“The strategic basis for this reduction is entirely unclear. Given the assessments of our commanders, I am highly skeptical – and gravely concerned – about such dramatic reductions in a world of increasing danger and proliferating threats.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, today spoke on the Senate floor to express her serious concerns with President Obama’s recent announcement regarding plans to drastically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent by more than one third.

Fischer also issued a written statement yesterday asserting that further reducing America’s nuclear arsenal below levels set by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) would be premature as Russia and China continue to modernize their nuclear forces and dangerous proliferation threats remain from North Korea and Iran. 

A video and transcript of her remarks today on the Senate floor are available below:

“Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern about the announcement this morning regarding plans to drastically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent by over one third.  

“The strategic basis for this reduction is entirely unclear. The President must provide Members of Congress additional information on the basis and implications of his announcement. General Chilton, then commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2010 that the New START treaty gave the United States ‘exactly what is needed’ to achieve its national security objectives. Given the assessments of our commanders, I am highly skeptical – and gravely concerned – about such dramatic reductions in a world of increasing danger and proliferating threats.

“Regardless of how one feels about particular force levels, I believe there is broad concern about any unilateral reductions in U.S. nuclear forces. 

“Two and half years ago, after lengthy deliberation and contentious debate, this body ratified the New START Treaty, which reduced deployed U.S. nuclear weapons from between 2,200 and 1,700 to no more than 1,550.  This debate was good for the nation and produced a bipartisan consensus on arms control and nuclear modernization.  Now, the administration is calling for reducing U.S. nuclear forces by a third and it remains an open question if the Senate will even have a chance to weigh in on this decision – I sure hope we will have that opportunity.

“As Commander in Chief, it is the president’s prerogative to adjust nuclear forces. But as Vice-President Biden, then serving in this body as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a 2002 letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, ‘With the exception of the SALT I agreement, every significant arms control agreement during the past three decades has been transmitted pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution...we see no reason whatsoever to alter this practice.’  Secretaries of Defense Panetta and Hagel also testified before Congress that nuclear reductions, if undertaken at all, should be the product of negotiated, bilateral, verifiable agreements.

“I believe a change of this magnitude must be reviewed by Congress, and such dramatic reductions must only be made in concert with other nuclear powers and the input of our allies.

“Moreover, I believe it is premature to announce such dramatic reductions when the United States has yet to fulfill its obligations under the New START Treaty.  Currently, our nuclear force levels exceed the New START limits.  Instead of providing a plan to implement the reductions required to comply with the treaty – something I, and numerous other Members of Congress have repeatedly asked for – the President opted to promise the world massive additional cuts. 

“I would like to repeat this:  We don’t know how we’re going to go from about 1,650 to 1,550 warheads - a reduction of about 100.  But, instead of answering that question, the President has stated his intention to get rid of another 500 or so warheads – a third of our arsenal. 

“What’s more, the President has apparently disregarded the advice of Congress, the bi-partisan 2009 Perry-Schlesinger Commission, and his own Nuclear Posture review that additional nuclear reductions address the dramatic imbalance of Russian tactical nuclear weapons.  Congress has expressed its view on this subject several times, and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 clearly stated the Sense of Congress that ‘if the United States pursues arms control negotiations with the Russian Federation, such negotiations should be aimed at the reduction of Russian deployed and non-deployed nonstrategic nuclear weapons and increased transparency of such weapons.’

“While the announcement today mentioned these weapons, their reduction was clearly a separate afterthought, not the primary arms control objective this body insisted it be.

“In closing, I must remind my colleagues that the Senate approved the New START Treaty on the condition of modernizing our aging nuclear deterrent.  Though the promise was made before I entered the Senate, it was a promise made to this body and the American people – and it is a promise I will make sure is kept. Modernization funding is more than 30% below the targets set by the President during New START’s ratification. This is unacceptable.

“I hope the President will address these issues in the coming days and focus on building a strong bi-partisan consensus on these issues and pursuing common-sense objectives.  Rushing toward dramatic reductions is bad policy for any President and could have grave consequences for our national security.

“Mr. President, I yield the floor.”