National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in regard to several amendments to the Defense authorization bill. First is in regard to the nuclear triad and the important role it plays in defense of our Nation and security of the world and also in regard to the Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems program and the important role it has for our forces, both today in our efforts around the world and what it means to us in the future.

First, in regard to amendment 1279 and the nuclear triad, this amendment was cosponsored by Senator Tester, Senator Enzi, Senator Blunt, Senator Vitter. Also, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, be included as a cosponsor of the amendment, as well as Senator Baucus of Montana.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. The amendment declares that the United States should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems which includes missiles, bombers, and submarines. It also declares that it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the modernization of those systems and the weapons they deliver.

Over the past couple of years, numerous statements have been made in support of the triad. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the United States needs the nuclear triad. The Senate, in its resolution of ratification for the New START treaty, declared that the United States needs the nuclear triad. And President Obama last February certified that he intends to modernize the nuclear triad. However, the administration is now currently conducting a further review of the role nuclear weapons play in defending U.S. national security--a miniature Nuclear Posture Review. It is important that the Senate reaffirm its commitment to the nuclear triad once again.

I am particularly concerned by statements that we can reduce our nuclear arsenal significantly below the requirements laid out in the New START treaty. Given the threats we face and the responsibility we have to the American people and to our allies, I believe we must retain the nuclear triad. The reasons are clear and compelling. We need missiles to provide a persistent, dispersed, and cost-effective deterrent. We need submarines to provide an invisible, mobile, and survivable deterrent. And we need bombers to provide a visible, long-range, recallable deterrent.

The bottom line is that the triad provides us with a safe, credible, reliable nuclear deterrent that renders any effort to eliminate or sidestep our retaliatory capabilities completely meaningless. And those benefits accrue not only to the United States but to our allies as well. The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the resolution of the ratification to the New START agreement, and the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review all concluded that the United States needs to maintain the triad.

The triad was developed out of a need to counter an immense threat from the Soviet Union, but it now gives us the flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing international security environment. And supporting a triad means supporting a program to maintain and enhance the weapons and a delivery system that make up the triad.

It is very important to point out--particularly given

our fiscal situation--that the costs of updating and maintaining the weapons in the triad will not take up a very big percentage of the defense budget, particularly relative to the tremendous security advantages it provides. In fact, General Kehler, the head of Strategic Command, recently indicated his strong support for efforts to preserve the triad and modernize each of the associated delivery systems.

It is tempting to assume that because the Cold War is over, we don't need the nuclear arsenal anymore. In fact, people who defend the nuclear arsenal are often accused of being stuck in a cold war mindset. The truth is just the opposite. Only in a cold war mindset would we assume Russia is the sole reason we preserve our nuclear arsenal. Today, our nuclear deterrent counters a variety of threats that did not even exist during the Cold War, and it hedges against the emergence of new nuclear threats.

The decades following the end of the Cold War have made nuclear deterrence far more complicated than the old superpower confrontation of last century. We must now counter nuclear threats from multiple actors around the world.

First, consider China. China's military modernization program is built on a foundation of a large and growing nuclear arsenal. Intelligence estimates suggest that the number of warheads atop Chinese ICBMs capable of reaching the United States could more than double within the next 15 years. Recent reports indicate that China is fielding four different new nuclear-ready ballistic missiles. China is prioritizing the development of mobile land-based ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. China's nuclear posture is also troubling. China has not defined what it would consider a minimum nuclear deterrent, making it difficult to understand the motivations behind China's nuclear force expansion and their modernization efforts.

Second, new nuclear powers such as North Korea and Pakistan further complicate how we calculate our need for deterrence. North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons using both plutonium and uranium and continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles that can threaten the United States. North Korea's nuclear arsenal forces our allies in East Asia--especially South Korea and Japan--to put a premium on the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Pakistan's nuclear weapons greatly complicate the security situation in central Asia and create a serious risk of nuclear proliferation. The emergence of these two nuclear powers is a cautionary tale about the unpredictable ripple effects of new players in the nuclear game and a strong reason why reductions to U.S. strategic forces should only be made with the greatest caution.

