-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank Chairman Smith as well as Chair McGovern and their staff and team for working with me on this critically important amendment and for their leadership, really, throughout this NDAA process.

I also thank Congresswoman Jacobs for cosponsoring this amendment with us in support of, again, this really important policy change.

With Russia's war in Ukraine, and serious tensions along NATO's eastern border and in the South China Sea, today's world is being redefined, Mr. Speaker, by escalating tensions between major nuclear powers.

We don't have to look back far in history to see that there is danger here. The Cold War was full of near misses and numerous crises that could have gotten out of control and ended in nuclear war.

We are now entering a period of dangerous nuclear competition. As such, we must remember one of the key lessons the Cold War taught us: That when it comes to nuclear, we must preserve the ability to promptly step back and clearly signal de-escalation when necessary.

Unfortunately, the current draft of the NDAA includes a provision that prohibits our country from doing just that. Specifically, this dangerous provision makes it impossible for our country to reduce the stockpile of ICBMs for any reason, with no exceptions.

The policy was created, Mr. Speaker, and implemented by lawmakers in promotion of companies who profit in the production of these weapons, not in the best interests of our national security priorities.

This shortsighted policy places serious and concerning restraints on the President, Congress, and the Department of Defense's ability to consider and modify the role of ICBMs in our national defense.

Preserving our ability to reduce our nuclear stockpiles proved key to reducing tensions and achieving peaceful solutions and planet-saving arms control agreements during the Cold War. Just as we have the ability to increase our nuclear defense in times of crisis, we must have the ability to reduce our nuclear forces when it is in our national interests.

To be clear, this amendment does not change the size of our nuclear forces. It merely allows for reasonable consideration and debate in the future.

I would like to just make it very clear that this amendment does not change the size of our nuclear forces. This amendment gives our government more options to avoid a world-ending nuclear war. It is that simple.

Nuclear confrontation, Mr. Speaker, means the destruction of everything we hold dear, and it risks the end of the world. We need more options for those in power now to make those decisions and have that flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to understand what is at stake, and I remind my colleagues again that it is important to be able to give Congress, the President of the United States, as well as the Department of Defense, the ability to de-escalate when necessary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this amendment merely allows for reasonable consideration and a debate in the future in regard to our ICBMs. That is all we are asking here.

I think it is very important, again, for our future in allowing that debate and public transparency about that need.

Again, de-escalation in a time of crisis is important.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source