Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and him offering the amendment, and I appreciate his point of view and why he is offering it, but this amendment would eliminate $150 million in the bill for the Department of Energy to reorganize its adjudicatory response team and get the Yucca Mountain licensing process back on track and running.

Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. You have to remember that. Yucca Mountain is the law of the land, even though the administration has failed to follow that law. It has seen overwhelming support in countless numbers of votes and countless numbers of times in the House and is the only permanent repository option we have on the table.

This amendment would put in jeopardy the more than $15 billion--let me repeat that, the more than $15 billion--that has been spent so far on this program.

Once the Yucca Mountain application is finished, all Members of this body and the Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move forward to construct and use the facility, but killing the process at this point, I think, is shortsighted, even though I understand the gentleman's concern.

I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is almost humorous to listen to someone who wants to reduce the deficit and put this money into the deficit reduction account but then complains that we are following sequestration, and it is just too low and too crazy, and we need to do away with sequestration. We need to be able to spend more money.

The reality is, it is not that it is the deficit reduction account; it is that it is out of the fossil fuel program, which is more than what the President recommended. The administration has priorities, and Congress has priorities. This bill reflects the priorities of the subcommittee and the full committee that brought it to the floor. The amendment would reduce funding for the fossil energy account by $45 million in favor of deficit spending.

Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas provide nearly 85 percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses. Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and 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 the fossil energy program, particularly the drastic cuts to the coal program, which is cut by $31 million in the budget request, and instead funds these programs at $605 million, a $34 million increase over last year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will target research into how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel cells, and how to efficiently capture and store carbon from our abundant natural resources.

This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. Let me repeat. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide nearly 85 percent of the energy used by our Nation's homes and businesses, and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. The reality is ExxonMobil, all of the other companies you named, don't get this money. This money goes into research, research that fuels 85 percent of the electrical needs in this country--research.

Now, you could also say: If you are going to do that, why not take away all the money that goes into renewable energy research? Why not take away all the money that goes into wind power or into solar power or into nuclear power or into any of the other research that we do?

It is just that some people can't fathom the fact that 85 percent--that is getting close to 100--but 85 percent of our energy is produced by fossil fuel. While the gentleman talks about deficit reduction, the reality is I think he just wants to take some money out of the fossil fuel research account.

I will be interested, being so interested in deficit reduction, how the vote comes later on with the Republican budget that will be before the House later on, so I will be watching that very closely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I understand the lady's passion for this, but some of the rhetoric, quite frankly, isn't accurate.

When she calls it a failed policy, it is only a failed policy politically because this administration came into office on a promise of not doing Yucca Mountain because they needed electoral votes from the State of Nevada. That is the reality.

The fact is we have spent over $15 billion on this project, and the fact is it is the law of the land. Until you change that law of the land, it remains the law of the land.

Whether it is safe or not, I don't know. I am not a scientist. But what I do know is there has been 52--I think it is 52--National Academy of Sciences studies on all sorts of aspects. This is the most studied piece of earth on the Earth. In fact, I have suggested during a hearing with the Department that if we ultimately decide not to do Yucca Mountain, they shouldn't close that down because they are going to need a space that big to put all the papers from the studies that we have done on Yucca Mountain. That is the reality.

I think we all understand my colleague's opposition to Yucca Mountain. I don't blame her. I know she is from Nevada. But I can't support this amendment. This amendment would eliminate $150 million in the bill for the Department of Energy to reorganize its adjudicatory response team and get the Yucca Mountain licensing process back up and running. Otherwise, more than $15 billion which has been spent on this program will truly be wasted.

Once that application is finished, all Members of this body, all Members of this body and the Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move forward, to construct and use the facility. But killing the process at this point, I think, would be very shortsighted. I therefore urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. I want to thank the gentleman for being dogged on this issue. We share his concern. We had a great hearing with all the commissioners of the NRC. They also understand this concern. It was the Aim Project 2020 that they put together that realized that they have too many staff and they need to reduce it. They want to do it in a responsible way.

