BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I thank subcommittee Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, and full committee Chairman Rogers for their work on this bill.
The House Republican ``work harder for less'' budget resolution was opposed by every Member on my side of the aisle in part because it makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12 appropriations bills to grow our economy and give hard-working Americans the opportunity to succeed.
Democrats much preferred the approach taken by the President, calling for an end to the sequester and more reasonable and realistic budgeting that could help families afford college, a home, and a secure retirement.
The proposed funding level for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is dismal and would curtail innovation in clean and renewable energy and make us less competitive. This type of investment grows our economy and provides opportunity to hard-working Americans. But under the Republican proposal, funding would be slashed by $266 million compared to the 2015 level.
A number of other areas fall far short of the President's proposal, including $82.6 million less to modernize and secure the electric grid and $240 million less for scientific research critical to addressing long-term energy needs.
These levels are above the current enacted levels; but by failing to address sequestration, the majority is missing an opportunity to further invest in critical initiatives that create jobs and make American families more secure.
Given the difficulty in resolving funding disputes, I am deeply disappointed that the majority also, once again, needlessly included controversial policy riders.
An annual appropriations bill is not the place to make sweeping changes to environmental protection or gun laws.
Despite the fact that it streamlines existing activities to protect 2.8 million ocean industry jobs and $282 billion in GDP generated by ocean industries in coastal States, the National Ocean Policy would be blocked. I do not understand how any public good is served by thwarting efficiency measures that bring together the best ecological, economic, and stakeholder-driven data.
There are egregious attacks on the Clean Water Act, including locking in place a state of confusion about the scope of pollution control programs and sacrificing water quality for small streams and wetlands that contribute to the drinking water of one in three Americans.
I should not have to remind my majority colleagues that similar provisions have imperiled this bill in the past. The administration is, once again, on record with veto threats of nearly identical language, and leading environmental groups have stated that these and other riders are bad policies that will put Americans' health and safety at risk.
I am truly amazed that the majority would willfully go down this path again. Despite the many shortcomings, there are positive aspects, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers. In its most recent report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. a D-plus and estimated that $2.6 trillion in investments are needed by 2020.
I am very grateful that Chairman Simpson included $142 million more than the current level and $865 million more than the President requested for the Army Corps.
While a number of priorities in the bill receive sufficient funding, due to major shortcomings, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT