Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Kemal Pasamehmetoglu for his leadership at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). For the past five and a half years, Dr. Pasamehmetoglu has served as the Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology at INL. Dr. Pasamehmetoglu has been instrumental in supporting the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy in developing the roadmap and setting national research and development priorities. His vision and passion for nuclear energy has been a huge asset to INL, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the nation. During his tenure, Kemal traveled the globe serving in leadership positions in multi-national collaborative efforts. He enhanced INL's reputation nationally and internationally as a groundbreaking laboratory for nuclear energy research and development. Most recently, Kemal led the national effort to develop the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) initiative and served as its first National Director. The GAIN initiative provides the nuclear community with access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move innovative nuclear energy technologies toward commercialization while ensuring the continued safe, reliable, and economic operation of the existing nuclear fleet. Kemal has accepted a new position at INL as the Executive Director of the Versatile Fast Neutron Source Research and Development Initiative. A fast reactor would be groundbreaking in providing next generation nuclear fuel testing capabilities. Kemal holds a doctorate in mechanical engineering from the University of Central Florida and has more than 30 years of research engineering experience within the national laboratory system.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate South Central Community Action Partnership for making extensive positive impacts on the lives of low-income families in South-Central Idaho and on the occasion of their organization's 50th anniversary. South Central Community Action Partnership is a highly valued local, charitable, non-profit corporation in Idaho's 2nd Congressional District. Although it began in the 1960s to oversee area Head Start programs, in fifty years it has changed thousands of lives. Since 1967, SCCAP has developed important Idaho programs such as the Family Development and Families in Transition Program, the Valley House Coalition, a Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, the Supportive Services for Veteran Families, the Twin Falls-based Weatherization Program, and the Boy's & Girl's Club of Magic Valley. Of special note, the Partnership has led efforts to build seniors' centers in the cites of Twin Falls, Buhl, Burley, Jerome, and Kimberly. In addition, many of SCCAP's projects have been so successful that they have become independent organizations themselves or even parts of Idaho government programs. These include their Regional Housing Council (now the Region IV Housing Coalition), their Youth Challenge Project (which evolved into the Jerome Youth Center), their Family Planning Project (which became part of the District Health Department), their summer Migrant Head Start Programs (now the Idaho Migrant Council), and their invaluable Guardian ad Litem Program (now the Fifth Judicial CASA Guardian ad Litem). As a small example of their impact, Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years alone, SCCAP has assisted an average of more than 6,800 families and represented more than 20,000 individuals, helping with weatherization, veteran services, food, transportation, affordable housing, and many other valuable fields in our Idaho communities. The SCCAP's hardworking administrators have consistently earned the trust of the people of Idaho, from Betty L. Wooten's leadership of the organization in 1967, all the way to Ken J. Robinette's and Joe Herring's leadership today. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank South Central Community Action Partnership for their service and commitment to the residents of South- Central Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his dedication to the sound management of natural resources on behalf of the constituents in his State. Placer mining is unique to Alaska and has a unique history in place in Alaska's economy. As such, the BLM proposal for unique reclamation and bonding requirements need to receive additional review. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Joe Herring for 31 years of distinguished economic development service to the citizens of South-Central Idaho and on the occasion of his retirement from his current position as President of Region IV Development Association, Inc. In 1980, Mr. Herring came to Idaho to pursue a graduate degree in geography and land use planning after completing his undergraduate studies at New Mexico State University. Like other transplants to Idaho, Mr. Herring was drawn to the state's wild places and exceptional natural beauty. Mr. Herring's career in economic development began in 1980 as a land use planner in Moscow, Idaho--taking a part-time job that soon turned into a passion for assisting Idaho's rural communities. In 1986, he joined Region IV Development Association, Inc. as its Executive Director and set in motion a decades' long career working to improve the lives and livelihoods of Idaho residents. Under his leadership, the small regional planning organization grew from offering only work force training into supporting a wide variety of programs to promote job creation, economic development, community development, downtown revitalization, business financing, and many others. During Mr. Herring's tenure, Region IV Development has been able to facilitate more than $1.2 billion in public and private sector investment in the eight counties of South-Central Idaho. These public improvement and business projects have supported the creation of more than 5,000 new employment opportunities for Idahoans. From the development of new drinking water systems