On the recordJune 18, 2014
First let me point out that this is a minuscule sum. I have pointed out that we have the capacity with the current plans to be able to deal past 2030, so this is not an urgent effect. We have a chance to sort it out and see if it truly is a priority. I respect the gentleman's point about--I think he is sincere in wanting to clear up these Formerly Used Defense Sites, but the amount in the budget is $50 million less than we had in fiscal year 2014 and is less than we enacted in fiscal year 2013. At the current rate of funding, the Pentagon estimates that it will take 250 years to clean up the backlog of dealing with the military contamination and unexploded ordnance. That is unacceptable. In a defense budget of this magnitude, we can and should be doing more. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. It is not nearly adequate, and we certainly don't need to launch down this other path that may lead to dramatic unnecessary spending in the future. I respectfully urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