In the full committee, we adopted an amendment to reduce their budget by $25 million. That is in addition to the fact that they had carryover fund that they could have spent last year that they won't have available this year.

Their budget is going down; whether it is the right amount or not, we don't know yet, but we are going to keep on this because we want them to reestablish their credibility in the world. They need to do that because they are a regulatory agency that is very important, and they do incredibly important work.

We are going to be holding hearings again on this next year when we do their budget to make sure they are following through on their commitment to reduce their size and scope, particularly the rulemaking authority that they have got out there. Many people believe they are writing far too many rules, and some believe it is because they have too many employees.

I appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment and the discussion and offering to withdraw the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time reluctantly. I happen to be one who thinks the ARPA-E does some good work. My biggest problem is that, as I said last night on either the first or second amendment that was offered to this bill, they took money out of departmental administration to fund something, and then another one to take money out of departmental administration. So far we have taken out about $50 million out of a $245 million budget for the departmental administration.

It is easy to vote that way because who wants to pay for the administrative costs? Yet we are going to have to deal with that when we get into conference to make sure that they have adequate funding in the Department for the administrative work.

So at some point in time, I have to say I can't support continuing to take money out of the departmental administration in order to fund a variety of programs, even though some of them may be very worthwhile.

And while I, myself, am not opposed to ARPA-E and think they do some good work, the reality is, you have to balance this bill.

We have got ARPA-E down $266 million from what it was last year and substantially below what the President requested, but we had other priorities that we had to fund. And the other thing I had to consider is that the Science and Technology Committee--that is, the authorizing committee that does much of this work--has marked up a bill in their committee that substantially reduces the overall funding authorization for ARPA-E. So that causes me some concern.

While I may or may not agree with their markup--I don't know; we will see when that hits the floor--that is the reason that I am going to oppose this amendment.

Other than that, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do and the concern that many people have for the decrease in funding in ARPA-E.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ensuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. The bill fully funds the $195 million needed to initiate a life extension program for the W80 warhead, the only nuclear-tipped cruise missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The life extension program will replace nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80, and to ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's long-range stand off cruise missile, or LRSO, should that program move forward.

The budget request was considered a 2-year acceleration of the LRSO program, compared to last year's stockpile plan, to meet a defense requirement for deployment in 2030. However, it is clear that there is considerable planning that needs to be accomplished by the administration before Congress can have confidence in these long-term stockpile plans.

While 2030 may seem like many years away, these warheads are very complex, and there is considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then. Performing additional work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth. The gentleman's amendment would slash funding for this effort, and that will add additional risk and uncertainty to the schedule.

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. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

As I said, performing additional work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth while we are finding out about what the red team assessment comes up with. So I think this is important that we defeat this amendment so that we can move forward with modernization of this warhead.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The bill fully funds the request of $195 million to initiate a life extension program for the W80 warhead. The life extension program will replace nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80 and to ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's Long-Range Standoff cruise missile, or the LRSO, should that program move forward.

Certainly, the committee will look to realign the work that needs to be done on the W80 if there are changes to the schedule for the LRSO. But as long as that program stays on track, we need to make sure that the work that needs to be done by the NNSA is properly aligned with those efforts.

The gentleman's amendment would make it more difficult for the NNSA to meet its schedule requirements, and I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his efforts in nonproliferation and his strong advocacy for this program and trying to become the expert. And really, he is what I consider maybe one of the foremost experts in the House on nonproliferation issues. I thank both the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from California for their efforts in this area.

It is a challenging issue for us. You know, I was interested to hear the $47 billion because I have heard $31 billion. I have heard $30 billion. There are all sorts of different estimates, and we haven't got the numbers of how they came to these conclusions. And when they look to the alternatives in this report that just came out from the Department, they said, if I remember correctly, the downblend activities had a cost that was much less. But if you look at the downblend alternatives, what they didn't add into it is that you would put that material in WIPP theoretically.

