Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a balanced bill. It makes important investments in our Nation's nuclear defense capabilities, as well as the water infrastructure and energy resources that keep the economy moving. It does so in a fiscally sound manner, finding ways to save taxpayer dollars wherever possible.

First and foremost, this legislation prioritizes national security by increasing funding for nuclear weapons programs above last year's level to support the safety and readiness of our nuclear stockpiles. Maintaining this Nation's nuclear deterrence posture remains critical to our safety, particularly during a time of global instability and increasing risks of future nuclear threats.

Next, this bill includes investments in our water infrastructure that will also help grow our economy, facilitate trade and commerce, and ensure the well-being of the Nation. Recognizing the importance of what the Army Corps of Engineers does, we have rejected the administration's proposed cuts to these programs, providing nearly $1 billion more than requested and $25 million above last year's levels. That funding will allow the Corps to continue its important work performing flood mitigation, updating dam safety, and improving our waterways to facilitate increased import and export capability.

Within the Department of Energy, the bill prioritizes funding for programs that encourage economic competitiveness and energy independence and that help promote an all-of-the-above solution to the Nation's energy needs. By making sound investments in coal, natural gas, and other fossil energy sources, we are moving our Nation closer to a balanced energy portfolio, as well as keeping down energy costs for hardworking Americans across the country.

To make these important investments, the bill targets lower priority programs for cuts. For example, renewable energy programs with the Department of Energy are cut by $113 million from last year's levels. By implementing these types of savings and including stringent oversight requirements for the DOE, the Army Corps, and other Federal agencies, we have produced a bill that will support economic growth and security, while encouraging the government to act with greater efficiency.

The legislation also puts the brakes on the administration's destructive and misguided regulatory agenda that threatens our Nation's small businesses and other industries. For example, within this bill, we have included a provision prohibiting the unnecessary expansion of Federal jurisdiction over our Nation's waterways.

At one of the subcommittee's many hearings about the Federal budget just a few weeks ago, the Assistant Secretary for the Corps could not provide clear answers as to how much these regulations would cost the American taxpayer, how many man-hours it would take to implement, and how such a change would affect this struggling economy. Since the Corps plainly has no idea what it is doing with this rule, it would be irresponsible, if not disastrous, to allow such a change to move forward.

The bill also stops the administration from changing the definition of ``fill material,'' an action that could drastically alter Federal regulations and could effectively shut down coal and other mining operations throughout the country. While this proposal is very troubling on many levels, I am most concerned about the unknown costs of this large-scale, invasive change. This is the type of overzealous, unneeded regulation that will harm, not help, the economy in this very sensitive time.

Madam Chairwoman, before I close, I want to thank Chairman Simpson--this is his maiden voyage as chair of this subcommittee--and Ranking Member Kaptur and all of the subcommittee and the staff for their hard work on the bill, and I want to commend Chairman Simpson for a job well done on his first bill as chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

This is a good bill. It reflects smart budget decisions to invest tax dollars in effective, necessary programs that will help keep our Nation safe and our economy growing. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the chairman.

Madam Chair, yesterday, we received a letter and white paper from the Chief of Naval Operations and the Director of the Naval Reactors program. I will include these documents and statement for the Record that I will be submitting shortly.

This eight-star letter from our Nation's most senior naval officer makes clear that the cuts made to the Naval Reactors' budget request over the last 4 years are endangering the safety and reliability of the Navy's nuclear fleet.

With the 12 percent reduction proposed by the bill before us today, Naval Reactors will have taken over $600 million in cuts over 5 years.

The letter from the admiral is clear:

The persistent cuts have put Naval Reactors in the position of being unable to provide for a safe and reliable nuclear fleet, to design and test the nuclear reactor plant for the Ohio replacement program, and to safely and responsibly manage the aging infrastructure and the facilities for processing naval spent nuclear fuel. This approach is no longer sustainable.

Naval Reactors is a critical defense priority contained in this much larger appropriations bill. I share the admiral's concern that, if sustained, these reductions will endanger national security and the Naval Reactors' unparalleled 60-year record of safe and reliable nuclear operations.

I urge the gentleman from Idaho to review these proposed reductions and their impacts as this bill progresses and to restore the Naval Reactors' funding to the budget request level in a conference or in a potential continuing resolution.

I and my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee stand ready to support these efforts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source