[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5109-S5110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today President Obama is supposed to 
unveil a national energy tax that will discourage job creation and 
increase energy bills for America's families. This announcement about 
existing powerplants comes after the Obama administration has already 
moved forward with excessive redtape that makes it harder and more 
expensive for America to produce energy. It also comes as a complete 
surprise to the Members of the Senate, especially since Gina McCarthy--
the President's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency--
just told Congress it wasn't going to happen.
  She is currently the Assistant Administrator of the EPA. Here is what 
she told the Senate about regulations on existing powerplants: EPA is 
not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations for power 
plants.
  As a result, she said: We have performed no analysis that would 
identify specific health benefits from establishing an existing source 
program.
  With today's announcement by President Obama about existing 
powerplants, it is clear Gina McCarthy is either arrogant or ignorant. 
She either didn't tell the truth to the Senate or she doesn't know what 
is going on within her own agency. Either way, such a person cannot 
lead the EPA.
  To the point that this morning's National Journal Daily--with a 
picture of her right there on the front page--says: ``Obama's efforts 
could make EPA nominee Gina McCarthy's confirmation more difficult.'' 
In this economy, the last thing we need to do is have a national energy 
tax that will discourage hiring and make energy even more expensive.
  Also, I might point out to the White House that they continue to say 
the main objective of the President's plan today is to ``lead the rest 
of the world.'' Based on the news of the last week, it is clear that 
the rest of the world, including China and Russia, isn't following 
President Obama's direction or his leadership.


                            Nuclear Weapons

  That brings me to my next topic. Last week, President Obama gave a 
speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. In that speech, he said he 
plans to cut the number of America's deployed strategic nuclear weapons 
by up to one-third. This would be a drastic cut and would be on top of 
the drastic cuts in the New START arms control treaty from less than 2 
years ago. President Obama's latest defense cuts are shortsighted and 
his approach to making this important announcement has been far too 
hasty.
  First of all, in the President's speech, he repeated what has been 
sort of a mantra for people who want to eliminate all nuclear weapons. 
He said: ``So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.''
  In 1987, President Ronald Reagan went to the same spot at the 
Brandenburg Gate in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. He gave a speech in 
which he urged the leader of the Soviet Union to ``tear down this 
wall.'' In that speech, President Reagan also said freedom and security 
go together.
  In contrast to President Obama's idealism, President Reagan grounded 
his beliefs in history and in facts. We have experienced a world 
without nuclear weapons. Great powers went to war with each other 
repeatedly, which caused unthinkable amounts of death and suffering. 
The estimated number of dead from World War II generally ranges from 45 
to 60 million. We haven't had a war with that kind of global death toll 
since then. Nuclear weapons and their deterrence power are a critical 
reason for that.
  Ronald Reagan knew America's nuclear deterrent helped keep Americans 
safe and helped keep our country free. I think it is important we 
recognize that essential truth. President Obama seems to base his plan 
to cut America's defenses on this false notion that we are safer 
without nuclear weapons. This is a serious problem.
  Second, I think it is important to recognize that a vital part of the 
deterrent is what is called the nuclear triad. This is the idea that 
we, as the United States, have three ways we can defend America.
  We have nuclear weapons on bombers that can be flown to where they 
are needed, we have nuclear weapons that can be launched from the 
ballistic missile submarines that are stationed around the world, and 
we have nuclear weapons in the ground that can launch intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. All of these have different uses and together they 
have a flexible, survivable, and stable nuclear deterrent. The triad 
ensures other major powers are never tempted to go too far and threaten 
America's security or that of our allies.
  So the second thread of President Obama's plan is that it could 
require substantial cuts to the ICBM force across the country, which 
means a weaker triad, a weaker deterrent, and a weaker defense.
  The Secretary of Defense gave a speech the other day too. He 
committed to actually keeping the triad of air, sea, and land-based 
deterrents. If the President is serious about protecting Americans and 
our allies, he should immediately announce he agrees with what his 
Defense Secretary said the other day. The President needs to reassure 
the American people that he will take no steps that could weaken the 
triad or any parts of it.
  The question is, Why now? The Senate just ratified a new START about 
a year and a half ago. That treaty set new levels for nuclear weapons 
and for delivery vehicles, but we haven't had time to even implement 
those new levels and the President goes and makes this next statement. 
Why the big rush to say those levels are all wrong and we need to cut 
even more nuclear weapons?
  In 2010, the Senate held hearings about New START. The head of the

