Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding time.
I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2740, the four-bill fiscal 2020 appropriations package that includes the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
As ranking member of that subcommittee, I know there are several bipartisan priorities in the bill, but, unfortunately, the overall four-bill package is too flawed for me to be able to support it at this time.
First and foremost, these bills were developed using top-line funding levels that do not reflect a bipartisan, bicameral agreement.
The reality is that we are dealing with monopoly money here, and we all know that. These will not be the final numbers that come out whenever we reach an agreement.
The majority's budget framework also promotes the misguided notion that increases to defense spending must be matched or exceeded by increases in nondefense spending.
In the Energy and Water bill specifically, a bill that was roughly half defense and half nondefense spending in fiscal year 2019, the increase for nondefense programs is more than 1\1/2\ times the increase for defense programs.
While I support many of the nondefense programs in this bill, we need to know the broader budgetary context before we can decide whether individual programs are funded appropriately.
We must work together with the Senate and the White House and develop an agreement on overall spending caps. Only then can we write bills that can be passed by both Chambers and that the President will sign.
Speaking of the Energy and Water bill specifically, one of my highest priorities in this bill is the Department of Energy's nuclear energy program. The bill includes many good investments within that account, but, overall, the account is kept essentially flat from last year.
This decision is a bit perplexing. The bill's allocation is well above last year's, and the majority has stated an intent to focus on technologies to address climate change.
The subcommittee held several hearings, at which Members of both parties and witnesses discussed the necessity of advanced nuclear technologies in any kind of low-carbon energy future, yet the nuclear energy program does not share in the funding increases provided for almost all of the other nondefense programs. I am hopeful that, as the bill moves forward, we can address this issue and create a stronger bill.
The bill continues significant investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure, including harbor maintenance activities.
Unfortunately, while the majority included additional funding for critical water storage projects, they also decided not to allow previous appropriated dollars to be put to good use.
The exclusion of the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project amounts to throwing away a key opportunity to enhance water security in the drought-prone West.
The full House should have been allowed to consider the Calvert amendment to correct this problem in the bill.
While the majority has referred to funding increases for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the truth is the bill does not sufficiently prioritize activities to maintain and modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile.
The Weapons Activities program is $648 million below the budget request. That is more than half a billion dollars below the budget request. As detailed in the Statement of Administration Policy, these cuts to the budget request will delay efforts to improve safety and security features and disrupt alignment with the Department of Defense's plans.
Since this delay typically leads to increases, reduced spending does not actually save money; it costs money. We must make the investments necessary to invest in a safe, reliable, and effective stockpile.
Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not include any funding to advance the Yucca Mountain licensing application process and, instead, offers a false promise of interim storage as a solution to the nuclear waste issue.
Funding for interim storage alone cannot solve the issue of nuclear waste disposal, especially since current law strictly limits Federal action in this area.
Additionally, interim storage locations will be much more difficult to site if there are no assurances of a permanent disposal, as the interim sites would become de facto permanent sites.
The Governor of New Mexico recently raised this very point in expressing her concerns about a private interim storage site proposed to be located in her State.
Continuing the licensing process is a necessary step to establish a permanent repository for our Nation's defense and commercial nuclear waste.
Over the past few decades, electricity consumers across the country have paid roughly $41 billion, with accrued interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Due to the political decision to halt advancement of a permanent repository, however, it is the taxpayers--not ratepayers but taxpayers--in all 435 congressional districts who currently are paying $2.2 million a day, more than $800 million per year, to cover the cost of temporary onsite storage.
My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) filed an amendment to address this, but it was not allowed. We have had strong bipartisan support in the past for this issue.
Despite our disagreements over the issues that I have mentioned, I want to close by thanking Chairwoman Kaptur and the majority staff and my staff for their dedication and hard work on this bill.
Ms. Kaptur and I have worked together on the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee for several years now; and, while we don't agree on every issue, I value our friendship and continue to appreciate the collegial and cooperative tradition of the subcommittee.
I would also like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger of the full committee for their leadership and support for the important programs in the Energy and Water bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source