Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It simply reduces the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear missiles, by a third, from 450 to 300.

We are in the midst of an extraordinary budget crisis. We are facing unsustainable debt. Yet we continue to spend approximately $50 billion to $55 billion annually to maintain and even grow a nuclear arsenal and associated programs designed for a Cold War that no longer exists.

Russia is no longer the existential threat it once was, and we are working closely with Russian leaders to reduce our nuclear arsenals together. While other nations, such as China, have some nuclear weapons, their stockpiles pale in comparison. China has no more than 50 to 75 single warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles.

We can significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal of 1,700 and still maintain a robust military edge over any rival. As we look to reduce our nuclear stockpile, we should be strategic and make targeted cuts.

According to a recent report issued by General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of U.S. nuclear forces; Secretary Chuck Hagel; and a number of other military and foreign experts, all land-based ICBMs could be eliminated. Let me take a moment to repeat that. The former commander of all U.S. nuclear forces thinks we don't need any ICBMs--none. According to the report:

The U.S. ICBM force has lost its central utility.

The report outlines four key reasons ICBMs should be eliminated:

First, ``Direct wartime nuclear operations against Russia alone, were Cold War scenarios that are no longer plausible.''

Second, flight paths over all land-based ICBMs to any potential adversaries--Iran, North Korea, China--would have to travel through Russian air space. This could trigger ``confusing Russia, and triggering nuclear retaliation.''

Third, ``U.S. Trident submarines and B-2 strategic bombers can deliver nuclear weapons to virtually any point on the Earth.''

Fourth, ``ICBMs in fixed silos are inherently targetable.''

Once again, these are not my assessments, nor the assessments of some anti-nuclear groups. These are the assessments of General Cartwright, the retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering; and General John Sheehan, a former senior NATO official.

The former commander of U.S. nuclear forces has issued his support for the elimination of ICBMs.

This amendment merely calls for a reduction by one-third. We have limited resources, and that means we have to make choices. As we look to cut spending, let's cut military investments that do nothing to keep us safe in today's threat environment, such as ICBMs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me just say that I've been here 4 years now, and I recognize what the Department of Defense is--it is our jobs program.

I respect my colleagues for defending jobs in their districts, but this isn't about national security--it's about job maintenance, which is not what this is supposed to be about. If we're going to spend money in creating jobs, I want to build bridges and schools and transit systems.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source