Third, nuclear proliferation will remain one of our foremost security challenges in the world. The IAEA reports that Iran has been researching and developing nuclear weapons, and it expressed serious concerns about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. Syria was so serious about developing a nuclear weapon--probably with the help of North Korea and Iran--that in 2007 Israel had to destroy a Syrian nuclear site. Terrorist groups and other rogue actors also seek the development or the acquisition of nuclear arms.
And, of course, fourth, we cannot yet forget about Russia. Under the provisions of the New START agreement, Russia can expand its nuclear force rather than pursue reductions. Russia intends to build a new heavy ICBM to be available by 2018. Russia expects to build eight new nuclear submarines, and it also plans on designing and building a new nuclear bomber.

We cannot afford to let our nuclear deterrent atrophy in light of so many nuclear threats. Once we lose our nuclear capabilities, it will be extremely hard to reconstitute them.

We need a reliable and credible nuclear arsenal. We need it to dissuade new nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. We need it to deter nuclear powers from using their weapons. And we need it to hold enemy arsenals at risk.

People may not always stop and think about the demands placed on America's nuclear deterrent, but they are real and they are extensive. We have nuclear weapons as a guarantor of the security of the American homeland. Our nuclear arsenal renders any plan to strike the United States with nuclear weapons sheer folly. The investments made over the last several decades continue to pay dividends by creating the space within which America can address other security threats.

Make no mistake, without a large nuclear arsenal other nations would move plans to strike the United States from the category of unthinkable to possibly thinkable.

Second, and nearly as important, the United States nuclear deterrent replaces the need for our allies to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, keeping the peace in critical regions around the world. East Asia is a particularly good example. The status of U.S. nuclear posture is a major concern in Japan. Despite assurances from the United States that our nuclear umbrella will continue to protect Japan, Tokyo is worried about even the most subtle changes in U.S. policy. During his most recent trip, Secretary Panetta publicly reiterated the U.S. commitment to protect South Korea with our nuclear umbrella and our nuclear deterrent is probably the only reason South Korea has not developed a nuclear capability in response to North Korea's nuclear programs.

I will conclude on the triad. Our nuclear deterrent has been the foundation of U.S. national security since World War II. The nuclear triad provides an incredible return on our investment and I urge the Senate to send a strong signal of support for the nuclear triad as laid out in amendment No. 1279.

AMENDMENT NO. 1358

Madam President, if I may very briefly also address the importance of the Global Hawk with a brief overview of amendment No. 1358. This amendment simply states that it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Air Force should continue to abide by the guidelines set forth in the acquisition decision memorandum issued June 14, 2011 from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That memorandum on Global Hawk, the RQ-4 Global Hawk, found that the Global Hawk UAS is essential to national security and that there is no other program that can provide the benefits to the warfighter that the Global Hawk can provide.

The Global Hawk is a vital intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance asset. The Global Hawk flies at high altitude. It can fly at extended ranges and for long periods of time, and it can carry a wide array of sensors simultaneously.

We have invested a lot of time and a lot of money in this platform and it is paying fast dividends. The Global Hawk is flown in a wide variety of missions all over the world in support for things such as CENTCOM operations, humanitarian relief efforts in Japan and Haiti, and extensively for operations in Libya. For these reasons and many more, my amendment stresses that the Air Force must continue to heed the conclusions of the June 14, 2011 acquisition decision memorandum on the RQ-4 Program. The RQ-4, which is Global Hawk, remains essential for United States national security and is irreplaceable.

The bottom line is America needs to support and continue the Global Hawk. Our commanders require as much information about the battlefield as they can get. The RQ-4 represents a new generation of ISR aircraft with unprecedented capabilities.

Finally, we must invest in this essential capacity precisely because budgets are tight. As the Pentagon concluded in June, the Global Hawk represents the most cost-effective way to meet the requirements of our warfighters now and in the future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source