Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. 5055, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I actually support this amendment, and I don't think it was as drastic as was just characterized by the ranking member. The fact is you can still have oversight; you can still do what is necessary to make sure that contractors at various sites are doing their job; it doesn't mean that you just have to pay them no matter what.
The reality is that this administration, as we all know, is using its pen and phone to execute executive orders, and they are punishing the State of North Carolina because they don't like something that North Carolina did. It is in a court. And the Federal Government should not have the ability to come in and prejudge the outcome of that determination by the court by withholding funds from the State of North Carolina simply because it doesn't like what North Carolina did.
So this is a good amendment, and I compliment the gentleman for bringing it forward.
We have got numerous provisions in this bill to stop the administration and their efforts to impose policies without regard to current law or the support of the Congress. I compliment the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's comments, and I respect the gentleman.
He mentioned many of the functions that are necessary for the government that we should be doing. The one he didn't mention was defending the security of the United States. That is one of the fundamental purposes of the Federal Government.
What this amendment would do is take money out of the program to continue the life extension program of the W80 warhead, the only cruise missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The gentleman says we don't need it now, so let's spend the money somewhere else; and if we need it next year, I guess we can just spend the money next year.
But you can't develop this, and you don't do these life-extension programs in just a year. These are long-term investments. The life extension program will replace the nonnuclear and other components to support the Air Force's plan to develop the long-range standoff cruise missile, or the LRSO. If the gentleman believes the LRSO is not necessary, I would point him at the Air Force, whose leadership has testified on numerous occasions before Congress that we need to sustain our nuclear capabilities and we need to make these investments.
We must do the work that is needed to extend the life of this warhead as long as there is a clear defense requirement for maintaining a nuclear cruise missile capability. While the LRSO is still at an early stage of development, these warheads are very complex, and there is a considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then. Performing development work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA to reduce technical risks and limit any cost growth by validating the military requirements at an early stage.
The gentleman's amendment will not stop the program but would only add additional risks into the schedule and raise the cost for modernizing the warhead down the line.
I should point out also that the gentleman's amendment also proposes to move defense funding to nondefense without any regard to the firewalls negotiated in previous budget deals.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment includes an emergency designation and, as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion with this and his obvious concern and interest. I will tell you that there is a great deal of support for what the gentleman is proposing.
Congressman Poe, Congressman Culberson, as well as Members on your side of the aisle, have talked to us repeatedly about the issues that you address here.
While this amendment is out of order, I will promise to the gentleman that we will work with him to try to address this problem of one of America's great cities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I understand the desire for an efficient and effective Federal Government with an appropriately sized workforce. In fact, if the gentleman has specific programs or offices that he believes are currently overstaffed, I would be happy to work with him to see if that is the case and to figure out a way to address any problems we may find; but this amendment doesn't look at specific details and make targeted reductions.
It requires the Department of Energy to furlough 5 percent of its employees on October 1. It doesn't allow the Department time to review whether it might need more people to carry out its national security responsibilities, for instance, or fewer people to carry out other programs whose work is ramping down or is being reduced by this bill. That is not good government. That is putting almost 800 people across the country out of work for no good reason.
The underlying bill, on the other hand, includes reasonable and targeted reductions to funding levels for the Department's administrative accounts. The departmental administration account was $36 million below the President's budget request in the bill that was brought to the floor, and amendments already passed by the House have resulted in further cuts to the departmental administration. Federal salaries and expenses for the National Nuclear Security Administration are $30 million below the President's request. The funding levels in this bill send a clear message about growth in the Federal workforce. Requiring an automatic 5 percent cut across the board is a step too far. As I said, it is not good government.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
I would also note that when the gentleman said that during the government shutdown, it furloughed 60-some-odd percent of its employees, remember, we are talking 16 days here, and these employees were labeled as ``nonessential.'' The same thing happened in Congress. At least I know in my office--and I would suspect in the gentleman's office--we had to declare which employees were nonessential. Those employees now work for me again and have been rehired. I would suspect they have been in the gentleman's office, too. Just because they were furloughed during a 16-day government shutdown doesn't mean they are, essentially, nonessential.
