Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water bill before you today.
Before I go into the details, I would like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey on this bill and the appropriation process. I would also like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate her help, and with it, this bill is better because of it.
The bill provides $35.4 billion for the activities of the Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $1.2 billion increase from last year's funding level, and $633 million below the request.
This is a responsible bill that recognizes the importance of investing in our Nation's infrastructure and national defense. As we do each year, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.
The administration's proposal to cut programs of the Army Corps of Engineers by $750 million would have led to economic disruptions in our ports and waterways as they filled in, and would have left our communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding.
Instead, this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and provides $5.6 billion for those activities, $865 million above the request and $142 million more than last year. The bill makes use of all estimated annual revenues from the inland waterways trust fund, for a total of $340 million.
The bill takes a strong stand against the administration's regulatory overreach with regards to the Clean Water Act and includes three provisions that prohibit changes to the definition of ``fill material,'' the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and the permit requirement for certain agricultural activities.
The nuclear weapons program run by the Department of Energy is funded at $8.7 billion, which is $526 million more than last year. This increase will support full funding for the stockpile life extension programs, and includes an additional $100 million above the request to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and physical security projects.
The recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1.3 billion, an increase of $86 million, and includes full funding for the Ohio class replacement submarine.
This bill makes strong, balanced investments in our energy sector to ensure that our constituents continue to have reliable, affordable energy.
Fossil energy, which provided more than 67 percent of our electricity production in 2014, received $605 million, a $34 million increase above fiscal year 2015.
Nuclear energy is increased by $23 million above last year. The bill also includes $40 million more than last year to ensure an electric grid that is both reliable and resilient now and into the future.
This is a strong bill that will advance our national security interests and our economy. I urge everyone to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. But I will tell you it is easy to draft amendments and take money out of the department of the administration--who is not going to be in support of that--and put it to other things.
I can tell you this committee has worked hard to address the issues. We know about the drought in California and other places, and we have done a good job in trying to fund this. If the gentleman wants to do this in here and take money out of the department of administration and the committee wants to do it, it is kind of meaningless, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gen tle lady from California for working with us on this.
What a lot of people may not understand is the challenge that presents us with the harbor maintenance trust fund and the way it is scored and the way it is counted for. I am one who believes that, if you have got a problem and you are going to tax people in order to address that problem, you ought to spend the money that you are receiving to address the problem.
Instead, what happens is we spend--as I think the gentleman said, 69 percent is the target--we will only spend 69 percent of what came in this year in the harbor maintenance trust fund on actually dredging the harbors and so forth. That seems rather silly. I think we ought to be able to spend it all if we have got a problem. If we are not going to spend it all, we shouldn't tax it.
The problem is the way we score things and the budget around here is that we are given an overall cap in the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. We have to have our total bill come in under that cap.
If we spend more money in the harbor maintenance area, even though we have that money in a trust fund, then we have to decrease spending in everything else, such as the other energy portions of the bill or something like that, so increasing it even more decreases what we can spend in other needed areas. That is the challenge we face.
What I would like to do is work with all of the supporters of the harbor maintenance trust fund to find a way that we can address this issue--it is really an issue created by us--but address this issue so that the funds that we collect in the harbor maintenance trust fund can actually go out and do what we expect them to do.
I do appreciate the gen tle lady from California and the gentleman from Michigan and the others that are interested. I should mention the other gentleman from Louisiana that is not here that has been an advocate for this for many years and many Congresses, Mr. Boustany. I do thank you for working on this and working with the committee to try to address this to see if we can get up to the target.
The other thing is it was said that we didn't reach the target in this. While it depends on kind of how you look at it, there are, as you know, other purposes for which the harbor maintenance trust fund is spent, Saint Lawrence Seaway and also for one of the other accounts in transportation for border security and stuff.
If you count those in the total spending of WRRDA, it probably does come close to reaching the target, as long as those committees appropriate what was requested. I don't know whether they will or not, but if they do.
I think working in a bipartisan way, we have come up with the best we can do to address this. I know it is of high importance to all Members of Congress. I thank the gen tle lady and the gentleman for working with the committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the desire and the need for sufficient funding for harbor maintenance. That was a debate we just had here on the floor, but this House adopted an amendment from my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) to meet the annual target set for the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. We hit the target we all agreed to.
Additionally, while I certainly take issue with some of the regulatory changes this administration is pursuing, the Corps does need funding for processing permits in a timely manner.
