- 6 weeks ago
During a House Armed Services Committee markup meeting before the Congressional recess, Rep. John Raymond Garamendi (D-CA) spoke about production of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00And we will now turn to log number 5513R1 by Mr. Garamendi.
00:08For what purpose is the gentleman from California seat recognition?
00:13At the desk.
00:15Clerk will please distribute the amendment without objection.
00:18The reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
00:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:24Heads up, we're changing subject matters here.
00:27We're not going to be talking about the border or who's going to pay for what.
00:32We're going to talk about strategic arms.
00:35We're going to talk about the Sentinel program.
00:37We're going to talk about the Minuteman III program.
00:39At least for, well, I guess, three amendments.
00:42I know that all of you are shocked.
00:44Both my Democrat and Republican colleagues are shocked that I would once again venture down this road
00:50after having been, at least in view of some, my Republican members, properly disciplined in previous years.
00:57However, never give up.
01:00And, Mr. Chairman, an opportunity for you to once again try to discipline me.
01:05I resist that.
01:07Nevertheless, here we are.
01:08This bill deals with something that we have written into the National Defense Authorization Act for several years.
01:16And as we've looked at this issue of the Sentinel, the new replacement for the Minuteman III missile,
01:25and the issues of its non-McCurtick breach and extraordinary cost increases,
01:32we keep coming back to the question of why, which is my favorite question.
01:38Why?
01:38Why are we doing this?
01:39Why are we not doing something else?
01:41And it comes down after listening to the various organizations that we have tasked with giving us guidance on the strategic arms issues.
01:57They keep coming back to, well, we are required to have 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
02:08And so we go round and round here.
02:10We tell them we've got to have 400.
02:13They come back and say, well, if we've got to have 400, then we've got to have 400 sentinels and the like.
02:19And I'm going, wait a minute.
02:21Why do we have to have 400?
02:24Well, nobody's explained why 400 is a magic number.
02:30Why 400?
02:31Particularly in consideration that we do have other platforms for nuclear deterrence.
02:41We have F-35s that will soon be in Europe that will be nuclear, that will and could be nuclear armed.
02:50We have other fighter planes in Europe that are presently nuclear armed.
02:58The B-21 seems to be working pretty well.
03:02And we're going to have a whole bunch of those.
03:04I think as many as 40-some in the next decade, some of which will be available by reading this morning's press, available almost immediately.
03:16Right now, the use of training, they can be modified to handle nuclear weapons.
03:20We have the new submarines at sea.
03:24We have the new Columbia submarines that are hopefully going to be going forward.
03:29And Mr. Courtney, and I see my colleague from Virginia is here now.
03:34And the two of them are damn well determined to get it done sooner than later.
03:38Well, good.
03:39Get on with it.
03:40Let's get those done.
03:41So we have many, many methods to deter.
03:46We have the B-52s that are going to be repurposed.
03:50And I'm coming back, why 400?
03:53It turns out that the intercontinental ballistic missiles sitting in a silo are, in at least my view and the view of many's, not the best deterrent.
04:05Because it is a classic use it or lose it.
04:09If there is a threat, those silos have to be attacked immediately or else they're lost.
04:20It turns out that the attack will probably, almost certainly, not be successful.
04:25A large number of them will not be disabled.
04:28But the entire Midwest and a good portion of America and the world would be seriously disabled by that nuclear attack.
04:37So what I'm trying to do with this amendment is to ask the question, why?
04:42So that each of us would ask that question, why do we need 400?
04:47What's magic about that number other than that's what we had seven or eight years ago?
04:53That is propelling us down the road to maintain those missiles.
04:59Minuteman three is probably for another 15 years and bring the Sentinel on along when we can, for example, the cost of the Sentinel, somewhere 170 to 200 billion dollars.
05:12Could buy any number of, I don't know, you want a couple hundred B-21s?
05:17Do you want 10 more Columbia-class nuclear submarines?
05:22All of that is possible with the money for this.
05:25Mr. Chairman, I want us to ask the question, why?
05:29And this amendment forces us to ask that question.
05:32Thank you for the extra eight seconds.
05:33I yield back.
05:34Gentleman yields back.
05:35Chair recognizes himself.
05:37My good friend from California knows how much I appreciate his commitment to this topic.
05:42But he also knows I don't agree with him.
05:46The Trump administration doesn't agree with him, nor did the Biden administration agree with him.
05:51Similar measures designed to halt the program have been defeated either in committee or on the floor since 2021.
05:58The Sentinel program is a critical part of our effort to modernize the nuclear triad.
06:02This amendment seeks to stop that program.
06:04Consequently, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose it.
06:07And with that, I recognize the gentle lady from California, Ms. Jacobs.
