Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for his strong advocacy for these important cleanup activities. I agree they are probably the most important in this country. I look forward to working with him to ensure that activities at Hanford's tank farms and at the waste treatment plant receive the funding required to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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.

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.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California for inviting me to speak on this important matter. I agree that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill should strive to make our Federal agencies work more efficiently with each other and work together. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a good friend of mine and a member of the Appropriations Committee. He is the chairman of the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations. Before yielding to Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida, I would like to thank the gentleman for all his tireless work on behalf of the Everglades, truly a remarkable spot. He is a true leader on these issues, and he continues to restore the Everglades to their natural state.

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. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. It is my understanding the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment after speaking on it.

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

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.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlelady 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 gentlelady 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 gentlelady and the gentleman for working with the committee. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.

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

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.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.