The underlying bill already eliminates funding for the changes to the waters of the United States. We do not want to slow down other necessary activities.
For these reasons, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I certainly understand his concern and his desire with this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I have to tell you, in all honesty, I understand what he is trying to do, and I agree with him in many ways; but, when he says we have to observe the rules of the House, the rules of the House also allow for the Rules Committee to write a rule that overrides the rules of the House. If it is approved by a majority, guess what, that is what happens. We are following the rules of the House, but he raises a point that is of concern--and should be.
When I was chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, we tried to defund the Endangered Species Act and designations of critical habitat because the Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized for something like 23 or 26 years.
We lost an amendment on the floor to put the money back into it, but we were trying to make a point--and I was supported by the chairman of the Resources Committee--but we were trying to make the point that the authorizing committees need to get busy and do their job. I fully believe that.
That was 8 years ago. We still haven't done anything to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, and the chairman at that time supported what we were trying to do. I haven't seen any reauthorization bills come up.
Now, if you look at what is not authorized in the Federal Government right now--or where authorizations have expired--I think there is a reason for an expiration date. It is so that you go in and review the program and see if the need is still there, can we do it better, do we need to make changes, is there still a justification for the program.
The problem is the authorizing committees have failed in many respects in that responsibility. If we were to simply defund everything where authorizations have expired--I think the Department of State authorization has expired; I am not sure we want to defund the Department of State; some people might want to--but there is an awful lot. I think, in most senior programs, the authorizations have expired, and you can go through the list.
While the gentleman raises a very valid point and one that I would like to help work with him on trying to address, the Appropriations Committee is trying to do our job of oversight. That is why we have hearings.
Is it the best place to do oversight of the need for the programs? We do oversight on how the money is spent and so forth, but the authorizing committees are the best place to look at the programs and see in their totality if they are still needed or not.
While I sympathize--and I know that is not what the gentleman from California wants--while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do--and even agree with what he is trying to do--I have to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I thank him for bringing a very important subject to this floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I would hate to get the idea, when he says stop wasting taxpayer money that, just because we are funding these programs that haven't been reauthorized, we are wasting taxpayer money. We actually look at these programs very deeply when we do the appropriations process.
And, in fact, I wouldn't want to suggest to the American people that we never eliminate any program that authorizations have expired on or whose need we have deemed has run out. When I was chairman of the Committee on the Interior, I think we eliminated something like 59 different programs that we no longer needed. So it is not that we sit here and just continue to fund things, but we do look at the programs, the need for the programs.
I fully agree with the gentleman about the need to somehow change this so that the authorizing committees can do their--or will do their--authorizations work. But the Appropriations Committee holds probably more hearings than any other committee in this body and looks at these programs very deeply.
There may be differences about what is necessary and what is appropriate for funding between Members of this body, but what we come out with is a bill that we think a majority of the Members of this body can support.
So I look forward to working with the gentleman from California to try to address what is a real problem that he brings up, but I would hope my colleagues would oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. It seems like old times. You just changed your appearance.
Mr. Moran and I, your colleague before you, he and I had this discussion many, many times on the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States and fill material and so forth, and it seems like you just look different than he used to.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The language in the bill is intended simply to maintain the status quo regarding what is ``fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The existing definition was put in place through a rulemaking initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush administration. The rule aligned the definitions on the books of the Corps and the EPA, so that both agencies were working with the same definition.
Changing the definition again, as some have proposed, could effectively kill mining operations across much of this country. For that reason, I support the underlying language in the bill. That is why we put it in the bill, and I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Last spring, the administration proposed a rule that would greatly expand the Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act to include waters that were traditionally understood to be under State jurisdiction.
Let me repeat that. Many people believed that if the waters were not regulated under the Clean Water Act, they were unregulated. Not true. They were regulated by the States. And that is where it should remain.
Now, there became a question of, under the Clean Water Act, under ``navigable waters,'' what the heck does that mean? It was very confusing. Does it mean navigable by a steamship, navigable by a boat, a canoe, an inner tube? And the Court said, You need to clarify this.
Well, the EPA essentially said, Well, we can clarify that. We will just control all the waters and take them out of State control.
I think that is a problem, and I can tell you that it is a real problem for States in the West, particularly.
The administration's proposed rule is inconsistent with two separate Supreme Court decisions that clearly said the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency had gone too far in that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act was not as broad as they had claimed.
Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues.
Under the rule provided by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, they are saying intermittent streams. Any streams that don't have water running in them, but maybe a month or two a year, now fall under their jurisdiction.