I don't think this is a well-thought-out amendment. I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's passion for the Office of Science. I am a strong supporter of the Office of Science and the work that they do.
As the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences, the Office of Science directs important research funding to the national laboratories and universities across this country. The EPSCoR program extends this even further by supporting research in areas where there has historically been less Federal funding.
The program has been successful in laying the foundation and in expanding research programs in the basic sciences across the Nation. Taking away this funding puts existing grants and partnerships in jeopardy at the many universities that receive EPSCoR grants. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge other Members to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's arguments. It sounds like we are back at the Constitutional Convention: Should we have the legislative branch of government be represented by the population, or should it be represented by the States? I know. Let's compromise. Let's have two bodies, one that represents the States with an equal number from each State, and one that represents the population. We will call one the House of Representatives, and we will call one the Senate. That is how it works out.
We are one Nation, and we try to make sure that funds go to all States. Some of them have a disadvantage just by the sheer size. And if you look at Idaho, we are the 12th largest State, and, I suspect, populationwise, we are down there substantially. Montana is probably even worse off than we are. So it is almost impossible for the universities and so forth to compete with some of the larger States.
So we can argue about whether the formulas are correct or absolutely correct or if they shouldn't be modified or anything else like that, and I am more than willing to do that, but to eliminate the program I think is just an entire mistake.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would object to waiving the reading.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concern. In fact, this is an issue we hear about from quite a few Members. The administration's insistence on budgeting on tonnage alone with no other consideration is shortsighted. That is why this bill provides additional funding specifically for small navigation projects, and the report encourages the administration to correct its budget criteria.
Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment would establish priority in funding for specific projects. That is not something I can support, particularly in light of the House prohibition on congressional earmarks.
I would urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment and instead continue to work with the committee to show the administration the importance of small navigation projects.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a hard one because I have to tell you, in all honesty, I agree with the gentleman. There are too many programs that are not authorized. Unfortunately, it is not the Committee on Appropriations' responsibility. It is the authorizing committees that haven't been doing their job.
It is not the EIA's fault that they are not reauthorized. It is that Congress has not done their job in reauthorizing them. As the gentleman has stated, there are many, many programs throughout. I think the whole Department of State is up for reauthorization and hasn't been reauthorized.
The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to do something about that. We have been debating and discussing how exactly you do that. We have had various proposals. In fact, members of our Conference are looking at it now. I know Mr. McClintock is very interested in doing this. We have talked about it several times. We are trying to find some way to force the authorizing committees to actually do their job and do the reauthorizations that are necessary.
But I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment proposes to eliminate funding for the Energy Information Administration, a semi- independent agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates impartial energy statistics and information to the Nation. The EIA performs essential work for understanding the electricity generation and energy consumption in the complex energy markets that make up our Nation. The EIA provides a statistical and informational service to the private sector that the private sector would not.
Eliminating this funding would immediately impact the ability to perform energy policy and would remove essential reports on the energy market. Eliminating the EIA would have virtually no effect on the total spending in this bill, but would negatively impact our ability to make energy policies.
I must oppose this amendment, although I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do. I would be willing to work with him and any others who are willing to work with a way to force the authorizing committees to do the authorizations that should be being redone or the reauthorizations that should being redone.
