Reducing Nuclear Warhead Funding

WASHINGTON -- Today, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05) moved to cut $7.6 million above what the National Nuclear Security Administration has requested for the next generation long-range cruise missile's nuclear warhead by offering an amendment to the FY15 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill.

Below is a video and transcript of the speech.

Mr. Speaker, it's time we take a smarter approach to our nuclear weapons strategy.

I rise today to offer a reasonable amendment that would ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on a weapon – that the Pentagon is not even sure we'll 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, and one that allows the program to move forward at the requested level of $9.4 million.

The reasoning 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're spending our constituents' money on, let's walk through the 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 2030's.

This year, the Pentagon delayed the development of the new cruise missile by three 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 its warhead.

There are also serious questions about whether we will even need these new cruise missiles, given the technological advances we've 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 B61bomb 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 thecapability 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 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 B61 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 NNSA,

The dollars and manpower spent on refurbishing 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's why I ask my colleagues to support my common sense amendment and take an important step towards a more sensible nuclear weapons strategy.

Thank you and I reserve.