National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
Floor Speech
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I speak today about Cotton amendment No.
1605, addressing funding for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the administration that safeguards our nuclear
stockpile for the country. The Obama administration, in its budget
earlier this year, requested approximately $50 million per year for the
next 5 years for the administration to be able to dismantle old or
obsolete warheads. My amendment would simply codify President Obama's
own budget request, limiting the administration to spend $50 million
per year for the next 5 years on nuclear dismantlement.
My amendment also includes a waiver that would allow the President to
increase the amount of spending under certain limited conditions. This
amendment has been approved not only by the majority but also the
minority of the Armed Services Committee.
I offer this amendment because of troubling statements from the Obama
administration about their intent to accelerate nuclear disarmament,
however. Last month, Secretary of State Kerry announced at the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Review Conference that the United States would
accelerate its dismantlement of nuclear warheads by 20 percent. Beyond
obsolete or outdated warheads, I do not believe that is a priority.
Nuclear modernization is a priority.
We should not be accelerating our nuclear disarmament by up to 20
percent because it would send the exact wrong message to Russia, other
adversaries, and our allies. Russia is making overt nuclear threats to
the United States and our allies, and we are going to accelerate our
unilateral nuclear disarmament? That defies logic.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment in order to call up Cotton amendment No. 1605.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I understand that the Senator from
California objects to my amendment. But this is the Senate. This is an
important issue. We should be debating the matter. If the Senator from
California wishes to defeat my amendment, we should call it up and make
it pending and have a vote on it, not object to an amendment simply
being brought to the floor to be debated.
Is there a reason to manage our nuclear policy? Yes, I would say
there is a strong reason. On many issues, the administration has shown
itself less than forthcoming in dealing with Congress, in particular on
nuclear policy. As we now know, the administration minimized reports of
Russia's activities under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty at a
time they were trying to pass the New START treaty in 2010.
I would further say this amendment simply codifies the President's
budget request. The Senator from California said $48 million for this
year. For the next 4 years after that, it is $48.3 million, $50
million, $52.4 million, $51.8 million. I will concede that, in sum,
that is $50.1 million per year, on average. So I am giving the
administration a haircut of $100,000 per year. If that is
objectionable, I would be happy to modify my amendment to put it at
$50.1 million per year.
But this Congress should not give the President a blank check to
engage in further unilateral nuclear disarmament at a time when
Vladimir Putin is making nuclear threats against the United States,
invading sovereign countries, and his missiles are shooting civilian
aircraft out of the sky in the heart of Europe.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source