Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I urge the House to support the Turner-Rogers-Franks-Bridenstine amendment.

The New START treaty is perhaps the first unilateral arms control treaty the U.S. has ratified in that it is the first treaty where only the U.S. has to make reductions in the central limits of the treaty.

Every six months new data is released by the Department of State showing that only the U.S. is reducing its deployed nuclear forces to implement this treaty.

Last month, in Berlin, the President announced that he was changing the Nuclear Weapons Employment Guidance and Strategy of the United States to support further reductions in United States nuclear forces.

Never before has a President done something like this.

Yes, Presidents since Truman have updated the nation's nuclear war plan.

But there is no precedent for a President to tell the national security team that, regardless of the nuclear weapons modernization programs of China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and others, the U.S. should plan to reduce our nuclear forces.

Every other President has asked one simple question when conducting a review like this: what level of nuclear forces do I need to ensure that a potential enemy or adversary knows that if he attacks the United States or our allies, we will have the ability to respond with nuclear forces that could result in nothing less than total devastation?

It has not been explained to me how fewer nuclear weapons in the U.S. nuclear deterrent is necessarily better for the country's security.

When allies see us backing away from our extended deterrent, and potential adversaries see us giving up these capabilities while they are growing them in practically every way--cascades of proliferation cannot be far behind.

Already we see that allies are concerned with the President's new approach.

For 66 years, since the U.S. used them to end World War II, our deterrent has kept the world safe.

This is not a recipe the Congress will let the President arbitrarily change to satisfy a small cloister of arms control and disarmament ideologues.

The reason the Turner-Rogers-Franks-Bridenstine amendment is so important is that in this new strategy the President announced, he refuses to commit to following the established precedent of only pursuing nuclear reductions with another nation through a treaty or a congressional-executive agreement that must be enacted by an affirmative act of Congress.

Practically every senior military officer who has testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of further nuclear force reductions has been clear they must be ``bilateral and verifiable'' and that the only way to achieve this is through a treaty.

Yet, the civilians in the Administration refuse to state that this approach supported by the military is also the President's policy.

This amendment is consistent with language I offered, as Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that overseas our nation's nuclear forces, which was adopted by the House Armed Services Committee and the House itself, in the recent FY14 National Defense Authorization Act.

The President may think he doesn't need Congress when it comes to international agreements with states like Russia.

He may think he can ignore gross violations in arms control agreements, like those Russia is engaged in today.

But he still needs money to implement his policies.

And that's what we can deny him if he attempts to ignore or circumvent the people's elected representatives in Congress.

I encourage the support of this amendment and I thank Chairman FRELINGHUYSEN for his support, leadership, and endurance during this long process.

[End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source