During today’s markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) before the House Armed Services Committee, Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) offered amendments to the legislation that would reverse Democrats’ proposals to weaken our nation’s defense capabilities. 

Watch below for video of Rep. Cheney offering the amendments and clips of her stressing their importance before the full committee: 

Cheney: My Amendment Would Restore The Authority Of The Department Of Defense To Deploy The Low-Yield Variant Of The SLBM The W76-2 Warhead

Rep. Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thanks very much Chairman Cooper and Ranking Member Turner. Unfortunately we were, as the ranking member said, unable to reach a bipartisan agreement on the Strategic Forces subcommittee mark, and that was indeed a sad day for us on that subcommittee. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would restore the authority of the Department of Defense to deploy the low-yield variant of the SLBM, the W76-2 warhead.

“Our adversaries are developing and deploying low-yield nuclear weapons and the credibility of our deterrence requires that the United States have a proportional response available to discourage any potentially devastating miscalculation. Low-yield weapons are critical to our security because they give us a credible deterrent. Russia’s confidence that if they were to strike us, we would have the capability and the will to respond in a proportional manner, makes a strike by the Russians less likely, not more likely.

“Mr. Chairman, this is why the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review included the requirement that the United States develop and deploy the low-yield submarine launched ballistic missile as soon as possible. The NPR highlighted how critical this capability is to close the deterrence gap and provide credible response options to Russia’s escalate to de-escalate doctrine. These warheads and missiles are already produced. NNSA did an impressive job in FY 19 with little to no additional cost or impact on other programs. Prohibiting the deployment of the W76-2 wastes millions of dollars that the NNSA and DOD have already spent working to produce these weapons. Additionally, putting a halt to this program incurs several million more dollars worth of lost costs due to contract obligations. 

“Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also directly in support of our NATO partners in Europe, something I know my colleagues on this committee say they are committed to. It is entirely possible that Russia’s threat, with their low-yield weapons, would be against NATO conventional forces. Not against the sovereign United States alone. Therefore, it would be inappropriate and destabilizing if we were not to have an appropriate response, because our allies would then begin to feel they needed to look elsewhere for assurances. Some of our colleagues on this committee have argued that low-yield weapons are destabilizing, despite the fact that we have had these weapons in our arsenal since 1945. What’s destabilizing is the Chairman’s remarks on March 12th, 2019, and I quote: ‘If the Russians launch a nuclear weapon at us and we don’t have anything but a bigger nuclear weapon, well then, we launch the bigger nuclear weapon. That’s what we do.’ close quote.

“That is brazen. It’s irresponsible. It’s completely inappropriate. Low-yield nuclear weapons are a crucial part of our deterrent capability. Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Paul Selva said, quote ‘a proportional reaction to an enemy’s attack is actually a righteous and reasonable thing to do. If all you have is large-yield weapons and you’re trying to answer a low-yield attack, answering that with a conventional weapon is likely not going to have a deterrent value.’

“Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply say that we are not going to prohibit the deployment of these weapons that are crucial to our nation’s security. I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment so that we can continue in a manner in which we provide for the defense of the nation in a bipartisan way as we have for so many years on this committee and with that I yield back.”

Cheney: The Majority Seems To Think That Stability Is Served By Limiting America’s Capabilities

Rep. Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Gallagher. The Majority seems to think that stability is served by limiting America’s capabilities here. I hear no distinction being made between a nuclear capability in the hands of the Russians or our adversaries, and one in our own hands.

“The Nuclear Posture Review, which was completed under Secretary Mattis, makes clear that we need this very capability. Assessments of our adversaries capabilities showed that the Russians have an active stockpile of up to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons.

“So I would urge, particularly the freshman on this committee, I would echo what Mr. Turner said, before you cast this vote, you’d better be sure that you are fully briefed and fully aware of all of the classified information that is available about our adversaries capabilities, about the capability that we need, that our military has requested.

“And, I have tremendous respect for my colleague, Mrs. Davis, but I’d say asking what the plan is requires a classified briefing, and it is absolutely irresponsible for us in this committee to sit here and say, we are going to limit the military, we’re going to prevent them from this capability without seeking that classified information and material, because it is there.”

Cheney: This Amendment Restores The Funding Necessary For The SLBM Deployment Of The W76-2’s

Rep. Cheney: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores the funding necessary for the SLBM deployment of the W76-2’s. You know, we heard a lot in the last debate about nuclear obliteration and about the instability of the world in which we live, and what I fail to be able to understand and what I find extremely troubling is that the majority’s response to the growing instability and threat complexity we face around the globe is to disarm America.

