National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. My amendment would strike language in the bill directing the administration to consider redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to the western Pacific region, and it would replace that language with a finding that such a deployment would not be in the best national security interests of the United States. The irresponsible language in the bill has already provoked a strong negative reaction from the South Korean Government and has forced the State Department to clarify that deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea is not on the table.

Tactical nuclear weapons would be extremely destabilizing in the region. It would accelerate North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, and America would lose its moral ground in its diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

It would undermine decades of diplomatic efforts to secure a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, especially the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula which both North and South Korea signed in 1991; and it would dramatically heighten tensions with China, perhaps with Russia, whose leaders would be understandably concerned by American tactical nuclear weapons in their backyards. Mr. Chairman, our forces in the region, including our ballistic missile submarines, our intercontinental ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, B 52 and B 2 bombers, are fully capable of countering North Korea.

I would quote General Walter Sharp, recently retired as commander of U.S. forces in Korea, who said less than 1 year ago:

I don't believe tactical nuclear weapons need to return to the Republic of Korea. The U.S. has sufficient capabilities from stocks in different places around the world in order to be able to do what we need to do to be able to deter North Korea from using nuclear weapons. They don't have to be stationed here in Korea for either deterrent capability or use capability.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Congressman Franks from Arizona, cited the fact that he believes that this language that I seek to remove from the NDAA actually strengthens the administration's hand. I would submit that what it does is imposes on the administration--insofar as delicate negotiations and diplomacy are being invoked--to try to convince the North Koreans that it's in their best interest to abandon their nuclear aspirations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

r. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress regarding the impact on national security of reducing our nuclear weapons stockpiles, as required by the New START Treaty.

For strong supporters of New START, such as myself, it's self-evident that reducing our stockpiles when we already have the capacity to destroy the Earth many times over is clearly in our national security interest. But I understand that there is some doubt amongst my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I respect those views, and we should address them.

So this amendment offers a simple solution, that is, let's require our senior military leadership to give us their views. I believe that my view, which is that cutting our nuclear stockpiles is perfectly consistent with our security interests, would be validated. But in the national interest, it seems not only prudent but essential to put that question to our senior military leadership. And I'm willing to do that, even if it risks me getting back the wrong answer, or an answer that I don't want to hear.

I'm, frankly, surprised this amendment is controversial because it's just common sense. I would ask any colleague who opposes this amendment why they wouldn't want to hear the views of our military leadership, why would we not want to hear from our senior commanders on this issue? Is there any valid reason? Let's ask our military leadership and get the expert opinions we need to move forward with a clear understanding of the policy's implications.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what did he say? Well, it doesn't matter because whatever he said, please know that treaties have to be confirmed or ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Chairman, let's ask our military leadership whether the New START military reductions are in our security interests, whether it vindicates supporters of arms control, like myself, or vindicates those who believe we need to build more. Let's get that answer from the people who are in the best position to answer the question. And those people are our leaders in the military and in the Defense Department.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source