Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment, which amounts to the unilateral reduction of our nuclear forces. Unilateral reductions of our nuclear forces are wrong for national security--period.

These reductions have been directly and explicitly recommended against by the Joint Chiefs and senior DOD civilian officials, all who have said that reductions must be made bilaterally in concert with Russia.

I am deeply concerned that not only is this proposal to unilaterally disarm unwise; it is also shortsighted. It could seriously diminish the long-term security of our Nation.

We face a world today in which nuclear threats to the United States are increasing and our conventional military capabilities face dramatic reductions. Given this, our nuclear deterrent is becoming more important, not less.

Malmstrom Air Force Base, in my home State of Montana, is home to 150 of our Nation's intercontinental ballistic missiles. Earlier this year, I visited Malmstrom and I met with the leaders of the 341st Missile Wing to discuss the importance of our ICBM mission to our national security.

Colonel Robert W. Stanley, the commander at Malmstrom, gave me this commander's coin, which bears a motto that truly sums up why our defense strategy is effective. It says this: ``Scaring the hell out of America's enemies since 1962.''

This motto clearly demonstrates the importance of our peace-through-strength strategy. We cannot underestimate the role that our strong nuclear defenses have played in keeping America secure and maintaining peace not only with Russia, but throughout the world. In fact, some say we have never had to use our ICBMs. I would argue we use them every day to ensure that the world is a safer place.

That is why I urge my colleagues to also support the amendment that I've introduced, alongside Congressman Lamborn, Congresswoman Lummis, and Congressman Cramer. Our amendment will help keep America safe by maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent and preventing the Obama administration from pursuing efforts to unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal.

The Obama administration requested funds in their 2014 budget proposal to do environmental impact studies of our ICBMs, which is widely seen as a back door to attempting to reduce our ICBM fleet.

Our amendment simply prohibits this study. Now is not the time to reduce our ICBM fleet, which is why I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose Mr. Quigley's amendment and to support the Daines-Lamborn-Lummis-Cramer amendment.

I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I am always concerned when the Joint Chiefs have a strong opinion about our national defense. Given that, these reductions have been directly and explicitly recommended against by the Joint Chiefs and by senior DOD civilian officials. These gentlemen have all said the reductions must only be made bilaterally, in concert with Russia.

This is shortsighted; it is unwise; and it is a threat to our national security. Therefore, I oppose this unilateral reduction in our nuclear forces.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source