06:10Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
06:11And I promise this is the last time I'm speaking for a while.
06:14I swear this is not only because I have a bet on what time we're going to end.
06:19I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Garamondi, for introducing this important amendment.
06:25Look, being good stewards of American tax dollars is one of Congress's most important responsibilities.
06:30And with our debt ballooning, that duty is more urgent than ever.
06:35So I would expect that there would be broad consensus on this committee about the alarming fact that the Air Force's $100 billion ground-based nuclear missile program, the Sentinel, has overrun its budget by 37% already.
06:49That spike automatically triggers the non-McCurdy statute, forcing the Pentagon to prove the program's worth or kill it.
06:56This means we're going to see an estimated future cost of at least $130 billion and many years of delay.
07:04This is unacceptable.
07:06Look, it's long overdue to rein in the astronomical costs of the Sentinel program and reassess our nuclear posture in its entirety.
07:12Increasing our land-based nuclear forces to outnumber the PRC in Russia is an archaic strategy that doesn't match the realities of our new multipolar world.
07:22And even if one believes that ICBMs are useful targets in the event of a Russian nuclear attack, why not opt for a cheaper nuclear sponge?
07:30Some or maybe even all of the existing force of Minuteman III ICBMs can be life-extended for decades more and at a much lower cost.
07:38By deferring the Sentinel program, which is all Mr. Garamondi's amendment does, and extending the existing Minuteman III force, the United States could save at least $37 billion through the mid-2030s, according to one CBO estimate.
07:53That $37 billion, with a B, is money we could redirect to real readiness needs instead of doubling down on a Trump-era boondoggle.
08:03We can still take seriously and address the threats posed by our strategic competitors without fueling a never-ending arms race and compromising our fiscal responsibility.
08:12I swear to God, I am so sick of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling themselves the party of fiscal responsibility when they balloon our debt by $4 trillion and then won't even do standard oversight and making sure that our taxpayer dollars are being spent to good use.
08:27So I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Garamondi's amendments so that we can be both sensible and strategic with taxpayer dollars.
08:34I yield back.
08:35General Eddie yields back.
08:36Chairman, I recognize as the ranking member.
08:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
08:40Believe it or not, I will yield to Mr. Garamondi at this point.
08:43I was told to do that, just so you know.
08:47Mr. Garamondi.
08:51Mr. Chairman, I was so anxious to get into this debate and move away from the previous one that I wasn't listening to what amendment was actually called by our terrific staff down there.
09:02And apparently I gave a great argument for the next amendment, which I will not take five minutes to explain.
09:08That's what I figured.
09:10The Lord giveth and taketh, huh?
09:12In any case, this amendment deals with the Nunn-McCurdy Sentinel situation in which the Sentinel program was stopped pending a Nunn-McCurdy review.
09:31This amendment deals specifically with the Milestone B, which is before the Department of Defense at this moment.
09:39And what we've seen from the Department of Defense in the Biden administration, and it appears also going to be in the Trump administration, is to just kind of blow past the detailed analysis that we need as policymakers about what to do here.
09:56Do we proceed with the Sentinel, do we repurpose and refurbish the existing Minuteman III?
10:06Those are fundamental questions.
10:07And by the way, they're about a $200 billion question over the next decade.
10:13About 150, 170 of that for the rockets and the infrastructure, the silos, and the rest for the bombs for the NNSA and entry vehicles, as well as command and control.
10:25So we need to think this through.
10:27And what this amendment does is to clarify and expand the information that we need from the Department of Defense.
10:37Now, I'm not at all happy with the Biden administration.
10:40They just kind of shrug their shoulders and say, oh, it's okay.
10:43I expect that the current administration might do the same.
10:47But if we write into the NDAA, no, don't just blow through this.
10:52Do a detailed analysis.
10:53And I'll just give you some examples.
10:56Is the program of record an affordable solution to the DOD needs?
11:03I just talked in, unfortunately for the wrong amendment, about that question.
11:10Do we really need 400?
11:12Or is there other ways of doing it?
11:16The cost estimates.
11:18We need to really hone in on that.
11:20The Biden administration didn't do that as they moved forward with that.
11:26How do we fund it?
11:28What's not going to be funded?
11:29And so forth.
11:30But this amendment forces the Department to be more fulsome and more, providing more useful information to ultimately the deciders, which is us.
11:42Do we move forward with the Sentinel?
11:44Do we maintain the Minuteman 3 for the next decade, actually for the next 15 years, which will be required under any circumstance?
11:54Even if we move forward with the Sentinel, the Minuteman 3 is going to be around for at least another 15 years and operable, if you believe that this is an appropriate deterrent.
12:05So we've got to be smart.
12:09We're talking about a vast amount of money.
