Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Before I review the details of the bill, I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his leadership and unwavering commitment to the appropriations process. Our committee is back on track to bring 12 bills through the committee markup and before the full House for the second year in a row.
I would also like to thank Ranking Members Lowey and Kaptur. As always, their thoughtful approach to the issues have made this a better bill, even though I was disappointed that the gentlewoman from New York, who is my friend, said she didn't like the Energy and Water bill just now.
The Energy and Water bill totals $44.7 billion, which is $1.5 billion more than last year's level and $8.2 billion above the budget request.
Increases over last year were targeted to those areas where they are needed most: to provide for our Nation's defense and to support our Nation's infrastructure.
The bill provides a total of $15.3 billion for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons security programs, including Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, a $644 million increase above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level and $222 million above the President's budget request
It aligns with the administration's Nuclear Posture Review and calls for continuing to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to meet the challenges of a changing security environment, revitalizing our nuclear complex, and supporting effective arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
Additionally, the bill provides for funding increases across the Department of Energy to defend against cyber attacks and within the administration's new Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response Office to strengthen energy-sector cybersecurity preparedness, response, and recovery.
The bill includes strong funding for the Army Corps of Engineers-- $451 million more than last year and $2.5 billion more than the budget request. This is to address our Nation's critical infrastructure needs.
Harbor maintenance activities are funded at $1.6 billion, which is $200 million more than the fiscal year 2018 appropriation. The level exceeds the WRDA annual target by $160 million and represents--and I am proud of this--95 percent of the estimated revenue.
Basic science research and applied energy research and development programs at the Department of Energy, including Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, the Office of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and ARPA-E, are strongly supported in this bill. Taken together, these programs advance the all-of-the-above energy strategy that will support a strong national economy well into the future.
Finally, the bill sends a clear message that it is time to address the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and finish the Yucca Mountain license application, with $220 million going to the Department of Energy and $47.7 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We simply cannot wait any longer to finish the license application process and proceed to construction and operation of the permanent repository.
This is a strong bill that incorporates priorities and interests of all Members of the House. In fact, this bill addresses, in full or in part, 94 percent of the more than 3,000 separate requests that we received from Members. I urge my colleagues to support this.
Before I end, I would like to say and emphasize what the chairman said. These bills would not be possible without the strong work and the competent work of the staff of the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, both minority and majority, and also from our personal offices. They do a great job trying to address the concerns of individual Members and the requests of individual Members. We wouldn't be able to do this without the strong work they do, and I thank them for that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) for the purpose of a colloquy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate my colleague's support for the cleanup activities of the Department of Energy.
The bill provides $62 million for the cleanup at DOE's nondefense small sites, $7.1 million above the budget request. Within that, funding for the Moab uranium mill tailings site is available at $42 million. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman from Utah on expediting cleanup of the site and appreciate his support for the underlying legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I understand the Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study is of great importance to my colleague from New York as well as other Members from the Great Lakes region. I would like to note that the underlying bill includes funding and authority for new studies, including a multipurpose study like the Great Lakes study.
I also remind my colleagues that the amendment increases the funding level of an account. It does not direct the funding to any particular activity. For that reason and because the amendment does not constitute a major shift in funding between accounts, I would not oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), if she has any comments to make.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I want to assure my colleague that when the Appropriations Committee develops its bills it takes into consideration the requests and priorities of Members of the House. Funding levels in the underlying bill reflect those requests, including those requests from the gentleman from Louisiana.
Specifically, funding above the budget request for construction of navigation projects totals $625 million, an increase of $176 million above fiscal year 2018.
Additional funding for operation and maintenance of inland navigation projects is at $50 million, an increase of $20 million above last year's additional funding level.
While we can't specify funding for any particular project, we have worked hard to ensure significant funding for which projects not in the budget request can compete.
I would be happy to continue working with my colleague from Louisiana to ensure significant funding for the critical water resources infrastructure work of the Corps of Engineers, and I thank him for his willingness to withdraw the amendment.
