Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Our amendment is very straightforward. It simply cuts the $23.7 million from the B61 nuclear bomb not requested by the Department of Energy.

The National Nuclear Security Administration requested a 45 percent increase for a gold-plated upgrade plan for the B61 nuclear bomb. The committee provided the 45 percent increase in funding for a portion of the most expensive $10 billion upgrade plan. Then they provided an additional $23.7 million. Our amendment simply cuts these additional funds provided beyond what the agency requested.

Let me back up for a minute and explain what the $560 million in this bill is actually going to pay for. At a time when we are slashing funds for research at the NIH, failing to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and underinvesting in our children's education, we are increasing funding to keep hundreds of nuclear bombs in operation that we will never use.

The Cold War is over. Mr. Chairman, I thought today that I was back in a ``Twilight Zone'' episode--well, they're all like this--where you woke up in the morning and it is 50 years earlier--it's 1963. The Cold War is still raging.

Despite the fact that security experts of all political stripes, including conservatives Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, have called for deep cuts to our outsized nuclear stockpile.

General Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the ``military utility'' of the B61 is ``practically nil.''

As the U.S. and Russia work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and shift funds to meet today's threats, the B61 in Europe will be one of the first weapons cut. Just last month in Berlin, the President stated that he wants to ``seek bold reductions in tactical weapons,'' aka the B61, in Europe.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they want to reduce the deficit. I agree, but if we are actually going to reduce spending, everything has to be on the table, including defense. This amendment is a tiny, thoughtful cut to an outsized nuclear budget for weapons that do little to keep us safe.

I hope my colleagues will join me in cutting funds not requested by the Department of Energy for nuclear upgrades not needed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect and have enjoyed this thoughtful debate that we've had in the last few minutes about this issue, particularly because it raises critical issues about our relationships with our NATO allies, but let's look at the big picture here.

The 2010 START Treaty with Russia, which passed the Senate in 2009, requires that Russia and the United States reduce their stockpiles to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons by 2018. Let's look at what people are talking about now, people we respect.

General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of the U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Chuck Hagel, current Secretary of Defense; Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia; and General John J. Sheehan, a former senior NATO official, all issued a report noting that the United States' nuclear deterrence could be guaranteed with 900 nuclear weapons.

According to General Cartwright:

The world has changed, but the current arsenal carries the baggage of the Cold War ..... What is it we're really trying to deter? Our current arsenal does not address the threats of the 21st century.

Let's talk about our NATO allies.

Steve Andreasen, the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council, recently argued:

Wouldn't it be more reassuring and wiser burden-sharing to spend this money on weapons and capabilities that are more relevant to the threats NATO faces today? Indeed, why would allies be reassured by an investment that provides no real military capability and no modicum of deterrence beyond that already provided by the U.S., Britain, and France, each of which has nuclear arsenals capable of obliterating any adversary?

The biggest concerns for NATO right now include threats from Mali and Syria, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The B61 can do nothing to address those threats.

I close by reminding us that four great American statesmen--George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn--argued for the elimination of these short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward deployed--that is, the B61--in their landmark 2007 op-ed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source