12:11I made the argument about all the other things that we could purchase, if you're interested in nuclear deterrence, for the same amount of money, which I would argue, and if anybody wants to get in that debate, let's have at it, is far more of a deterrent than a bunch of missiles sitting in a silo in the Midwest.
12:27So we ultimately must reconcile our infinite desires with our limited means.
12:35Even with the $150 billion, we still all have limited means.
12:38That means making hard decisions about how and where to spend the taxpayer dollars.
12:44Billions and billions of dollars are at stake here.
12:46Well over easily $200 billion over the next several years.
12:52Can we deploy that better elsewhere?
12:54I think all of us could raise an argument, yes, we could.
12:59Could we still have the deterrent?
13:01Yes, we can.
13:02Be happy to have that debate with any and all of you.
13:05So I want us to use our intelligence.
13:09I want us to use our intelligence, our gathering of information, in a way that creates security for our nation.
13:19And I would argue, as I did in the previous amendment, that the Minuteman 3 and the Sentinel do not increase our security.
13:32They actually increase our risk.
13:34And I can go into that in detail.
13:38Basically, it's a use it or lose it.
13:40We came very, very close in the past to a nuclear war based upon incorrect information given to the system that would have required that those missiles be launched immediately.
13:54And once launched, they're going to go wherever they're intended to go, and there's no calling them back.
14:00All of the other deterrent systems can be called back if there's an error.
14:05This one cannot.
14:07It's extraordinarily dangerous.
14:08Mr. Chairman, my apologies for getting so excited about the wrong amendment.
14:12But I'm excited about this one, too.
14:13I know you are.
14:15And it's genuine.
14:16Chair, now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Desjard Lay.
14:21Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:23And to be clear, I will be speaking about Amendment 5513.
14:28But not to worry, I will also be speaking about 5510, and I'm excited about that as well.
14:33I have great respect for, and I appreciate my colleague from California's dedication to having this debate every year.
14:41But I will, again, oppose this amendment.
14:43I don't think we need to have a prolonged debate on this topic because this is an issue where we simply have a fundamental difference in opinion about the Sentinel program.
14:51And the ICBM leg of the triad.
14:56This amendment would cut off funding, all FY26 funding, including the reconciliation funds for the Sentinel program until it reaches Milestone B.
15:06But funding is necessary for the program to reach Milestone B.
15:10So this amendment is really just about stopping Sentinel.
15:14As my colleague from California knows, I do not support that.
15:17The Trump administration does not support that.
15:20And the Biden administration did not support it either.
15:22We also continue to receive consistent testimony from our senior military leaders that this program is absolutely essential.
15:29So I will, again, oppose this effort to stop the Sentinel program.
15:32I would note that a similar amendment was rejected last year by a vote of 9 to 49.
15:36I urge my colleagues, again, to vote no, and I yield back.
15:40Gentleman yields back.
15:41Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
15:44Mr. Chairman, I now ask for unanimous consent to refer to the ranking member.
15:49Gentleman, ranking member is recognized.
15:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15:52And actually, all three of these amendments that Mr. Garamendi has are connected in one sense.
15:58I mean, one definitely deals with the overrun at the Sentinel program and the challenges that are there.
16:04And then talks about the number of ICBMs that we have to have, restrictions on that.
16:09And then we have the last one is on the pit production challenge that we have.
16:13And I think, you know, Ms. Jacobs sort of outlined the problem here.
16:16And it is connected to the larger defense budget.
16:19We are headed towards an unsustainable fiscal path.
16:23And I realize we don't want to think about that.
16:25We just want to say, well, gosh, in an ideal world, the defense budget, we should be at 5% of GDP.
16:31So we just magically say, get to 5% of GDP.
16:34And we don't look at the details of, is that realistic?
16:38And what are we spending the money on?
16:40We are spending a massive amount of money.
16:43We are planning on spending a massive amount of money on nuclear modernization.
16:47For the submarines, for the B-21, for the pits, for the ICBMs.
16:51Can we really afford to do all of that, especially at the cost that the Sentinel is bringing our way?
16:59And I don't think we can be confident that that's not just going to keep going up, as are other programs.
17:05And we have other needs in national security.
17:09Missile defense is a huge one.
17:10The president has his Golden Dome thought.
17:12But even outside of that, we clearly have needs in the area of missile defense.
17:18We have needs to increase our basic munitions and missiles as well.
17:22Autonomous systems, we all agree, are crucial.
17:25We do not make enough of them in the United States.
17:27No one can really disagree with that fundamental point.
17:31And shipbuilding.
17:32We're way over budget on every single shipbuilding contract we have.
17:35And everyone in this committee, not everyone, most everyone in this committee,
17:38seems to think that we need a lot more ships.
17:40It doesn't add up in any realistic way.
