Cut $23.7 Million in Wasteful Nuclear Bomb Funding

WASHINGTON: U.S. Representatives Mike Quigley (IL-05) moves to cut $23.7 million in wasteful funding for the outdated and unnecessary B61 nuclear bomb program by offering an amendment to the FY14 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill.

Below is a video and a transcript of this speech:

I rise today to offer an amendment with my friend from Colorado Mr. Polis. Our amendment is very straight forward: It simply cuts the $23.7 million for 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.They then provided an additional $23.7 million. Our amendment simply cuts these additional funds provided BEYOND what the agency requested. But 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 disease research at the NIH, failing to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and under investing in our children's education, we are increasing funding to a keep hundreds of nuclear bombs in operation that we will never use.

The Cold War is over.

Mr. Speaker, I thought today that I was back in a twilight zone. Well they're all like this. You wake up in the morning and it is fifty 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, George Shultz have called for deep cuts to 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 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. Speaker I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Polis.