National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ranking Member McKeon. I want to thank our chairman for his support for an amendment that's in the en bloc.

Two weeks ago, Jim Marshall and I introduced the NATO First bill. With the chairman's support, six out of eight of the provisions of that bill are included in some form of the National Defense Authorization Act that recognized support for our allies in Europe. As the U.S. and Russia begin our START negotiations of the previous START Treaty expiring at the end of 2009, it's important for us to set some framework.

This amendment would limit the use of FY 2010 defense funds to implement reductions for U.S. strategic nuclear forces pursuant to a treaty with Russia, for example, START, unless the President certifies that the treaty: one, provides sufficient verification mechanisms; two, does not limit U.S. ballistic missile defense systems capabilities or advanced conventional weapons capabilities; and that the National Nuclear Security Administration is sufficiently funded. The amendment also requires a report on U.S. and Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

I want to thank Roger Zakheim from our staff, who worked diligently for the drafting of the NATO First bill and also for the accomplishment of these amendments.

I want to thank the chairman who has continued to work in a bipartisan way to accomplish a number of provisions in this bill that are important to our national security, and I believe this is certainly one of them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Franks amendment. I was very disappointed with the administration's decision to cut $1.2 billion out of missile defense funding below the fiscal year 2009 funding. Make no mistake, this is a cut. We are going to spend $1.2 billion less than we spent in 2009.

We are going to do this while we have increasing threats, not decreasing threats, to the United States. And make no mistake, the Department of Defense has not provided one data point. They have not provided one study. They have not provided any information, no intelligence that indicates we have a reduced threat, all the while we know with this reduced threat, there is no justification for a reduction.

I am concerned with the top-line missile defense cut, I am deeply concerned about the specific cuts that include a 35 percent cut to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska and California, and the administration decision to decrease the planned number of field interceptors, which is our response to North Korea's ICBMs, terminate construction of a missile field in Alaska that is partially complete, and curtail additional GMD development.

I support the Franks amendment. While we have an increased threat, we should not be decreasing our commitment to missile defense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source