to the construction of small rural clinics, from industrial park development to building new technical education facilities, Mr. Herring's impact on communities throughout rural Idaho has been significant. With a focus on expanding community and economic development in South-Central Idaho, Mr. Herring has founded, incorporated, and led a number of organizations that have contributed to the growth and sustainability of rural communities throughout Idaho. Looking to bring state, federal and private sector resources to bear on local issues, Mr. Herring has served Idahoans in many capacities including as chairman of the Idaho Public Transportation Advisory Council, the Idaho Rural Partnership, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, Idaho-Nevada Community Development Financial Institution, and the South-Central Community Action Partnership. Mr. Herring has shown exceptional commitment to strengthening support networks available to foster small businesses and to help rural communities attract economic investments. To that end, Mr. Herring was responsible for bringing the Small Business Development Center to the region. He was also instrumental to the incorporation of the Southern Idaho Tourism and the Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization. Mr. Herring has led an amazing career dedicated to serving the people of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Mr. Herring for his service and commitment to economic development in Idaho. On behalf of a grateful state, I wish him well in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment-- not just opposition to this amendment, but strong opposition to this amendment. This bill fully funds the request of $10.2 billion for weapons activities, which is, as the gentleman stated, an increase of $921 million over fiscal year 2017. I have got to tell you, from his comments, you would think we were growing the nuclear stockpile. The reality is we are decreasing the size of the nuclear stockpile currently under the new START program. But even having done that, we have to fund the modernization of our nuclear stockpile, and it is one of my highest priorities in this bill. The activities the gentleman proposes to cut are the primary reasons the Energy and Water bill is being included as a division in the Defense minibus, because maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile is essential to our Nation's national security. The increase provided in this bill to weapons activities is needed to extend the life of four nuclear warheads and to address the continued deterioration of the infrastructure at the Department of Energy's nuclear sites. These investments are long overdue and must be funded if our Nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent, regardless of the size of that nuclear deterrent. I would say that the Department of Defense is carrying out a nuclear posture review that will inform future funding needs. Until that concludes, there is no change in our Nation's nuclear defense requirements, and Congress, I believe, must fully fund those requirements if our Nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent. Increases are also needed, as I said, to address the aging infrastructure at the Department of Energy's nuclear energy sites. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that the gentleman from Illinois is offering and would encourage my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be something that the ranking member and I happen to disagree on. Poison pill riders--I have always liked that term, ``poison pill riders.'' What they are are policy changes. If they are policy changes you like, they are policy changes. If you don't like them, they are poison pill riders. So when they had the majority, they put what we considered poison pill riders in their bill, but they were policy changes, and that is what we do in some appropriations bills. But I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I have been debating this issue for, I don't know, probably 10 years. While the change in the administration means that we are able to reduce the number of the issues we needed to address in this bill, some issues warrant continued congressional attention--WOTUS is one of them. My reason for opposing the Obama administration's WOTUS rule remains the same. The rule would greatly expand Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the definition used under the Clean Water Act of navigable waters was hard to define and told them that they need a new definition. Well, the EPA's design on a new definition is, okay, we will just control everything. So everybody thinks that those waters that are now under control of the Clean Water--I mean, of the WOTUS rule written by the Obama administration were unregulated before. They were not unregulated. They were regulated by the States, and the States did a good job of regulating those things. But now the Federal Government has come in and taken control of all of those States. We think, and the courts have ruled, that this is too broad a definition of what they intended and what the Clean Water rule states. Nobody wants dirty water--nobody. But what we want is a rule that separates what the Federal Government has the authority to control and what the States have the authority to control. President Trump moved quickly on this issue by issuing an executive order in February, and a few weeks ago, the EPA and the Corps announced the first step in a two-step process: a proposed rule to rescind the WOTUS rule and recodify the previous regulatory text. The second step will be a second rulemaking to reevaluate the definition of waters of the United States in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court decision. The provision in this bill is supportive of these efforts. First, it provides clear authorization to withdraw the Obama administration's rule. Second, it clarifies what rule will be in effect if the WOTUS rule is withdrawn, specifically, the same rules that were