The reason things expire and the reason they need to be reauthorized is because you need to look to see if they are doing what we intended when we enacted them. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes they need be modified. Sometimes they need to be amended. But if we don't get back to reauthorizing them, that never happens, and that is our fault, Congress' fault.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just explain that this is something that I have been trying to find a solution to for a number of years. When I was chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee--this has been like 4 years ago--the Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized for 23 years at the time. It is like 27 years now that it has not been reauthorized. We brought down the Interior appropriation bill, and we put no money in it for endangered species listing or for critical habitat designation, and the intent was to force the Committee on Natural Resources to do a reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
The individual who was supporting me the most was the then-chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. Well, of course, we lost an amendment because nobody wants to eliminate all the funding for the Endangered Species Act. But the gentleman that supported me the most was the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, who had the ability and authority to go do a reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, but didn't do it. And it still hasn't been done.
It is frustrating. I want to work with anybody in this body that is willing to try to find a way to put pressure on the committees to do their job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first, let me assure my colleague that I understand her interest in addressing the flooding risks in her district in Houston.
Besides the fact that the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water bill includes a total of $13.3 million above the budget request for flood and storm damage reduction studies, the bill also allows for several new studies to be initiated, and the Corps could choose the study of interest to the gentlewoman as one of them.
Since this amendment does not change the funding levels within the bill, I do not oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first let me assure my colleague that I understand the issue prompting this amendment. Seeing our communities flood and our constituents struggling to deal with the aftermath of flooding, especially when there are projects already planned to prevent such flooding, can be extremely frustrating.
That is why the energy and water bills over the past several years have included significant funding above the budget request for the Corps of Engineers flood and storm damage reduction mission.
In fact, the fiscal year 2017 energy and water bill more than doubles the budget requested from the administration for construction of these projects. It is an increase of 113 percent, or $457 million.
More specifically, the bill includes $392 million in additional funding, for which the Houston area projects could compete. That amount is $82 million more than the amount provided in the fiscal year 2016 act.
Additionally, the committee report directs the Corps to consider the severity of risks of flooding or the frequency with which an area has experienced flooding when deciding how to allocate the additional funding provided. The bill provides strong support for addressing flood risks.
Because the amendment does not actually change funding levels and, so, does not upset the balance of priorities within this bill, I will not oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Getting back to the amendment, I would remind the gentleman offering the amendment, A, that this is not the tax committee, that any $10 tax on a barrel of oil would come out of the Ways and Means Committee. I don't see that coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, but it is not included in this bill.
The other thing that I would remind the gentleman of is there is no-- I repeat no--funding in this bill for the President's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, the mandatory funding that was proposed by the administration. There is no funding in this bill for it; so, this amendment does nothing. It strikes no funding because there is no funding in this bill.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that I don't want people who may be listening to this, other Members who may be listening to this, to get the impression that we are putting money in here for the Loan Guarantee Program.
There is no money in the underlying bill for the ATVM additional new loans. The only money in there is to administer the existing loans.
I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with the gentleman. I just don't want Members to think that we are putting money into the program when we are not.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. My colleague's amendment would prohibit the use of funds at the Department of Energy to propose efficiency standards for ceiling fan light kits, residential dishwashers, and vending machines.
Mr. Chairman, the law in question allows for executive overreach by prescribing what industry can and cannot sell and what consumers can and cannot buy. Industry has legitimate concerns about the government forcing a wholesale change to a market for something as common as a dishwasher. This amendment reins back this overreaching regulation, and I support this amendment and recommend my colleagues vote ``yes.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her consistency. She always has these amendments to cut 1 percent across the board out of the appropriations bills, and I appreciate her consistent work to protect the taxpayer dollars, but this is an approach that, frankly, I can't support.
While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that would never be enacted. This bill makes the tough choices within an allocation that adheres to current law.
You may not agree with current law, but it is the current law, and that is what we had to go with. Since there wasn't a budget resolution passed, what we ended up with is current law; and that is the allocation that we have, and that is what we stayed within.
I don't think the Appropriations Committee gets enough credit over the last several years for the work we have been doing in reducing Federal spending.
If you look at the total Federal budget and the amount of discretionary spending and mandatory spending, at one time it was about two-thirds discretionary spending and one-third mandatory spending 30 or 40 years ago. Then, about 5 years ago, it was one-third discretionary spending and two-thirds mandatory spending. That is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements.