17:44So I think overall what Mr. Garamendi is asking for us to do here is to do a nuclear posture review,
17:52to go back and take a look at, in light of all of those expensive,
17:55in light of all the cost overruns on all of these programs,
18:00is there some way we can meet our national security needs without going completely and totally bankrupt?
18:06It is a question that should be asked and analyzed.
18:09And I think these three amendments, if passed, would put us in a position to force that conversation.
18:15And to be ecumenical about it, it has been a bipartisan case of wanting to just close our eyes
18:21and shut off our ears and pretend that this isn't happening.
18:25Administration after administration has punted on this issue.
18:28But we need to stop punting and address the costs.
18:32And I think all three of Mr. Garamendi's amendments do that.
18:35And I urge support.
18:37And good news at the close here, that means that I don't have to speak on the other two.
18:41So I'm done and I yield back.
18:44Gentleman yields back.
18:45Does any other member seek recognition on Mr. Garamendi?
18:50Mr. Bacon is recognized.
18:52Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18:53My first chairman, when I got elected in 2017, said every time the gentleman from California talks about nukes,
18:59I have the task of responding.
19:00I've not been relieved of that yet.
19:02So I'm going to respond to both just real briefly.
19:04First of all, I would agree the Air Force needs to do better on this.
19:07They're going to have to get their act together on fielding this.
19:10It is costly, though.
19:11You've got to replace the launch control, build a new launch control facility and a silo.
19:15We haven't done that since the Peacekeeper missile.
19:17So they've lost a little bit of that expertise.
19:21The Minuteman III was put in in 1970.
19:23It's 55 years old.
19:24It cannot be extended.
19:25We've had multiple studies look at it.
19:27It is at the end of its life.
19:29And so we have to accept the fact that we're going to have to transition the Minuteman III to the Sentinel.
19:36I would also point out that the ICBMs, once they're installed, are the cheapest to maintain.
19:42And they have the highest readiness rates.
19:44They typically sit at 95% readiness.
19:48And that's what you need for deterrence.
19:49And no one's going to want to pick a fight with America if you've got 400 ICBMs.
19:53In every study I've seen, to take them out, you have to put two warheads on each missile or each silo.
20:01That is hard to do, and it makes it very hard for anybody to target our nuclear forces effectively.
20:07So I think the ICBMs are needed for deterrence for the long haul.
20:12Well, Russia has a nuclear force matching ours right now and is more modernized as we speak.
20:17And China is building a nuclear force to match ours.
20:20So I think we need this as much as we ever have.
20:24I yield.
20:26Gentleman yields back.
20:27Does anybody?
20:28Gentleman from Massachusetts.
20:30Mr. Moulton is recognized.
20:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20:33I want to associate myself with Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Smith's concerns because this program has been vastly over budget, has run into a lot of problems, and the Air Force is not doing a good enough job.
20:48But I also want to associate myself with my Nebraska colleague, Mr. Bacon's remarks about the foundational importance of the Sentinel.
20:59It is time that we replace it.
21:01It does save taxpayer dollars in the long run.
21:04It's why there has been bipartisan support for this program.
21:08And more fundamentally, it forms the foundation of our strategic defense.
21:15And I want to make that point, Mr. Garamendi, right now because it will become relevant when my amendment comes up as well.
21:23It's a very important point that we keep in mind and don't suddenly forget when we're four amendments down the road.
21:30So, at the end of the day, this strategic deterrent is important to keeping us safe and has been important for 70 years.
21:42I'm a big fan of Secretary Mattis.
21:45General Mattis didn't agree with everything he did, but he was my division commander in the Marines.
21:50And I know that he actually came into the Secretary of Defense office hoping to be able to get rid of the ground-based deterrent leg of our triad.
22:00He knows it's very expensive, as Mr. Garamendi says.
22:03He knows that it needed to be replaced.
22:05And he said, wouldn't it be convenient for our budget and our security if we could do away with it?
22:10But he commissioned that study, and it came to the same conclusion as studies under Democratic and Republican presidents before and since,
22:18which is that this ground-based leg is important.
22:22And so that's why, as a ranking member on strategic forces, I respectfully disagree with my colleague from California.
22:30And appreciate Mr. Bacon's remarks about how important this is.
22:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22:36I yield back.
22:37Gentleman yields back.
22:38Does any other member seek recognition on Mr. Garamendi's amendment?
22:41Seeing none, no further debate on the question occurs.
22:46The question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Garamendi.
22:50So many who are in favor will say aye.
22:52Aye.
22:52Those opposed, no.
22:53No.
22:54Opinioned, Chair, the no's have it.
22:56The recorded vote is requested.
22:57Recorded vote is postponed.
22:58The recorded vote is postponed.
Be the first to comment