[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Page H7258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BUDGET
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of wrapping up a
budget agreement that is welcome since it protects against default on
the national debt and prevents draconian cuts for disability payments
and unfairness in Medicare premiums for our senior citizens; but it
continues a downward spiral in government spending for essential items
that would improve America's infrastructure, education, medical
research, and much more. Yet, at the same time, we are continuing on
autopilot with some of the largest expenditures for generations to
come.
We had an announcement yesterday that we will be replacing the next
generation of stealth bombers for our nuclear triad--up to 100 of
them--at an estimated cost of over $550 million each, and that is just
the estimated shelf price, the opening bid, plus another $20 billion in
development costs.
Our history of developing weapons of this magnitude is that from the
opening bid, the price is likely to spiral much higher in the future.
The same contractor, Northrop Grumman, which won this bid, could only
build 21 B-2s out of a planned 132 as the costs spiraled to over $1
billion a plane.
This comes at a time when we are committed to spending over $1
trillion in the coming decades in upgrading our nuclear fleet. Think
about it: 12 new ballistic missile submarines, up to 100 new long-
range, nuclear-capable bombers, 642 new land-based ballistic missiles,
1,000 new nuclear-capable, long-range standoff cruise missiles.
And why are we doing this in the first place?
Think for a moment. These weapons that we have already are far in
excess of anything America will ever need--a destructive capacity to
obliterate any nation multiple times over--yet, we are moving ahead
without ever discussing this spending here on the House floor as to
whether or not it is what we need.
Think about the security threats of today in terms of an inability to
withstand the devastating impacts of climate change on our communities,
the threats from ISIS, different challenges of encroachment from Russia
and China--not nuclear attack, but moving ahead in building artificial
islands, invading neighboring countries. These are threats now--the
Taliban, international terrorism--and we are committed to spending vast
sums on weapons that we are never likely to use and are useless against
the real threats we face.
We don't need 454 land-based nuclear missiles now. These end up
threatening us. Look at the recently released information about the
stand-down around Russian paranoia in 1983 regarding NATO exercises. We
didn't realize how panicked they were or the steps that they took. That
is the real threat from nuclear weapons, accident or miscalculation.
Consider the opportunity costs of vast sums of money that we are
tying up that could be used for other purposes, including strengthening
our military for today's threats or helping our veterans or our
communities on what is bearing down upon them or equipping our citizens
to function in this century.
We just had a fascinating lesson when the Export-Import Bank was
freed from the iron grasp of the committee and was allowed to actually
be debated on the floor of the House. It had been bottled up for years.
It had never had that sort of attention. We had more time and energy
spent on the Ex-Im Bank over the last 50 hours than, probably, the last
50 years--certainly, in the last 50 months.
What would happen if Congress actually addressed and debated the
wisdom of our current nuclear policies and the vast sums of money that
are being spent on autopilot that will be chewing a hole in the budget
to the detriment of the Department of Defense and everything else?
There is a lesson to be learned, and I hope someday Congress will
learn it, because there is a path for a stronger, safer America, for
more meaningful, targeted military spending, and for a balanced,
thoughtful budget prioritization. If Congress does its job in the open,
collectively, the decision becomes easier and the results become
better.
____________________