Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am deeply familiar with our nuclear forces. In this case, we are talking about the long-range standoff weapon, LRSO, which is the follow-on replacement for the existing air-launched cruise missile, or ALCM.

The fleet of existing ALCMs are old and their reliability is declining. We have heard directly from the U.S. Strategic Command that they are well past their service life and have military effectiveness concerns. Projected adversary air defense improvements will impact its effectiveness even more. And this is a weapons system we are planning to sustain until 2030.

We need to start development of the nuclear warhead for the LRSO next year to meet the 2030 deployment date. The funding that this amendment seeks to eliminate is critical to getting this effort started and on-track.

The disarm-America crowd will say there is no military requirement for this weapon. On the contrary, I have here a letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for acquisitions, technology, and logistics, stating: ``The Department of Defense has established a military requirement for a nuclear capable standoff cruise missile for the bomber leg of the U.S. triad.''

There is a clear military requirement for LRSO. Preserving long-range cruise missile capability is a critical component of the U.S. strategic and extended deterrence strategies. Gravity bombs and conventional weapons cannot provide the same deterrence and defense effects. There is a clear national security imperative for LRSO.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source