Hearing of the House Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee - FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations

Hearing

Before we begin, I would like to officially welcome our newest Subcommittee Member, Ms.
Granger and congratulate Mr. Fleischmann on his selection as Vice Chair of this Subcommittee.

We are the first bill to go to markup this year. It has been an aggressive schedule. I appreciate your
participation during hearings and all the hard work that each of you have put into this product. I
think that as you look at the bill and report, you will see that it reflects your input.

I would also like to especially thank my Ranking Member. We have even worked through snow
days to keep this process on track and I thank you for your hard work and dedication.
We are also fortunate to have strong leadership in our Full Committee Chairman and Ranking
Member -- your keen understanding of the important work that is done in this bill -- and your
support of it -- are invaluable.

The recommendation totals $35.4 billion, which is $1.2 billion above last year's level and $633
million below the request.

The recommendation provides strong support for defense programs. Weapons is funded at $8.7
billion which is $526 million more than last year. This increase will support full funding for
stockpile life extension programs and includes an additional $100 million above the request to
address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and physical security projects. The
recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1.3 billion, an increase of $86 million, and includes full
funding for the OHIO Class replacement submarine.

Nonproliferation is funded at $1.9 billion, which is $291 million more than fiscal year 2015.
Environmental cleanup programs, at $5.9 billion are funded at $39 million above fiscal year 2015
and $92 million above the request. The recommendation includes $625 million for cleanup at the
uranium enrichment sites, with additional funding provided above the request to sustain ongoing
cleanup levels at Portsmouth.

Within energy programs, the recommendation rebalances the portfolio to provide greater emphasis
on improving the efficiency of energy sources that we're using today and into the future. Especially
with greater regulation pressures on our coal and nuclear plants, it's incumbent upon us to provide
support to help keep electricity costs manageable for our ratepayers while helping industry cope
with these dramatic and challenging regulatory actions.

This bill includes $936 million for Nuclear Energy, which is $23 million more than last year's
program level and $605 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development, an increase of $34
million above last year.

Funding for Basic Science Research is $5.1 billion, a small increase over last year's level. Within
this, funding for fusion energy is maintained at $317 million, restoring the cuts proposed by the
Administration.

The recommendation increases funding for the activities of the Army Corps of Engineers by $142
million above last year, and $865 million above the request.

I want to restate that -- $865 million above the request. I simply cannot understand why - when this
Administration was proposing increases for so many activities - $800 million more for renewable
energy as an example -- the request proposed to cut the Corps by $750 million. To make up for this
irresponsible request for the Corps, the recommendation provides unallocated program lines of $880
million, with $332 million going to flood control projects and $486 million providing much needed
support for our ports and inland navigation system.

This recommendation also makes use of all annual revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
for a total of $340 million.

Harbor Maintenance activities are funded at almost $1.2 billion, an increase of $263 million above
the request.

Finally, the recommendation includes strong support for getting the Yucca Mountain license
application finished up, with $150 million going to the Department of Energy and $50 million to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

These are some of the highlights of the recommendation.

I'd like to turn to Ms. Kaptur for any comments she may have.

Source