Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is time we take a smarter approach to our nuclear weapons strategy.

I rise today to offer a reasonable amendment that ensures that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on a weapon that the Pentagon is not even sure we will have the capability to use. My amendment simply cuts the extra $7.6 million above what the NNSA has requested for the next generation long-range cruise missile's nuclear warhead.

This is a modest cut, one that allows the program to move forward at the requested level of $9.4 million. The reason behind the cut is clear: this funding is for the development of a warhead to be used on a cruise missile that the Pentagon has yet to approve. Given this, there is simply no reason for the NNSA to rush forward with investments on this warhead. And Congress definitely shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars beyond the NNSA's request to do so.

To get a better idea of what we are spending our constituents' money on, let's walk through this program. This warhead is being developed for the next generation long-range cruise missile. The weapon it will replace, the air-launched cruise missile, isn't being phased out until the 2030s.

This year, the Pentagon delayed the development of this new cruise missile by 3 more years and has yet to set exact requirements for the missile or necessary warhead.

Despite there being no rush, this bill pushes extra money into developing that warhead. There are also serious questions about whether we will even need these new cruise missiles, given the technological advances we have already made.

The next generation long-range bombers will be big, expensive stealth bombers able to penetrate enemy airspace to drop their bombs without being detected. We are spending a small fortune on the B-61 bomb life extension for that advanced capability.

The B-2 stealth bomber, which this next-generation bomber will replace, doesn't carry a cruise missile. Advanced American stealth bombers don't need the capability to send a cruise missile from a bomber 1,000 miles away. We pay for very expensive submarines and very expensive ICBMs for that capability.

So ask yourselves: Should we be adding money above the request for a warhead that goes on a missile that the Pentagon doesn't even know it wants and one we probably don't even need?

Over the next few years, we will be spending billions on our nuclear weapons budget alone. Let me name a few of the things we need to pay for all at the same time:

The many NNSA life extension programs, such as the increasingly costly B-61 program; 100 next generation long-range bombers; ICBM refurbishment and possibly the next generation of ICBMs; plus 12 nuclear-armed Ohio-class replacement submarines.

At a time when we have so many other important projects at both the Pentagon and at the NNSA, the dollars and manpower spent on refurbishing this warhead for a cruise missile that does not yet exist are dollars and manpower the Pentagon and the NNSA could be using on bombers, subs, or even soldiers.

That is why I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to take an important step towards a more reasonable, sensible nuclear weapons strategy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source