First of all, you would have to get WIPP extended. It is supposed to be closed. So you have got a 15-year extension of what you would have to do. There was no cost in there for the operation of WIPP for those 15 years and what it was going to cost. So we are still having a hard time coming to grips with what the actual cost of the different alternatives are.

This is one of those things that it is frustrating for our committee, I think, over the years for a lot of different things. Where we head down one path, spend billions of dollars, and then all of a sudden, change directions. And it seems like we are throwing money away.

But I am open to looking at what the alternatives are, and I want to look at the numbers behind the report that came out. But this amendment simply adds and reduces the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by the same amount. Therefore, the language of the amendment doesn't change the amounts directed specifically for the MOX project in the House report, which will continue to be funded at $345 million.

But I understand both of your concerns. They are concerns I share. And they are concerns we need to address because you are absolutely right. If we are not going to go down this road, we shouldn't be spending $345 million a year.

Now we are going to spend a bunch of money at the start. Even if you close it down, it is going to cost some money, or if you stop it. So all of that needs to be taken into consideration. But we need to make a determination of what is going to happen with MOX and what we are going to do with this additional plutonium.

Some people have suggested maybe the best thing to do is store it. Of course that violates an agreement that we have with the Russians. So you would have to get their agreement on that. So it is a challenging issue, I will be the first to admit. And we have had a challenge in the committee trying to deal with it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Our arguments and the debate that we just had with the gentleman from Nebraska about the MOX facility and the challenges that we face in the MOX facility is the same as the debate we just had, and while we asked for the Department to look at the two alternatives, the downblend and the continuing MOX, the Armed Services Committee asked for a report on all five of the alternatives that they were looking at and the cost and stuff.

I would oppose this amendment of taking $125 million out of the MOX facility.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his interest in this subject. I can assure you that the subcommittee is very concerned also, and we look forward to working with you and your committees as we try to right-size the NRC and all of the budgets that we will be doing in the future.

As you said, the NRC is well aware of the fact that they need to right-size themselves as they try to attempt to implement their Project Aim 2020, so I appreciate it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment would prevent the Department from transforming the National Energy Technology Laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory, or to consolidate or close NETL.

NETL does important research in support of a balanced energy portfolio that will increase the efficiency and safe usage of abundant natural resources in this Nation.

I appreciate my colleague's passion for this issue, and I have no objection to this amendment being included in the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill that we are currently considering meets the budget resolution that was just adopted. We have been cutting discretionary spending for the last 4 years, $173 billion, as I understand it, over the last 4 years, not in decreases in the increases, but actual decreases in spending. This goes way too far and makes sweeping changes with broad cuts to the reductions. This is an approach I can't support.

I am particularly concerned about the impact this amendment would have on our critical infrastructure, as mentioned by the gentlewoman from Ohio, and the basic research needs that are prioritized in this bill. While the gentleman has attempted to exclude national security activities, I have got to tell you, in all honesty, national security is not the only thing the Federal Government does. We do do other things. We maintain our waterways and our ports and other activities. This amendment would still have the detrimental impact on the security of nuclear materials at the Idaho National Laboratory. These accounts are very complex, and reductions to each account must be carefully weighed, and that is what this subcommittee has been doing and holding hearings on for the last 4 months.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I also have to oppose this amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's position on the ATVM program, the elimination would hurt Federal oversight of the program of more than $8 billion in loans already given. The committee recommendations include the $6 million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing loan portfolio and no more.

I don't think the gentleman wants to actually eliminate the oversight of the loans that are out there that are going to be running for the next 30 years.

I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure that there is proper oversight of taxpayer funding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman would like to do and how it would be helpful to his constituents. I would be happy to continue the discussion of this issue to see if there is anything that this subcommittee can do. I will not oppose this amendment, and I will try to help accomplish this goal that the gentleman is trying to achieve. It is amazing to me that, when everybody agrees on something, how hard it can still be to get it done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

First, let me assure my colleague that I am sympathetic to the intention of what he is trying to do here. The gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for projects that are important to his district and to his constituents, and I understand that.

