Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from California, in that the rules of the House say we should not appropriate money for any unauthorized program.
Unfortunately, the authorizing committees have not reauthorized an awful lot of these programs throughout the government. In fact, a few years ago, I tried to reduce funding by eliminating any money for the endangered species listing because it was unauthorized for 26 years.
We lost on the floor on that, but his sentiment is absolutely correct, and we need to make sure the authorizing committees do their job.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the marine and hydrokinetic programs within the EERE account. I appreciate my colleague's passion for renewable energy programs. She has worked tirelessly to support efforts to advance American research and industry in this area.
This year's funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below last year and $528 million below the budget request. This is roughly equivalent to the fiscal year 2013 level presequester and is nearly $1 billion more than last year's House bill.
Funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy is focused on three main priorities: helping American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program, and addressing future high gas prices. This left limited funding for renewable energy programs for which funding is prioritized to support two main projects: an offshore wind demonstration project and an enhanced geothermal field test site.
Within the remaining resources, the recommendation provides $38.5 million for water power and accepts the budget request proposal for an almost even split between the conventional hydropower program and the marine and hydrokinetic technologies program. I support the water program, and I would be happy to work with my friend in the event the EERE account receives additional funding in conference, but we simply cannot afford to increase these activities in this bill by diverting funds from inherently Federal responsibilities. While I am supportive of reducing the size of government, this amendment would reduce funding that supports 64 people within the Department of Administration. I must therefore reluctantly oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability by $20 million using funds from the departmental administration account as an offset.
The President's budget request proposes to increase the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability from $147 million to $180 million, a 22 percent increase, which the amendment would achieve. Instead, the bill before us provides a balanced increase of $13 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 9 percent above the fiscal year 2014 level. Put another way, that is a larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in this bill. The underlying bill is a larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in this bill.
The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keeps our electricity grid safe and secure. To that end, the bill provides $47 million to protect the energy sector's critical infrastructure against the ever-present threats of cyber attack and $16 million for infrastructure security, including $8 million for a strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies.
While I support the program championed by my colleagues, we must and have to abide by our allocation, and we simply cannot afford additional increases to the OE program by diverting funds from other Federal responsibilities. It is a choice that we have had to make as we balance this bill. As I said, this has the largest percentage increase--9 percent--of any other programs within this area of the budget. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's references from the Bible in her debate. It is always interesting.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would reduce funding for the fossil energy account by $31 million in favor of deficit reduction.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide for 82 percent of the energy used by this Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. That is 82 percent.
The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil energy, particularly with drastic cuts to the coal program, which is reduced by 29 percent under the budget request, and, instead, funds these programs at $593 million, $31 million above last year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will research how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently used in water plants, and how coal can be used to produce electricity, electric power, through fuel cells.
This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. In fact, if we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants, as I have said before during this debate, if we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1 percent--by just 1 percent--we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. That is the research we are focusing on with funding this program.
We all know that American families and businesses have struggled with high energy prices, and the fossil energy research program holds the potential once and for all to prevent future high prices and substantially increase our energy security.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gen tle lady's passion with which she speaks about that, and I understand it, but when she says the failed Yucca Mountain policy, I have to remind her that Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. The policy of Yucca Mountain has not failed, and Yucca Mountain has not failed.
What happened is that someone running for the Presidency of the United States needed four electoral votes--or five or however many it was--in Nevada, so he promised the citizens of Nevada that he would shut down Yucca Mountain, regardless of what the law said, and that is what happened.
We can argue as to whether Yucca Mountain is the right place or not. I think there have been 52 or 53 studies done on Yucca Mountain. It is the most studied piece of earth on this Earth. We know more about it than anywhere else; yet, for political reasons, we have stopped it, and it will truly be a $15 billion waste if we don't proceed.
What we do in this bill is tell the administration to proceed with following the law, so I oppose the gen tle lady's amendment.
I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been an advocate and an ardent supporter of this for many years here in Congress.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly--and I do mean reluctantly--oppose the amendment.
The amendment would increase funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E, as has been mentioned, by $20 million using funds from the departmental administration as an offset.
I share my colleague's support for advanced research; that is why the bill before us already provides $280 million for ARPA-E. That is the highest funding level the Agency has ever received in an annual appropriation, equal to last year's, with all funding going to fully fund new projects over the next three years. Put another way, this bill funds ARPA-E at $210 million more than last year's House bill did. This is the highest level of funding that ARPA-E has ever received. In addition, the bill fully funds ARPA-E's open solicitation to support the most promising new energy technologies out there. However, we still have to work within our overall budget allocation.
While I support ARPA-E's program, we must abide by our allocation. Although I am sympathetic to reducing the size of government, we cannot support taking $20 million from the departmental administration. This would do more than just trim the fat beyond what is simply wasteful and ineffective; it would slash funding that would result in approximately 143 people being laid off within the Department of Energy. These are jobs with real impacts on families. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $8.2 billion for NNSA's weapons activities, an increase of $423 million over fiscal year 2014 and $111 million below the budget request.
The bill takes advantage of all opportunities to reduce funding for activities that are not essential to maintaining the stockpile while making sure the highest priority needs are met.
Assuring funding for modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. This includes the full $17 million in the bill to initiate early conceptual studies for a cruise missile warhead life extension program, $7.6 million above the budget request.
The additional funding is a modest amount that will ensure an appropriate set of alternatives is being considered. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way in which the gentleman is addressing two very important issues. The committee has decided that the Department hasn't yet told us what their option is if MOX were to close down.
We are asking for real cost estimates. There are differences of opinion about what the cost estimates for the life cycle of MOX are. So we have asked for further clarification.
And as the gentleman rightly stated, if we put it in cold standby and the decision is to proceed with MOX from the Department, it is going to cost us much more to bring it back up, which is why we have chosen the path that we have chosen.
The gentleman is also correct that I am as supportive and I think my ranking member is also--in fact, I think most of the Members on our subcommittee are--that nonproliferation is a very important issue. The question is: Can the Department spend $25 million more, and what will we get for that?
I want to work with you to make sure that we are doing the right thing and the intelligent thing in both arenas, so I appreciate the attitude that the gentleman is displaying in this.
I know there are a couple of individuals who would like to speak for a moment on MOX, so I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as the gentleman said, would eliminate the Denali Commission, which is funded at last year's level of $10 million in this bill.
The Denali Commission provides infrastructure and economic development activities for some of the country's most rural and distressed communities. Regardless of whether it is one State or a region, the fact is the State is probably larger than any one of the regions that the Commission deals with.
In a time of economic instability, communities can scarily afford to lose the millions of dollars in private investments leveraged by the Commission annually. Elimination of the Denali Commission would deprive these communities of many essential infrastructure and economic development projects. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I oppose this amendment. It is an interesting argument the gen tle lady made. The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of continuing the Yucca Mountain repository.
The language that would be stricken by this amendment we have been carrying for years as a way to keep the will of the House and the American people alive. In fact, the votes supporting Yucca Mountain in this House have been overwhelming each time that we voted on it.
I would remind the gen tle lady that this doesn't mean that Yucca Mountain can never be closed. The comment of the gentleman from Illinois would still be true. An appropriation bill is a 1-year appropriation bill. That is why we carry this language in each appropriation bill.
We need to wait for the safety review by the NRC to be done to decide what we are going to do moving forward, instead of political decisions that have been made on Yucca Mountain in the past. And it has been a political decision. I think even the gen tle lady would agree with that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source