Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed 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. I claim the time in opposition 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. 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. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

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. 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. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. It is wonderful to have someone who can talk with some intelligence about what we are doing here, and keep the attention of the body as we are waiting for Members to come to the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his question. Yes. It has been the committee's intent that funds provided to date were to be used to complete the feasibility study and issue a chief's report. There is additional funding provided in this bill that could be allocated to the Rahway River study, if necessary.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the en bloc amendments have been agreed to by both sides, and I would urge my Members to support the en bloc amendments. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water bill before you today. Before I go into the details, I would like to recognize Chairman Frelinghuysen. It is because of his leadership and unswerving commitment to the appropriations process that our committee has managed to bring 12 bills through the full committee process and have them ready for consideration by the House. I would also like to thank Ranking Members Lowey and Kaptur. As always, their thoughtful approach to issues has made this a better bill. The bill totals $37.6 billion, which is $209 million less than last year's level and $3.2 billion above the request. Increases over last year are targeted to those areas where they are needed most: to provide for our Nation's defense and support our Nation's infrastructure. The bill provides strong support for the Department of Energy's national defense programs. Weapons activities is funded at $10.24 billion, up $921 million from last year's level, to keep our Nation's nuclear deterrent reliable and effective. This increase will fully fund the ongoing stockpile life extension programs and will make substantial progress toward addressing the continued deterioration of infrastructure across the enterprise. The recommendations for Naval Reactors is $1.49 billion, and includes full funding for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, formerly referred to as the Ohio-class replacement. Additionally, the bill provides funding increases across the Department of Energy to defend against cyber attacks and, within Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, to strengthen energy sector cybersecurity preparedness, response, and recovery. This bill addresses the critical infrastructure work of the Army Corps of Engineers, providing a total of $6.2 billion, an increase of $120 million more than last year. This recommendation makes full use of all annual revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The harbor maintenance trust fund activities are funded at $1.34 billion, which is $40 million more than fiscal year 2017, an increase of $375 million above the budget request, and the same as the WRDA target. The bill provides $74 million more than last year for flood and storm damage reduction activities. This is a responsibile bill, one that makes some difficult choices in order to prioritize the most critical Federal programs. As a result, as has been mentioned already, this bill eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy--or ARPA-E, as it is known--and the title 17 loan guarantee program of the Department of Energy, as proposed by the President. I realized some people are concerned about that. These are programs that I happen to like also. But this is what happens when you are $20 trillion in debt: you have to make tough choices. And that is what the Appropriations Committee is doing: making some of the difficult choices that we have to make. This bill includes a number of targeted investments above the budget request to ensure a secure, independent, and prosperous energy future. Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill that will protect our national security interests, address our most pressing infrastructure needs, and advance our economy. I urge everyone to support it. I would like to thank the staff of the Energy and Water Committee, both ranking and minority members, and of the full committee, for the work they have done in making sure we can get this bill to the floor. Again, I urge Members to support this bill.

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.