“My colleagues on this committee say they are not for unilateral disarmament, but, as I pointed out before, we live in a world in which the Russians in fact have 2,000 of these non-strategic nuclear weapons. And so the idea that somehow the way to avoid miscalculation or to avoid instability is to make sure that America cannot deploy this low-yield nuclear weapon is simply a blaming America first irresponsible approach to this.

“We live in a world where the Cold War concepts of deterrence are outmoded, a world in which those concepts are insufficient to provide for our security. And yes, it is simple and it is easy to say, ‘oh my gosh, nuclear weapons are horrific.’ We all agree they are horrific, we’ve all got plenty of nuclear weapons. That is absolutely unsustainable, indefensible, and irresponsible. I agree with the Chairman that this committee has crucial oversight obligations and responsibilities. We are not carrying those obligations out if we simply say ‘nuclear weapons are bad, therefore we must make sure that the United States does not have access to the full range of capabilities that our adversaries have.’

“We know the Russians nuclear strategy is escalate to de-escalate. We know that the Russians hope that a limited nuclear escalation will give them an advantage. We must guard against that. The point of making sure that we have funding for, and the authority to deploy these weapons on submarines, is to raise, not lower, the nuclear threshold. So, Mr. Chairman, I take issue with the idea that anybody on this side of aisle called anybody on this committee ‘ignorant.’ Nobody said that.

“What we did say was members of this committee who are not on the Strategic Forces committee, members of this committee who have not voted on this issue before, members of this committee who have not taken part in all of the briefings that Mr. Turner mentioned need to be aware that they are being held accountable. We simply cannot effectively and responsibly conduct the oversight that is necessary here to have to go home and explain to your constituents why you cast a vote to disarm the United States, to disarm the United States unilaterally, in a circumstance in which our adversaries have these weapons, without the full access to the information that is available in those briefings. I think that that is the epitome of failing to live up to our obligation of effective and responsible oversight on this most important set of issues, probably that any committee in this Congress deals with and addresses.

“So, my amendment that we’re discussing now, Mr. Chairman, would restore the funding for these crucially important weapons, along with the authority that we need to restore from my previous amendment, and with that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.” 

Cheney: By Definition, This Is Unilateral Disarmament

Rep. Cheney: “Thank you very much, Ms. Stefanik. You know, I think this issue, I appreciated very much Chairman Cooper, the way that he began our convening meeting on the subcommittee on Strategic Forces when he talked about this issue as being the single most important issue – our Strategic Forces – that any subcommittee in Congress deals with and address, and I think that’s the kind of treatment this issue deserves. 

“I think it’s completely uncalled for for Mr. Cooper to suggest that there is loose talk going on, or to suggest that somehow there are political aspirations, unless Mr. Cooper is announcing here today that he’s seeking higher office, which I would say that this is an inappropriate place for him to make that announcement, he ought to stay with the facts. And I can only imagine perhaps he can’t argue the facts if he’s going to go to personal aspirations and questioning the motives of the people having this discussion, and my motives for offering this amendment. 

“With respect to unilateral disarmament, it is unilateral disarmament, by definition. This is a capability that our adversaries have. It is a capability that they have the ability to deploy, that they have deployed, and it is a capability that my colleagues on this committee, on the Democratic side of the aisle are suggesting that the global stability and security requires we not let the United States the funds or the authority to have this capability. So, that is both unilateral disarmament, by definition, and it is also blame America first by definition. 

“Now, I think this is a crucially important issue. I think it’s one we ought to be debating and discussing, and I think it’s one we ought to debate based on facts, and we ought to not go down the path of somehow suggesting that there are ulterior motives here and frankly, I think we ought not go down the path of saying we need to hurry this up and move it along, as the Chairman did. This is a really important issue, and those of us on this side of the aisle who are suggesting that our colleagues need full information, that our colleagues need to be fully informed, are simply saying that you need to recognize and understand, if you have not had the briefings about what our adversaries can do, and if you have not had the briefings about the capabilities of what our military has requested, and if you have not had the briefings about the plans for the use and deployment of these weapons system, then you need to recognize when you are casting this vote, you are doing it without full information. 

“There’s nothing political about that. We’re not playing games. We’re simply suggesting to you that you’ve got to have full information. That’s why I’ve offered this amendment. I simply do not believe, and I think it’s highly irresponsible to suggest, that the world is more safe if our adversaries have a capability that we do not have, and this committee takes every step to prevent the United States from having that capability. That’s absolutely wrong, and with that I yield back.”