multiple options on the table to pressure Russia back into treaty compliance, including enhancements to the European Reassurance Initiative and additional active defenses. That is in addition to the other available tools of national power that could strengthen, rather than weaken, the INF Treaty.

The Pentagon advocated for just such a multipronged approach, writing that ``Russia's return to compliance with its obligations under the INF treaty remains the preferable outcome, which argues against unilateral U.S. withdrawal or abrogation of the INF treaty at this time.'' With the Pentagon reviewing options, Congress's proposed playground approach of ``if you build a ground-based missile, I will build one too'' is not the strategic response of generals and statesmen. In fact, the administration has said that this new program would ``unhelpfully'' tie them ``to a specific type of missile system . . . which would limit potential military response options'' at a time when DOD, State, and Treasury are ``developing an integrated diplomatic, military, and economic response strategy to maximize pressure on Russia.'' We must let our military leaders and our diplomats do their jobs and inform Congress before we act.

Third question: Will our NATO allies stand with us in this response, and will any of our allies even be willing to host such a missile system if we decide to deploy it?

Given our geographic advantages, a missile of this range does no good on U.S. soil; it only works if it is installed on the ground of our NATO allies.

The last time the United States weighed a land-based escalation in Europe, millions of citizens took to the streets in protest, and in the 21st century, that call for nuclear disarmament of the European continent has only grown. As General Selva recently acknowledged, we don't even know whether any of our European allies would permit the deployment of a nuclear-capable ground-launched missile on their territory.

During the Cold War, Russian deployments of land-based cruise missiles targeting Europe were, in part, a ploy to cause division among the NATO countries, and the same could be said today. It is critical that we respond as one indivisible NATO coalition, unshaken by Russia's provocations.

So that is it--three must-ask questions deserving of must-have answers: What is the nature of the threat? What is the Pentagon's recommended military response? What action unites us with our NATO allies? Until we have those answers, heading down the path of destroying the INF Treaty is grossly irresponsible.

Support to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and prevent their spread to more nations has always been a nonpartisan issue.

When President Reagan signed this treaty into law, he said that ``patience, determination, and commitment made this impossible vision [of the INF Treaty] a reality.'' Ever since then, the treaty has served as the bedrock of our efforts to build a safe and peaceful world in a nuclear age; to build a world where schoolchildren spend their days learning to read and write, not practicing duck-and-cover drills; to build a world where families live in hope for what tomorrow may bring, not in fear that a flash of light may sweep away everything they love; to build a world that looks to the United States to steadily lead toward sustained peace and security. This amendment continues in that spirit.

I thank Senator Lee for his leadership on this bipartisan effort.

When we announced this amendment, he said that the amendment ``would set the precedent that the [United States] should not immediately react to an adversary's treaty violation by violating the same treaty ourselves. That's not how working in good faith in the international community is done.'' He is right.

I want to acknowledge Senator Cardin, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Feinstein, a longtime arms control champion, and thank them for their leadership to prevent nuclear proliferation and ensure that America upholds its international obligations. I thank Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for his strong support on this issue. We are all grateful for his efforts.

On the 30th anniversary of the treaty, we must give no cause to doubt that the United States stands by its word, that it is committed to this treaty, and that it is committed to working with allies to bring Russia back into compliance.

The INF Treaty removed thousands of nuclear weapons from the face of the globe, and we must be certain that we have exhausted all options before we walk away from it.

Rather than simply dusting off a nuclear escalation play from the early 1980s, I ask my colleagues to join us in allowing the Secretaries of Defense and State to do their jobs, to weigh the options, and to recommend a course of action. I ask them to join us in allowing information and strategy to guide our policy. I ask them to join us in supporting this amendment to the NDAA.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Source