National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill section 3121, which attempts to undermine our efforts to destroy unnecessary nuclear weapons that have already been retired and scheduled for dismantlement.

Section 3121 of the bill was a last-minute addition to the NDAA that is both totally unnecessary and counterproductive to our long-term national security goals. Our Armed Forces and National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, firmly oppose this provision to limit the dismantlement of surplus nuclear weapons.
Section 3121, which my amendment would strike, does three things.

First, it caps at $50 million a program that is scheduled to cost about $50 million, thereby having no practical impact whatever.

Second, the section prohibits for 5 years the scheduled dismantlement of the W84 nuclear warhead. The W84 warhead was retired back in 2007, 8 years ago, and was recently retired again in favor of keeping the W80 for the long-range standoff option. There is no reason to keep the W84 around longer than necessary. Storing and securing unneeded and retired nuclear weapons wastes a large amount of money in maintaining them.

Third, there is a large queue of warheads waiting for dismantlement. There are approximately 2,500 retired nuclear warheads scheduled for dismantlement. Storing these warheads costs money. Why would we want to slow down the process of dismantlement of retired warheads?

We have about 5,000 active nuclear warheads, and 2,000 would suffice to destroy the entire world. Why waste money maintaining retired warheads beyond the 5,000 active warheads sufficient to destroy the world two and a half times over?

In fact, by seeking to limit nuclear dismantlement, this section of the bill sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about the value of nuclear weapons, and it undermines our efforts at nuclear nonproliferation. We have promised, as part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to reduce our nuclear warheads eventually to zero. The other nuclear nations have made the same promise. On that basis, the nonnuclear nations have undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons.

By delaying dismantlement of retired weapons, we are sending the wrong message of nonadherence to the nonproliferation treaty.

Contrary to the claims of the authors of section 3121, this section of the bill is not about unilateral disarmament. All of these weapons have already been retired and are scheduled to be dismantled.

This section, by delaying dismantlement by 5 years, would simply waste a large sum of taxpayers' money, would not contribute at all to national security--because having retired weapons in the storage bin doesn't help national security--and would send the wrong message on nonproliferation. It is a total waste of money for no useful purpose whatsoever.

I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section 3121. We must not needlessly restrict the Defense Department's ability to determine the appropriate rate of warhead dismantlement of retired and surplus warheads.

I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the central flaw in the argument against this amendment is that we are not talking about disarmament, unilateral or otherwise. Retired weapons do not add security. All they do is waste money to maintain them.

What this amendment says is do not prohibit the administration from dismantling already-retired weapons.

Now, talking about the threat from Russia, okay. There is a threat from Russia. I don't deny that. Modernization of nuclear weapons maybe should be a priority. That is a separate issue; but dismantling retired weapons doesn't weaken us versus Russia, doesn't help us--in fact, maybe it helps us by freeing up money for modernizing weapons. It is simply a waste of money to retain retired weapons.

If we should have more active weapons, that is a different question; but, once we have retired the weapon, it costs money to maintain it. It also is a potential target for a terrorist to grab it or get the plutonium out of it or whatever. Retired warheads should be dismantled, regardless of the threat elsewhere. The question is: How many active warheads do we need? That is a separate topic.

A retired warhead does not protect us. Dismantling a retired warhead just saves money. A retired warhead doesn't help us against the Russians or anybody else. It is simply a question of not wasting money.

If modernization is a priority, fine. I don't agree with that, but spend money on modernization. Why waste money on keeping retired warheads in the storage bins?

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source