Press Releases

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett Supports Visionary Defense Bill with Nuclear Propulsion for Future Naval Warships

Washington, Dec 11, 2007 -

Statement of Ranking Member Roscoe Bartlett

Seapower & Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee

Committee on Armed Services

Floor Statement for General Debate on the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act

December 12, 2007

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor, Chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, for his collaboration and profound concern for the safety of our service members and the security of the United States.

Further, I would like to recognize our Chairman, Ike Skelton and our Ranking Member, Duncan Hunter, for their continued leadership and support. This bill contains farsighted provisions, which I believe are critical to this nation’s future security – none of which would have been possible without the steadfast advocacy of Ike and Duncan.

I also want to recognize the superb staff without whom this bill would not be possible.

There are a handful of provisions in every annual defense policy bill that stand apart – in terms of their beneficial impact. This conference report is no different. I want to single out what I believe is the most strategic, visionary provision for our Navy. This year, the Congress has clearly established it is the policy of the United States to utilize nuclear propulsion for major naval combatants. It is a vital step to secure our nation’s national and energy security.

Nuclear propulsion for naval ships is the right thing to do from economic, combat effectiveness, homeland defense, and energy policy perspectives. Without Congressional action, budgetary pressures would forever prevent the Navy from making this farsighted commitment to its own future.

Studies have consistently shown that life-cycle and operational costs are lower for nuclear propulsion in large combatant vessels, such as cruisers. The most recent Navy study shows that the breakeven-cost for a nuclear fueled cruiser is $60 per barrel oil. The price of oil this fall has been over $90 per barrel. What’s more, the National Petroleum Council projects future shortfalls in the supply of oil to meet growing world demand through 2030.

The Navy’s study didn’t address operational improvements associated with nuclear propulsion or other costs associated with continued dependence upon imported oil. However, last spring, the DoD Office of Force Transformation and Resources, commissioned LMI, a government - consulting firm, to produce a report called "Transforming the Way DoD Looks at Energy." It found that the risks associated with oil will make the US military's ability to rapidly deploy on demand "unsustainable in the long term." It said it is "imperative" that DoD "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations."

Congress has responded. As recently as last year’s defense bill, Congress found that the nation's dependence upon foreign oil is a threat to national security and that other energy sources must be seriously considered. It noted the advantages of nuclear power, such as virtually unlimited high-speed endurance; elimination of vulnerable refueling; and a reduction in the requirement for replenishment vessels and the need to protect those vessels. Congress directed the Secretary of the Navy to evaluate integrated power systems, fuel cells, and nuclear power as propulsion alternatives within the analysis of alternatives for future major surface combatants.

The Navy is conducting such an analysis for the next generation cruiser. However, in hearings this year our subcommittee saw no evidence that the Department of Defense was seriously willing to consider making the investments required to enable that future. Quite simply, the conferees decided that we could waste no further time because these investments must begin to be made next year for the CG(X) next generation cruiser. Therefore, this conference report requires integrated nuclear propulsion for future major combatants, unless the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that nuclear power in such ships would not be in the national interest.

This conference report reflects a fair and balanced treatment of the remaining issues facing the United States Navy and Marine Corps. I am very pleased that we fund additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, or MRAPs, to protect our troops against IEDs.

I remain concerned that our fleet is getting smaller. We simply cannot continue to maintain a healthy industrial base while buying fewer, increasingly unaffordable platforms, regardless of their individual capabilities. I am pleased we retained a House provision that would limit the practice of design and build concurrency, which has gotten so many other shipbuilding programs, such as LCS, into trouble.

Lastly, I urge my colleague’s full support of H.R .1585. This is a clean conference report that does not include social engineering provisions. Please show your support for our dedicated men and women in uniform by voting for H.R. 1585.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.