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 am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I can certainly understand my colleague's interest in this issue, and I agree that there are certain circumstances where the Corps should consider more than just commercial tonnage using a waterway when allocating funding. In fact, a report accompanying the bill directs the Corps to consider several criteria other than just tonnage.
Since the amendment does not upset the balance of priorities within the bill nor direct funds to any particular project or activity, I will not oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Yes, it is true that this was written in 1977. The law has stayed the same since 1977. That doesn't mean that the interpretation of the law by agencies has been the same since then, and that interpretation has changed over time.
In recent years, the Corps and the EPA have changed the implementation of these provisions to significantly reduce the application of the statutory exemptions. This language in the underlying bill is intended to get us back to the original intent of the law. That is all it is meant to do is get back to the original intent of the law.
If the gentleman is correct and they are interpreting the law the same as they have for 40 years, then this wouldn't be necessary. But the fact is that is not the case. They have been changing the way they implement this law. This is meant to get us back to the original intent, and, therefore, I must oppose the amendment that would strike this language.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I understand the gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for projects such as the one important to his district and his constituents.
I would note that the underlying bill includes a total of $379 million above the budget request for various types of projects that may have public health benefits. Since the amendment before us does not upset the balance of priorities within the bill nor direct funds to any particular project or activity, I would not oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I understand that the gentlewoman seeks to show support for additional funding for water research and development activities that are important to her district and to the country.
I would just like to clarify that the amendment does not direct funds to any particular activities. For that reason and because it does not upset the balance within the bill, I will not oppose the amendment.
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 am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for fish screen projects important to his district and his constituents. I would simply note that this account is one where we historically have given the administration, Republican or Democratic, great flexibility in allocating the funds. If there is widespread interest, we should take a comprehensive look at funding levels within the program, not just adjust funding levels in one activity.
Since the amendment does not direct funds to a specific activity and because it does not upset the balance of the bill, I will not oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for research and development in the Water Power Technologies Office. He is a strong advocate in his State for research in this important work.
Although I could not support the original amendment, I would appreciate it if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw it and instead work together as we move toward conference to discuss efficient funding for the Water Power Technologies Office.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, similar to the previous amendment, I appreciate my colleague's passion for this important research and development and work done in the Water Power Technologies Office. They are each strong advocates, and I recognize their leadership in their States for this important work.
Although I could not support this amendment, I would again make the offer that, if the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, I would work with her and others to make sure that we have sufficient funding for the Water Power Technologies Office when we go to conference.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's advocacy for the Advanced Manufacturing Office within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account.
The Advanced Manufacturing Office performs research and development to improve the productivity and energy efficiency of U.S. manufacturing. This is important work, and I recognize my colleague's leadership in highlighting the office.
While I could not support using the Nuclear Waste Disposal account as an offset for the original amendment, I would appreciate my colleague's willingness to offer to withdraw this amendment. I look forward to working with my colleague as we move forward toward conference to discuss sufficient funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this bill includes $84 million for research and development on wind energy within the EERE account. That is more than $53 million higher than the budget request--$53 million higher than the budget request.
Research and development in the wind office was targeted to support our Nation's wind turbine testing infrastructure and advanced solutions to wind energy challenges. This is a strategic focus to lay the foundation for technological innovations that can be picked up by industry at a later stage.
While I support research and development on wind energy and recognize my colleague's advocacy for these activities, focusing funds on job training grants strays too far from the bill's strategic priorities. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and gentlewoman's passion for this.
I have to oppose the amendment at this time but look forward to working with the gentlewoman to try to address this issue as we move forward in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his amendment and for his willingness to withdraw it and for the authorizer's strong support for this bill.
I recognize the House-passed authorization for the versatile neutron source is a priority of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and also of me.
I appreciate my colleague's highlighting these priorities, and I look forward to working with him as we move into conference to ensure these priorities have sufficient funding in the final legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the Science Committee for his amendment and for the authorizers' strong support for this bill. I recognize the House-passed authorizations for DOE research, infrastructure construction and facilities upgrades, and the low dose radiation research are priorities of the Science Committee.
I appreciate the chairman highlighting these priorities and I look forward to working with him as we move to conference to ensure these projects receive sufficient funding.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source