Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Chair, the Blumenauer amendment is a continuation of the gentleman's efforts to suggest that this Nation cannot afford its nuclear deterrence requirements, which are actually the Obama administration's requirements based on the President's personal promises.

The gentleman, notwithstanding the views of the Obama administration, the military leadership, and the senior civilian leadership, wants to unilaterally cut our nuclear forces. He has earlier offered a proposal to try to put Members of this body at odds with the National Guard in an attempt to cut nuclear weapons funding. He has offered the REIN-IN Act to gut the U.S. nuclear deterrent, which is relied upon by 31 American allies, despite the expanding nuclear weapons programs of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and others.

It is as if the gentleman missed Vladimir Putin's massive and unplanned nuclear weapons exercise just over a week ago and his invasion of Ukraine and his violation of the INF Treaty and his questionable implementation of the New START Treaty.

Perhaps the gentleman should have heard Secretary Hagel's testimony before the Armed Services Committee this March when he said: ``Most everybody agrees that our ability to possess nuclear weapons and the capability that has brought us has probably done as much to deter aggression--nuclear deterrence and the start of World War III as any one thing.''

Or Chairman Dempsey's testimony when he was asked if, despite the disarmament echo chamber in this town, the debate about the U.S. nuclear posture and our strategic triad is over, he said: ``For the record, I can speak for myself and the Joint Chiefs, and you are correct.''

But here we are again today and again this year with a new effort to disarm this country's deterrent. It looks harmless: Let's ask for a CBO report.

Has the gentleman asked the CBO if it can do this annual report? I did. They don't have the resources to do such a report.

Is the gentleman aware of the current annual reports we receive? We have the Obama administration submit an annual report detailing these costs. It is called the section 1043 report. We get it every year. We then have the GAO audit that report each and every year.

These are hundreds and thousands of man-hours to produce and at great expense each and every year. Yet let's add a third report, the gentleman says. Why? Because maybe this report will tell us something different than the other two reports?

What have they all shown us? They have all shown us that, by any reasonable and informed estimate, we are spending less than 5 percent of the defense budget on our nuclear forces--less than 5 percent. It is a historical low.

We will spend approximately $6 trillion on defense spending over the next 10 years. We will spend over $30 trillion, including the whole Federal Government. How much on our nuclear forces? According to these reports, approximately $300 billion.

I am happy to debate the gentleman on the merits of our nuclear forces. What I am not prepared to accept is wasteful, unnecessary annual reports just so the nuclear disarmament crowd can throw another argument against the wall in hopes that maybe something will finally stick that supports its lonely position that we should be unilaterally reducing U.S. nuclear forces without regard to this Nation's security interests or those of our allies. I urge the defeat of this amendment and the return to common sense.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. I agree with the importance of the national labs. I look forward to working with you to find ways to strengthen their capabilities and meet their important missions. I expect we will be able to find a way to ensure nonprofits have access to our national laboratories without using defense funding to subsidize such work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source