And under the connectivity rule, which is what this is--you know, the hip bone is connected to the leg bone is connected to the knee bone sort of thing--under the connectivity rule, while they say that this is not their intent, there is no way that you cannot eventually say that we are going to control groundwater also--not just surface water but groundwater also--because it is connected to the surface water also.
So while there may be a desire for clarity on the issue of Federal jurisdiction, providing clarity does not trump the need to stay within the limits of the law. The proposed rule would expand Federal jurisdiction far beyond what was ever intended by the Clean Water Act. The provision in the Energy and Water bill does not weaken the Clean Water Act. It stops the administration from expanding Federal jurisdiction.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I understand the gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for projects that are drought-related in California and other places, but we must be mindful of the balancing and competing priorities across this bill.
The gentleman would take $20 million out of the fossil energy account. As I have said before, fossil fuels--such as coal, oil, natural gas--provide nearly 85 percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil energy and, instead, funds these programs at $605 million, $34 million above last year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will research how heat can more efficiently be converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel cells.
This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that we use our Nation's abundant fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge other Members to do so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
My colleague's amendment would increase funding for the Fossil Energy research and development program and decrease the EERE account by the same amount as an offset.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's concern to protect the fossil fuel industry against overreach by this administration's Clean Power Plan proposal.
This amendment would advance research and development in allowing robust utilization of our abundant natural resources in a safe and efficient way. Therefore, I support the amendment and urge Members to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida says we should invest. We are investing. This amendment would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $266 million, restoring it to last year's level, by using the fossil energy account as an offset.
This year, funding for EERE is $1.66 billion, $266 million below last year, and $1.1 billion below the budget request. The recommendation strategically focuses funding on three main priorities: helping American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, supporting weatherization assistance programs, and supporting basic research into renewable energy sources. These are all areas with broad bipartisan support.
The House recommendation for this year was the result of a focused effort to ensure taxpayer funds are spent on the most advanced research projects within these priorities. Increasing funding for EERE by diverting funds from research into fossil energy strikes the wrong balance when considering the Nation's electricity needs.
Fossil fuel, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide the vast majority of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide our energy needs for the foreseeable future. For example, fossil fuels produce nearly 11 times more electricity than renewable energy fuel sources.
I am not against renewable energy. I think they are an important part of the mix. They are cute, but they don't provide the majority of energy that is needed in this country.
This amendment would decimate funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. Therefore, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is the same debate we used on the other amendment, so I could just say repeat the same debate. The fact is we are investing in what we use: 85 percent of electricity produced in this country is produced by fossil energies. We invest in that to try to make it more clean. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Why would we walk away from that? We can do it cleaner. We can do it more efficiently, and that is what we are investing in.
We are still investing in renewable energies. It is not that we are just ignoring those other things. In fact, we are investing $1.66 billion in those things. Fossil energy that we use much more than we do renewable energies, only investing $605 million in it.
So our priorities, I believe, in this bill are in the right place. And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I think it would unbalance the bill, and I would urge the rejection of his amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we have now seen amendments to put more money into the EERE and amendments to take money out of the EERE and now an amendment to eliminate the EERE.
I have to rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill supports an all-of-the-above approach to utilize our abundant natural resources and advance energy in new technologies to increase our energy security. A part of that approach includes strategic investments in the EERE accounts.
I agree that there are many activities in this program that could use a closer and more critical look. That is why this bill focuses funding on basic technological research and manufacturing advancements in this account. The bill reduces the EERE by $266 million over last year's level, but this amendment, I believe, would go too far. I must support the strategic balance of this bill. Therefore, I must oppose my colleague's amendment, and I urge others to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Hydraulic fracking has been going on for 40 or 50 years in this country, by the way.
This year the committee continues its responsibility to reduce government spending, and we have done that. We have worked tirelessly to that end. The bill already cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $266 million below last year's request and $1.1 billion below the budget request.
The fossil and nuclear energy programs receive targeted increases of $34 million and $23 million, respectively. The increase to fossil energy targets advanced research that will increase the efficiency of power plant turbines and conserve water usage during electricity generation.
The increase to nuclear energy will support security upgrades for the Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy materials and a range of nuclear security programs at the NNSA, Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies.
Although my colleague asserts the amendment would keep the government from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence. I appreciate my colleague's desire to reduce the size of the government. I agree with him. This amendment goes too far by eliminating the strategic investments we need to make for our future. I therefore oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it also.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source