Republicans in Congress voted overwhelmingly to fund research into a new bomber that is capable of dropping a nuclear bomb. This bomber would become operational by the 2020s. This should go without saying, but we as a nation don't need a nuclear capable bomber, because the U.S. has had ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles, since 1959.
That's right, we are building a bomber capability, whose one of its' purposes is to slowly (compared to a missile) fly over and drop a nuclear bomb (while risking being shot down) when we can send a missile, in case we ever have to nuke someone. A missile that takes about half an hour to go around the world. This would be like if we funded a horse regiment in WWII, to fight German Panzer tanks, but give those soldiers bows and arrows instead of rifles and bazookas.
Yes, this stealth bomber would have been a much better bomber to drop a nuclear payload than any bomber we had in the 1950s, no question, but ICBMs made any bomber to drop nuclear weapons obsolete. This is an example when Republicans talk about being "tough on defense", when they really mean, "pay back all the defense contractors who gave us contributions."
We might need a new bomber for conventional weapons, but obviously not nukes. Republicans say they care about cutting spending, well, here is a place to start.