Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

This is a simple amendment that would cut $3.4 million for a new nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile and redirect the funding towards the cleanup and removal of unexploded ordnance that litters most congressional districts in every State of the Union.

It would save the taxpayers from footing the bill for a program whose rationale remains ill-defined.

First, the United States currently has a robust arsenal of air-launched cruise missiles, and with the life extension program, they are expected to be in service well past 2030.

These existing cruise missiles are also compatible with the Air Force's greatest procurement priority, the long-range strike bomber.

Now the Pentagon has not yet made a final decision on how or when it will replace its existing nuclear air-launched cruise missile, so it seems ill-advised to spend money before we know what our long-term plans are.

We no longer need a bomber with standoff nuclear weapons like the ALCM. The new Air Force bomber that will be designed to penetrate air defenses, it needs bombs that can be dropped, not a new cruise missile.

The procurement of the new cruise missile will also have a destabilizing effect in our efforts to control nuclear proliferation. A mass deployment of cruise missiles probably would trigger, potentially could trigger a new arms race that we have already agreed to begin to end.

Currently, only the United States, France, and Russia have such weapons. But are we going to be more secure if this sets off an effort for other countries to develop them?

Are we going to be more secure if China has them, if Pakistan develops them? I think certainly not.

Now, maybe this amendment looks modest, only directing $3.4 million. But allowing this seed money to go forward could potentially mean billions down the road if we don't have a reason, a rationale, a commitment to do it.

The new ALCM does not yet have an official pricetag, but the research we have done suggests it is in the range of 20 to $30 billion. And a rebuilt nuclear warhead to go on it would cost another $12 billion, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

So a potential of over $40 billion, and based on our past experience with weapons developments and the nuclear area, it is very likely that that is going to increase over time.

Remember, we recently had a debate on the floor of the House that highlighted that the costs of the current nuclear program were understated by the Pentagon by $150 billion.

This program, whose true utility remains a mystery, even to those requesting money for it, will directly compete with other priorities.

Let me repeat that. This is not free money. If we launch this program, it is going to directly compete with other priorities. The Navy, as we all know--which the committee has been wrestling with--is looking for $100 billion to build 12 new nuclear-armed submarines.

The Air Force is coming up short looking for the $70 billion it needs to buy up to 100 new long-range bombers. A down payment on a cruise missile today that we don't need means cuts to other programs tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that, instead of launching us down this path of unnecessary spending and potentially huge outyear costs, that we, instead, spend this money on Formerly Used Defense Sites that have been contaminated by our activities over the better part of the last century in the United States. It is better use for the money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, first let me point out that this is a minuscule sum. I have pointed out that we have the capacity with the current plans to be able to deal past 2030, so this is not an urgent effect. We have a chance to sort it out and see if it truly is a priority.

I respect the gentleman's point about--I think he is sincere in wanting to clear up these Formerly Used Defense Sites, but the amount in the budget is $50 million less than we had in fiscal year 2014 and is less than we enacted in fiscal year 2013.

At the current rate of funding, the Pentagon estimates that it will take 250 years to clean up the backlog of dealing with the military contamination and unexploded ordnance. That is unacceptable.

In a defense budget of this magnitude, we can and should be doing more. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. It is not nearly adequate, and we certainly don't need to launch down this other path that may lead to dramatic unnecessary spending in the future.

I respectfully urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source