Since we have taken control the last 5 years, that one-third of the budget that is discretionary spending is about 28 percent now. As it continues to go down in relationship to the entire budget, we cut discretionary spending more and more.
We have made difficult tradeoffs that had to be made in this bill to balance it with our needs. We prioritize funding for critical infrastructure and for our national defense. These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible. Yet the gentlewoman's amendment imposes an across-the-board cut on every one of these programs, even the national defense programs, which are vitally important.
This makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, and meet our national security needs, like meeting the Ohio-class submarine dates so that we can get the Ohio-class submarine done, so that we can do the refurbishment of our nuclear stockpile, so that we can do the other things that are important on the national defense side of this budget.
It makes no distinction between those and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
First, let me assure the gentleman that I understand his concerns and appreciate his passion for protecting his constituents. I agree with him that, if the floodway is required to be operated in a major flood event, the levee should be restored as soon as possible after the flood event. In fact, the committee report on this bill makes that very point.
Unfortunately, the amendment and the impacts of it are not clear. It is possible that the amendment would actually increase flood risks for other communities within the Mississippi River and tributaries project area.
Without understanding the effects of the amendment, I must oppose it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. My colleague's amendment would reduce multiple accounts in the bill.
This year, the committee continues its responsibility to effectively manage government spending, and we have worked tirelessly to that end. For example, the nuclear and fossil programs see modest increases in the bill to continue our commitment for an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Basic research conducted by the Office of Science is increased by less than 1 percent, to support research and operation efforts to advance research and development through university partnerships and at the Nation's national laboratory system.
Programs to clean up the legacy of the Manhattan Project and nuclear research also see minor increases in order to provide cleanup progress at sites across the country. These are targeted funds to produce needed investments to efficiently and safely utilize our natural resources, maintain the Nation's basic research infrastructure in the physical sciences, and continue the cleanup of Department of Energy legacy programs.
I understand my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government, but this amendment goes too far in reducing the strategic investments we need to make in our future.
I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me respond and tell the story again. We have already gone through this once tonight about authorizations. I don't think we should fund any program that isn't authorized. I don't think we should flat-fund it. I don't think we should fund it. But that is, unfortunately, what the Appropriations Committee ends up doing because the authorizing committees aren't doing their dang job. They are not getting out and reauthorizing the programs.
One year--and I will tell the story again. I will tell it again and again, I suspect, as we go through all of this--when I was chairman of the Interior Committee, because the Endangered Species Act at that time had not been reauthorized for 23 years, 23 years, I took all funding for listing of endangered species and designation of critical habitat out of the bill, zero funded it.
We brought the bill to the floor. The biggest supporter of my bill and opponent to the amendment to put funding in it for those purposes was the chairman of the Resources Committee. It is the Resources Committee's responsibility to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. But he supported my amendment.
And after all of that, guess what? They still haven't reauthorized the Endangered Species Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I agree with the gentlewoman. The burden should be on the authorizers, and they should do their job, and they should reauthorize the program.
I still haven't seen the reauthorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That was last year. I still haven't seen it. I haven't seen the reauthorizations for any of the programs. The whole State Department is unauthorized.
Where is the reauthorization?
What do you want us to do?
We would eliminate about two-thirds of the Federal Government. Now, some people might like that. But we would eliminate about two-thirds of the Federal Government if we just said we are not going to fund any of the Federal programs.
So, I mean, it is a debate that goes on.
I agree with Congressman McClintock. We have to find a way around this. We have to find a way to address the reauthorization issue without screwing up the whole appropriation process.
I think we can do that if reasonable people sit down and try to find a way around this. I actually think that every committee chairman ought to sit down with leadership at the start of a session and say: This is my 5-year plan, and these are all of the programs that are unauthorized under my jurisdiction. This is my 5-year plan to get them reauthorized.
They ought to follow through on that work plan.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source