On the recordJuly 11, 2019
Three quick points. First of all, Richard Nixon era or not, I think we all agree that the missile right now is working. I certainly hope it is since we are relying on it as a key part of our nuclear deterrent. We have a lot of weapons systems. I mean, I am surprised that the B- 52 bomber is still functional, but it is. To imply that somehow because it is old, by definition, it doesn't work, I hope that is not true. In fact, I know it is not true because the current missile works perfectly fine and is a more than adequate deterrent. Second, the studies that have been done were trying to figure out if we could get away with keeping this missile for the entire projected 80-year lifespan of its replacement. The studies have come back and said, no, it probably will not last 80 years. We have not studied whether or not it could last another 25 or another 50. That is the purpose of this amendment. That would save us money. Look, we need a nuclear deterrent. I don't believe the gentleman from Oregon--certainly, I don't--supports getting rid of our nuclear weapons. The question is, how many do we need? What does the deterrent look like? What makes sense? It is clear that this missile works now. If we did this study, it is quite reasonable to presume that it would work another 10, 20, 30 years from now. Then that money could be used for other defense priorities. This is to answer that question, which is very important. I will skip the third point.
Source
govinfo.gov




