Quigley Urges Colleagues to Cut Wasteful Nuclear Cruise Missile Funding

WASHINGTON -- Today, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05) offered an amendment to the Energy & Water (E&W) Appropriations Bill that would save $167 million from the new nuclear-armed cruise missile warhead (W80-4) and apply the savings toward deficit reduction.

Below is a video and transcript of the speech.

Thank you 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But in this budget environment, every dollar we spend to keep our outdated and oversized nuclear arsenal functioning is a dollar we aren't spending on other priorities that keep us safe and secure, or reducing our unsustainable debt and deficits.

That's why the amendment I'm offering with Mr. Polis will put 167 million dollars 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 requests sped up the development for the warhead by two years.

This is despite the fact that the existing air-launch 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&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 missiles from far away when we have the most advanced bomber ever created in our arsenal – the B2 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 ICBM's 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 acquisitions schedule and save the taxpayers 167 million dollars in the process.

Thank you and I reserve the balance of my time.