Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, over the next decade, the U.S. is set to spend hundreds of billions of dollars operating and upgrading our nuclear arsenal. But in this budget environment, every dollar we spend to keep our outdated and oversized nuclear arsenal functioning is a dollar we aren't spending on other priorities that keep us safe and secure or on reducing our unsustainable debt and deficits. That is why the amendment I am offering with Mr. Polis will put $167 million towards deficit reduction by placing funding for the new nuclear-armed cruise missile warhead back on its original 2015 acquisition schedule.

In the FY 2015 budget, production of the warhead was scheduled to begin in 2027, but this year's budget request sped up the development for the warhead by 2 years. This is despite the fact that the existing air-launched cruise missile and warhead isn't being phased out until the 2030s. And there is plenty of uncertainty about whether this program is affordable or even necessary.

Chairman Simpson is so concerned about the cost of the warhead that language was included in the E and W report to require a red team assessment on the affordability of the program--and for good reason, given our history of spending large amounts of money on warhead programs that end up getting tabled.

Given the cost concerns over the program, does it really make sense to rush the acquisition process?

Furthermore, as some experts note, there is no longer a need to shoot nuclear cruise missiles from far away when we have the most advanced bomber ever created in our arsenal, the B-2 stealth bomber, which is capable of penetrating enemy airspace and dropping a nuclear bomb directly above a target. And if we decide we want to shoot nuclear missiles from thousands of miles away, we still have very expensive submarines and very expensive ICBMs capable of doing just that.

So ask yourselves: Should we really be accelerating the development of a warhead that goes on a missile we don't need and could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, more than anticipated?

I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to maintain funding at the program's FY 2015 acquisition schedule, and save the taxpayers $167 million in the process.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect Chairman Simpson's request that language be included in the E and W report to require a red team assessment of the affordability of this program. All I am adding to that is, if we have questions about the affordability of this program, a program that is not going to take place for some time, do we really want to accelerate the spending program?

In this budget environment, it does not make sense to accelerate the development of a warhead while, at the same time, requiring an assessment on its affordability. Why would we put more money into a program that may end up getting tabled? Shouldn't we at least wait until the release of the red team report before adjusting the acquisition schedule?

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source