Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I do want to rise in support of the Kyl amendment No. 4892 and echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague from Tennessee about the good work of the Senator from Arizona. He has been a tireless advocate for modernization. It is something that needed to happen, irrespective of whether there was a treaty, but it certainly became a condition in order to have a treaty. If you are talking about reducing the number of your nuclear weapons, you certainly want to improve the quality of the ones you have.

Unlike other nuclear powers, the United States has not had an active modernization program for our nuclear deterrent.

We have heard from people who recognize the importance of modernizing our nuclear deterrent. I will not reiterate all of those, but I wish to point out, Secretary Gates said recently--he couldn't be any more clear that nuclear modernization is a prerequisite to nuclear reductions when he said:

To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the numbers of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.

Similarly, Thomas D'Agostino, the head of the National Security Administration or NNSA said nuclear modernization is a prerequisite to nuclear reductions, stating: `` ..... as our stockpile gets smaller, it becomes increasingly important that our remaining forces are safe, secure and effective.''

In the same speech I just quoted from by Secretary Gates, he pointed out: ``Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead.''

It is difficult to overstate the dire condition of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Its physical infrastructure is crumbling and its intellectual edifice is aging. The Strategic Posture Commission, chaired by William Perry and James Schlesinger, found that certain facilities of the nuclear weapons complex are ``genuinely decrepit'' and the complex's ``intellectual infrastructure ..... is in serious trouble.''

I met with experts throughout the Senate's consideration of New START, and they confirm for me the accuracy of these descriptions. I might say to the Presiding Officer, whose State is home to Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, we were able to visit those along with Senator Kyl, the Senator from Tennessee and others, and had an opportunity to observe some of the facilities and buildings which are referenced in this amendment. It is absolutely clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we have to make the necessary upgrades and improvements if we intend to keep our nuclear arsenal modern and prepared to deal with the threats we might face in the future.

The idea that the modernization of the U.S. nuclear complex and delivery force is an absolute prerequisite for nuclear reductions envisioned in New START has been clear to the Obama administration throughout the New START process. In fact, in December of 2009, 41 Senators wrote to the President and said in that letter:

Funding for such a modernization program beginning in earnest in your 2011 budget is needed as the United States considers the further nuclear weapons reductions proposed in the START follow-on negotiations.

Just to be clear, what is modernization? This includes improvements to the physical elements of the nuclear weapons complex. It involves the warheads and delivery vehicles themselves as well as facility infrastructure. Modernization also requires maintenance of the intellectual capacity and capabilities underlying that complex; namely, the designer and technical workforce.

The amendment, as proposed by Senator Kyl, makes clear in the resolution of ratification how critical modernization is to the United States while it is reducing its nuclear arsenal. First, the amendment places a condition in the resolution of ratification requiring the President to submit an annual update to the section 1251 report. The 1251 report is something annually that comes up here that gives us an update on the nuclear weapons arsenal. Now we will have, thanks to the amendment adopted earlier, a certification with regard to the necessary investment in delivery vehicle modernization, which is an issue I addressed in an amendment earlier in this debate and a critically important one. The Senator has already addressed that in a previous amendment that was accepted by the proponents of the treaty. That was an important step forward.

This particular amendment deals with the facilities and is also critically important. What it will do is require, in the 1251 report, that the President, when he submits his 10-year plan with budget estimates for modernization of the U.S. nuclear complex, that he also presents an accelerated design and engineering plan for the nuclear facilities and a commitment to funding those.

So this amendment, such as the one that would call for modernization of the delivery vehicles, is a critical part of the nuclear complex we have, of making sure it is reliable, that it works, and that it is ready and prepared for whatever challenge may face us in the future. As I said earlier, there are many of the experts, and you talk to the Lab Directors themselves, who recognize the importance of making the investments that need to be made in this if we are going to keep that nuclear arsenal ready.

I wish to read one other quote again. Deputy Administrator D'Agostino said:

Our plans for investment in and modernization of the modern security enterprise are essential, irrespective of whether or not the START treaty is ratified.

I suspect before all is said and done, the START treaty will be ratified. But in any event, this process needed to be undertaken irrespective of whether there is a treaty because it is that important to the future of our country and our national security.

Again, if I might point out, very briefly, what this amendment does, the resolution of ratification must clearly call for a condition that the President will provide an annual update to the section 1251 report in that as a condition the President will certify prior to entry into force of the treaty that he intends to accelerate the design and engineering phase of the chemical facility and the uranium processing facility, request full funding for both of those facilities upon completion of the design and engineering phase of the plan, and an understanding that failure to fund the modernization plan would constitute a basis for withdrawal from the START treaty.

This is, again, a fairly straightforward amendment. The Senator from Arizona has done, as has already been noted, a superb job of putting on the radar screen of all Members of the Senate the essential and critical nature of getting this issue of modernization addressed. He deserves great credit for doing that. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Massachusetts in cooperating with him in this treaty process to have these amendments and this language accepted because it is essential.

I think it will make not only this treaty stronger, but it will also make the nuclear complex that much stronger. And that, of course, is absolutely essential when it comes to America's national security interests.

So I support the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I hope it will be accepted and adopted in the resolution of ratification, and that before this treaty is adopted this essential issue will be not only addressed, as it is in the underlying treaty, but addressed--that language even strengthened and made more durable by these amendments.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source