WASHINGTON - Chairman Rogers (R-AL), of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, made the following opening remarks about the hearing titled "Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces"...
Chairman Rogers' Opening Statement
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Chairman Rogers (R-AL), of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, made the following opening remarks about the hearing titled "Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces".
"Welcome to our hearing on the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for the nuclear forces of the Department of Defense.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We appreciate you taking the time to prepare for this hearing and the contributions you each make to the nation's security. Our distinguished witnesses are:
• The Honorable Robert Scher Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities U.S. Department of Defense
• Dr. Arthur Hopkins Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs U.S. Department of Defense
• Vice Admiral Terry Benedict Director, Strategic Systems Programs U.S. Navy
• Major General Garrett Harencak Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration U.S. Air Force
Before we begin, let me highlight a few of the issues I hope we'll take on during this hearing.
First, like I said at our hearing with General Klotz last month, let's be clear on our nation's defense priorities. Last November, then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said:
'Our nuclear deterrent plays a critical role in assuring U.S. national security, and it is DOD's highest priority mission. No other capability we have is more important.'
This is the correct priority, and it is encouraging to see it recognized and stated so clearly.
So the question for our witnesses is: how is this priority being translated into policy and budgets? We've heard at least one of our witnesses say that this country took a 'procurement holiday' for two decades when it comes to nuclear deterrence. Well, it's time to come back from that holiday and get to work.
In the fiscal environment we are facing it won't be easy. But if nuclear deterrence is truly the nation's #1 priority defense mission—and I strongly agree that it is—then budgets and policies must follow.
Second topic: are we setting up our nuclear forces to deal with the correct emerging and future threats? The United States takes forever to acquire any major weapon system—and it takes forever-and-a-half to acquire any nuclear system.
How do we ensure our nuclear forces and the infrastructure and capabilities that underpin them are adaptable, flexible, and responsive? The stabilizing and complementary nature of the nuclear triad is remarkable, but we must make sure it is not brittle.
Leaving the uncertainty of the future aside, the threats we face here and now continue to evolve. Admiral Gortney has made clear that the nuclear threat to the U.S. homeland from North Korea is real. Admiral Locklear has made clear that China's nuclear forces now include operational ballistic missile submarines. Iran has seemingly been handed a pass on its gross violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and, if the President gets what he wants, will become an accepted nuclear-threshold state.
And Russia continues to violate the sanctity of sovereign borders, numerous international and bilateral treaties, and basic human decency. Our position should be clear: as Russia continues to rattle its nuclear saber, it is the strength of U.S. nuclear forces that makes sure we and our allies will never be intimidated or coerced.
With all of those challenges on the table, let me end by commending the Department and the Services for stepping out smartly to address another big challenge: fixing the leadership, morale, and under-investment problems in our nuclear forces. The Nuclear Enterprise Review was a clarion call to action, and the Department has taken action. More needs to be done, but early indications are positive. Keep up the good work—and keep this committee informed of the good, the bad, and the ugly as we go forward."
