On the recordJune 18, 2014
The President's budget requested $208.4 million for these Formerly Used Defense Sites. It is important to clean up these properties that have been used by the Department of Defense. May I say, our bill already provides $25 million for the cleanup of such sites over the President's request, so the administration isn't looking for any more money. While I sympathize with the gentleman's amendment, I cannot support his offset. I understand that his amendment intends to eliminate funding for the long-range standoff weapon, this cruise missile. This program will provide a new air-launched cruise missile to replace a rapidly aging AGM-86. This is essential to our strategic deterrent and our ability to hold enemy targets at risk from standoff distances. The Air Force requested $4.9 million for the program in fiscal year 2015 to continue studies and analysis in preparation for a formal acquisition program. This bill already takes a fiscally responsible $1.5 million cut from that amount. In a year of tight budget, the additional funding the committee has already provided for the cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites will accelerate the cleanup of the sites and reduce the long-term government liability, which is important. While I appreciate the gentleman's intent, I cannot support a cut that would eliminate a critical element of our military's future arsenal, so I oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