[[Page S5110]]

U.S. Strategic Command at the time was General Chilton. He was asked if 
the treaty allowed the United States ``to maintain a nuclear arsenal 
that is more than is needed to guarantee an adequate deterrent.''
  General Chilton said:

       I do not agree that it is more than is needed. I think the 
     arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to 
     provide the deterrent.

  A former Secretary of Defense testified at the same hearing, James 
Schlesinger. He said the strategic nuclear weapons allowed under New 
START are adequate, though barely so.
  What has changed from the testimony in 2010 or since the Senate 
ratified the treaty at the end of 2011? The level was barely adequate a 
couple of years ago. It was exactly what was needed then. So how can we 
now cut another 33 percent off that level? That is what the President 
is proposing. The only thing that has changed since then--it seems to 
me--the threat of hostile nuclear programs has become even greater.
  As countries that are not our friends grow closer to modernizing 
their nuclear weapon program, it would be irresponsible for us to 
weaken our own program. We haven't even had a chance to confirm that 
Russia is complying with its obligations under New START. Russia has a 
long history of not complying with treaties. President Obama set out to 
reset relations between our two countries. There is no evidence that 
anything has changed.
  Even the Washington Post admitted the failure of the so-called reset. 
They ran an editorial last week with the title ``A starry-eyed view of 
Putin.'' It said:

       In touring Europe this week, President Obama has portrayed 
     Russia's Vladmir Putin as a ruler with whom he can build a 
     constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a 
     Cold War mind-set.

  They go on to say:

       It's a blinkered view that willfully ignores the Russian 
     President's behavior--willfully ignores the Russian 
     President's behavior.

  The Washington Post got it right.
  Finally, the President seemed to be laying the groundwork in his 
speech for a new round of cuts he could do unilaterally. That would be 
a mistake. Any further reductions in America's nuclear defenses should 
be done through a negotiated treaty with Russia. That means a thorough 
process open to the scrutiny of the American people and subject to full 
consideration by this body.
  New START included a resolution of ratification that specifically 
says future nuclear arms cuts can be made only--only--through a treaty. 
Arms control advocates pushing President Obama to make more cuts know 
that negotiating in public is difficult. They would prefer to strike 
backroom deals.
  That is not the political system our Framers designed. They 
specifically require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify treaties. Such 
important decisions should not rest in the hands of the President alone 
or with his selected advisers.
  Under the President's plan, he would cut our nuclear defenses 55 
percent. Russia continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal. China is 
expanding its nuclear stockpile. Iran is accelerating its nuclear 
efforts. North Korea continues its nuclear threats. We already have the 
New START Treaty. It would be irresponsible to move forward with these 
sorts of cuts the President is talking about without extensive 
discussion with the American people and Congress.
  The world remains a very dangerous place. Instead of drastically 
weakening America's defenses, the President should focus on stopping 
countries such as Iran and North Korea from expanding their nuclear 
programs. America can't afford to lose the full deterrent effect of a 
strong nuclear defense.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to start by thanking the Senator 
from Wyoming for his comments this morning. I think they are right on 
the mark. Throughout world history we have tried the appeasement of 
those who would seek to use their power to bully other people into 
submission, and I worry the President is taking a naive approach here 
and unilaterally disarming the United States in the face of a rising 
threat from Russia and other parts around the world. So I thank the 
Senator for his very important comments on a very important topic.

                          ____________________