Unfortunately, although I know it is not the gentleman's intent, the amendment would limit all funding for the construction of flood control projects to no more than $276 million. That is a cut of almost $500 million in flood control projects. I would hope that we would all agree that that is unacceptable. Even as intended, though, I must oppose the amendment.

The President's budget request increased funding for environmental projects above the fiscal year 2015 level while slashing funding for flood control projects by almost $300 million. In this bill, on the other hand, we were able to restore the flood control funding, and we did it without slashing the funding for environmental projects.

I would, respectfully, ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment even though I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. We would be more than willing to work with him--with both of you--in trying to address this issue as we move this process forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, again, I understand what he is trying to do, and I sympathize with what you are trying to do. You are correct in that the funds remain unallocated in the flood control account. That is because, for some reason, the administration is dragging its feet on allocating these funds. It is not because the funds are not needed or cannot be used. In fact, the bill includes language to try to correct this problem. But I can't support increasing funding for environmental projects at the expense of projects that improve public safety and protect our communities.

I would offer both of the gentlemen the opportunity to work with the committee, and I will work with you to try to address this issue as we move forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee's consistency.

We have seen a lot of these amendments. The problem is with the debate. You would think that we were not doing anything to reduce this deficit, that we were not cutting spending. The reality is the only committee in Congress that is actually cutting spending is the Appropriations Committee, and we have been cutting spending for the last 4 years.

Now, this bill that we have before us today meets with and falls within the budget resolution that was just adopted earlier this day, and, if we had wanted to reduce everything by 1 percent again, then we should have adopted a different budget resolution.

It is easy to say let's just take one penny out of every dollar. Who can't do that? We have taken much more than one penny out of every dollar as we have cut spending more and more in the appropriations process by the Appropriations Committee.

It is not that we don't want to reduce spending; we are reducing spending, but, of course, we could cut one more cent out of every dollar we spend. Who couldn't do that? Then we will have a new baseline. You know what? Then we ought to cut one penny out of every dollar at that baseline. You know what? Then we will have another baseline, and we can cut one more penny out of that.

We are trying to do it smarter. We are trying to look at the needs of the agencies that we fund, reduce spending, and set priorities.

While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayers dollars, this is not an approach that I can 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 the current law.

While difficult tradeoffs had to be made--and difficult tradeoffs were made--there are accounts in this bill that I think we ought to be spending more money on. There are accounts in this bill that I think we ought to be spending less money on that are a higher priority to some other Members of Congress. That is kind of the nature of how the appropriations process works. Nobody gets everything they want.

One thing we have been consistent on for the fifth year in a row is that we have been reducing spending. We prioritize funding for critical infrastructure and our Nation's defense. Most of the increases that are in this budget this year that will be coming out of the overall 302(a)'s went to the national defense, the NNSA, our nuclear weapons programs.

We prioritize funding, as I said, for critical infrastructure. The President cut $750 million--around that--out of the harbor maintenance trust fund. In trying to secure our inland waterways and our harbors for the commerce that our economy needs, we replaced that, which means we had to make even more difficult cuts in a lot of these agencies.

These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and their responsibility; yet the gentlelady's amendment would propose an across-the-board cut on every one of these programs.

This makes no distinction between where we need to be spending or investing our infracture, promote jobs, and meet our national security needs and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Let me say again, I appreciate the gentlewoman's consistent effort in making sure that we keep focused on addressing what is the number one problem in this country, and that is the debt this country faces, and this committee has been doing that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion, let me thank you for your excellent stewardship of this bill through general order, through the amendment debate in the wee hours of the morning. We all appreciate it. It has been fair and helped move it along in an orderly manner.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source