Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While there may be instances--and I am sure there are--in which greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our coastal resources are available for future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach. As we saw with the Obama administration's WOTUS rule to redefine waters of the United States, thorough and strong Congressional oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights. Unfortunately, the way the Obama administration developed the National Ocean Policy increased the opportunities for Federal overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping that it may allow the Federal Government to affect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans. The facts is that the previous administration did not work with Congress. This is their National Ocean Policy. They never brought it to Congress. If you are going to do something this sweeping, you need to have congressional input. They never came to Congress to develop its plan, and they had even refused to provide relevant information to Congress. So we can't be sure how sweeping it actually could be if left unchecked. That is why I support the language of the underlying bill and, therefore, oppose this amendment. But I understand their concern. But why not bring it to Congress? Why not have Congress enact the National Ocean Policy instead of just relying on the executive branch to do whatever they want to do? That is the problem the Natural Resources Committee has with this. It is a problem I have with this, and that is why I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, we will work together to see if we can solve this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will just say it is kind of interesting that I don't disagree with anything Ms. Pingree is saying. The problem is, there is a process, and Congress needs to be involved. The last administration did not involve Congress. If it is a good policy, why don't we just let the administration do it? If you can't get the votes on the floor, doesn't that tell you something? Maybe you need to go and work this out and bring the policy to the floor. But if we are just going to let the administration do that, I don't know, maybe we will let this administration just enact a tax policy because we have a tough time doing it here in Congress. I don't know, maybe we will let them enact the healthcare policy because we can't get together on the floor to see what to do about our healthcare system, so let's just let the administration do it all. It is exactly what you are doing with this. You bring an actual ocean policy to the floor, if I think it is a good bill and necessary, I will vote for it. I can't tell you what I will vote for yet because I haven't seen it. But just because Congress hasn't acted doesn't give the administrative branch of government the right to interject itself and take on the legislative branch of government's responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this infrastructure need is not for a new pit facility. They would need to come to us and ask us what they were going to do with funding, and request funding for that. They did not do that. This is for infrastructure needs and upgrades. But the other thing is that I am as much a nonproliferation activist as anyone in this body. I think it is important work. But the reality is that there are $681 million unexpended from previous years, not because funding is not available--the money is there--but they haven't been able to get agreements with other countries. Unfortunately, you can't do work in other countries without having agreements with those countries. So, consequently, we are--I guess you could maybe say--overfunded in nonproliferation if we can't spend the money on that activity. That is the problem. Why would we put the money into that when we need the money in infrastructure and building and repairing the buildings and facilities that NNSA has? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I am sure if this amendment is defeated, we will have this discussion next year, and I hope my colleagues will vote against this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concern and thank her for her advocacy for this project. The committee has been supportive of this project and has provided $42 million in prior years. The bill includes an additional $18 million to ensure that the project moves forward, and I am happy to work with her as the project advances and understand this amendment will be withdrawn, and I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, although I am opposed to the amendment, I have to admit that I do enjoy our annual discussion on this. I oppose this amendment because the bill already shows strong support for the nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Funding for nuclear defense nonproliferation is $1.83 billion--$76.5 million below fiscal year 2017 and $16.8 million below the budget request. Within nonproliferation, the bill largely supports funding as requested, but makes a limited number of realignments within the account to emphasize the importance of nonproliferation research and development activities and to meet international commitments for plutonium disposition. Our understanding--and this is the important point. Our understanding is that budget request is down because NNSA still has significant unexpended balances in this account due to slow progress on international nonproliferation agreements. Specifically, the NNSA reported in May that it had approximately $2.2 billion in funds available to carry out its nonproliferation mission, of which over $680 million is left over from prior years. For years, NNSA has struggled to execute funding in its nonproliferation budget because it could not obtain agreement from other nations to do the work as quickly as planned or as we would maybe like to. This amendment also targets funding from the weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization program. Created in fiscal year 2014 by Congress, the recapitalization program has been highly successful in addressing the aging and deteriorating infrastructure at NNSA sites. Replacing things like telephone poles, leaking fireman valves, roofing, and addressing other basic infrastructure needs are essential to the safe and continued operation of these nuclear security sites. The budget request proposed to cut the program, and the bill increases funding $118 million above the request to restore that program to the fiscal year 2017 level. We should not divert funding needed to address these urgent infrastructure needs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern on this issue and appreciate the fact that he brought it up for discussion here tonight. I would note that the weapons activities accounts provides funding to ensure the reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The NNSA does not use funds within this account to counter proliferation of biological weapons, although I understand it is an important issue, and I agree with them we need to address this issue. However, this amendment increases and decreases the same account and has no effect on the bill overall, so I will accept the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first, let me say, it was not a $300-some- odd-million plus-up in the fossil energy research. In fact, I think the fossil energy research account was down from last year. It was more than the President requested, but it is not a plus-up from what it was in 2017. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy by $20 million but has to use $40 million from the Fossil Energy Research & Development account as an offset. This bill was the result of some tough choices. I have to admit, they were some tough choices. It is not that I oppose the program that the good lady advocates for, but there were some tough choices. We had to prioritize research and development that will increase our energy independence. Our domestic energy resources are vast, and this bill strikes a balance to lay the foundations for future energy generation technologies, while maintaining full support for the resources we use most today. Increasing funding for EERE by diverting funding from fossil energy strikes the wrong balance when considering the Nation's electricity needs. Fossil fuels produce 65 percent of the electricity we use today and will continue to provide the majority of the Nation's energy needs in the future. 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. For all of the reasons that team fossil talked about earlier tonight, I must oppose the amendment and urge my Members to do the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SIMPSON. It comes from Corps expenses and administration.

Mr. SIMPSON. I knew we could get through this. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Soo Locks project is of great importance to my colleague from Michigan, as well as other Members from the Great Lakes. I would be happy to work with them to see if we can advance this project to ensure continued navigation on the Great Lakes. I have to remind my colleague that the amendment increases the funding level of an account. It does not direct that funding level to a particular activity, and, for that reason, the amendment does not constitute a major shift in funding between accounts, and I will support the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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 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 gentleman from West Virginia.

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

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.