in effect immediately prior to the promulgation of the final WOTUS rule. And third, it does not affect the Trump administration's ability to develop a new rule, one that will provide more clarity and certainty for the regulated community while staying within the legal bounds provided by the Supreme Court. For these reasons, I have to oppose this amendment, and I strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I would say that the Secretary of Energy is required to report to the President on the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. This is part of that requirement by the Department of Energy so that they can assure the President that our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. Modernizing these nuclear weapons makes sense. Now, we can sit and argue whether we need all these nuclear weapons or not--I happen to think we can get by on quite a number fewer nuclear weapons--but we still have to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile that we currently have and let the Department of Defense do their Nuclear Posture Review and make a determination of what ought to be the ultimate number of nuclear weapons we have, but, as long as we have this, we have got to make sure they are safe and they are reliable. Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the gentleman is trying to do. I would just point out again that this amendment does not direct the funds to any particular activity, so it will actually take some coordination with us and some conversation with the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure that this goes in the area that we would like it to go to to study just what the gentleman was talking about. But because it doesn't direct it to a particular activity, for that reason and because it does not upset the balance of the bill, I will not oppose the amendment. In fact, I will support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and we not only need to work with the Corps, but we also need to work with the EPA in trying to address this issue because it is a lot broader than most people think. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the EERE. I actually like the program. But we had to make some difficult decisions, and our highest priority is maintaining our nuclear stockpile and making sure that our defense activities were fully funded. Secondly, it was making sure that the Army Corps of Engineers was fully funded at the WRDA level that our colleagues here on the floor always insist on. That means we had to make some difficult decisions within the Department of Energy. EERE, we did the best we could. But when the gentleman says, you know, we are not living in the Cold War anymore, so we don't need the nuclear weapons and stuff and we don't need these facilities and stuff, you are right, we are not living in the Cold War anymore. It is scarier times right now than it was in the Cold War. You never need those facilities until you need those facilities, and you better have had them by then. That is the problem. It is not looking forward. So I oppose this amendment because we have done our best within the weapons activities to make sure that we do what our Nation requires, and that is to make sure that we have a safe, reliable, and secure nuclear stockpile. And we ought to let the Defense Department come out with their Nuclear Posture Review and tell us what they believe we need as a weapons system, altogether, when that review comes out. I oppose it also because it takes money for the arguments made by my friends from West Virginia, because it takes money out of the fossil energy research. As they said every time I have asked the Department of Energy, ``What do you think the amount of energy we are going to consume over the next 20 or 30 years that comes from hydrocarbons, coal, and natural gas, is going to be in the future,'' it is actually a larger part, not a smaller part. And while I have been to NREL, I think NREL is a great lab. They do some incredible work out there. We want to support them. We want to make sure that they stay open and that they can do the job that we have asked them to do and that our other labs can also. But this amendment, I think, is directly the wrong direction to go.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand that reducing the size of the bureaucracy is an important issue for many Members, and should be for all of us. As chair of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am always open to hearing if my colleagues have particular concerns with agency budget requests. I could be supportive of thoughtful strategies for reducing the size of government by making agencies more efficient and carrying out their statutory goals. That is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply slashes 10 percent from each administrative account in the bill. Most of these accounts have been held flat or even slightly decreased over the past several years. Reducing them an additional 10 percent, with no clear idea on how such cuts would be absorbed, is simply not the right way to address the size of the Federal Government. It could take longer to review and improve important water resource projects--I hear about that all the time from my colleagues--or to issue grants and approve research agreements--I hear about that all the time from my colleagues--or to respond to congressional information requests--I hear about that all the time from my colleagues. These cuts would also put at risk the cybersecurity efforts of each agency, reducing their efforts to secure their own IT infrastructure. I don't think that is what the gentleman from Michigan intended, but that is a very possible result of this amendment. Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I must urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 3219, pursuant to House Resolution 473, amendment No. 32 and amendment No. 35, printed in House Report 115-259, may be offered out of sequence.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.