Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5055, is a good bill that invests $37.4 billion in priorities we can all support--national security, critical water resources, infrastructure projects for our districts, and energy independence--through an all-of-the-above approach. First and foremost, this legislation is a defense bill. $19.44 billion out of the 37.4 billion, or 51 percent, is dedicated toward our national security. Carrying out our Nation's nuclear deterrence mission is, in part, the responsibility of the Department of Energy; while DOD provides delivery vehicles and operators, DOE provides nuclear warheads themselves. Congress provides funding for this critical defense mission through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. As we drafted this bill, we carefully considered 2,700 Member requests. This legislation addresses 95 percent of those requests in one form or another. This included four requests from Democratic Members to fund nonproliferation programs at the budget request level of $1.8 billion, which this bill does. I agree that nonproliferation is a critical part of our overall nuclear defense strategy. We need to be doing everything we can to keep dangerous nuclear materials away from rogue nations and terrorists. Extra funding for DOE nonproliferation programs, however, is not the only way to do this. We must also provide for a strong defense capability, and this bill accomplishes that. While I appreciate the passion for the nonproliferation and securing these materials abroad, I would also like to see the same passion for securing these materials at home. While the prospect of a terrorist getting hold of nuclear materials in the Middle East, Africa, or East Asia is terrifying, the prospect of them getting ahold of these materials in Tennessee, Texas, or California is even more so. In 2012, three peace activists--a drifter, an 82-year-old nun, and a house painter--penetrated the exterior of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee, supposedly one of the most secure nuclear facilities in the United States. If they had been terrorists armed with explosives, that scenario would be frightening to imagine. That is why this funding in this bill is so critical. The bill increases funding $30 million above the request to improve security at aging nuclear weapons facilities to make sure our own nuclear materials are secure on our home soil and address a backlog of $2 billion in security upgrades needed at nuclear weapons facilities. In a tight fiscal environment, we need to be making these investments at our own nuclear facilities, not spending American taxpayer dollars to perform work in Russia's nuclear facilities. In addition to these investments, the bill also continues prohibitions on funding for nonproliferation projects in Russia, which is spending billions of dollars on its own nuclear modernization. In all, this is a fiscally responsible, economically smart, and critically important national security bill. It deserves to be passed quickly without further changes or delays. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion and to support the underlying bill. Lastly, let me say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate every Member of this body, on both sides of the aisle, for the 2 days of debate we have put in for the amendments that we have debated and the respectful debate that we have had on a lot of important issues. It has been a good debate, and I look forward to seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had some of their amendments adopted now voting for this bill because of the amendments that were adopted in the Committee of the Whole. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and vote for passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5055, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I agree with the gentlewoman. The burden should be on the authorizers, and they should do their job, and they should reauthorize the program. I still haven't seen the reauthorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That was last year. I still haven't seen it. I haven't seen the reauthorizations for any of the programs. The whole State Department is unauthorized. Where is the reauthorization? What do you want us to do? We would eliminate about two-thirds of the Federal Government. Now, some people might like that. But we would eliminate about two-thirds of the Federal Government if we just said we are not going to fund any of the Federal programs. So, I mean, it is a debate that goes on. I agree with Congressman McClintock. We have to find a way around this. We have to find a way to address the reauthorization issue without screwing up the whole appropriation process. I think we can do that if reasonable people sit down and try to find a way around this. I actually think that every committee chairman ought to sit down with leadership at the start of a session and say: This is my 5-year plan, and these are all of the programs that are unauthorized under my jurisdiction. This is my 5-year plan to get them reauthorized. They ought to follow through on that work plan. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me respond and tell the story again. We have already gone through this once tonight about authorizations. I don't think we should fund any program that isn't authorized. I don't think we should flat-fund it. I don't think we should fund it. But that is, unfortunately, what the Appropriations Committee ends up doing because the authorizing committees aren't doing their dang job. They are not getting out and reauthorizing the programs. One year--and I will tell the story again. I will tell it again and again, I suspect, as we go through all of this--when I was chairman of the Interior Committee, because the Endangered Species Act at that time had not been reauthorized for 23 years, 23 years, I took all funding for listing of endangered species and designation of critical habitat out of the bill, zero funded it. We brought the bill to the floor. The biggest supporter of my bill and opponent to the amendment to put funding in it for those purposes was the chairman of the Resources Committee. It is the Resources Committee's responsibility to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. But he supported my amendment. And after all of that, guess what? They still haven't reauthorized the Endangered Species Act.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. My colleague's amendment would reduce multiple accounts in the bill. This year, the committee continues its responsibility to effectively manage government spending, and we have worked tirelessly to that end. For example, the nuclear and fossil programs see modest increases in the bill to continue our commitment for an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Basic research conducted by the Office of Science is increased by less than 1 percent, to support research and operation efforts to advance research and development through university partnerships and at the Nation's national laboratory system. Programs to clean up the legacy of the Manhattan Project and nuclear research also see minor increases in order to provide cleanup progress at sites across the country. These are targeted funds to produce needed investments to efficiently and safely utilize our natural resources, maintain the Nation's basic research infrastructure in the physical sciences, and continue the cleanup of Department of Energy legacy programs. I understand my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government, but this amendment goes too far in reducing the strategic investments we need to make in our future. I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to do the same.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually support this amendment, and I don't think it was as drastic as was just characterized by the ranking member. The fact is you can still have oversight; you can still do what is necessary to make sure that contractors at various sites are doing their job; it doesn't mean that you just have to pay them no matter what. The reality is that this administration, as we all know, is using its pen and phone to execute executive orders, and they are punishing the State of North Carolina because they don't like something that North Carolina did. It is in a court. And the Federal Government should not have the ability to come in and prejudge the outcome of that determination by the court by withholding funds from the State of North Carolina simply because it doesn't like what North Carolina did. So this is a good amendment, and I compliment the gentleman for bringing it forward. We have got numerous provisions in this bill to stop the administration and their efforts to impose policies without regard to current law or the support of the Congress. I compliment the gentleman.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. First, let me assure the gentleman that I understand his concerns and appreciate his passion for protecting his constituents. I agree with him that, if the floodway is required to be operated in a major flood event, the levee should be restored as soon as possible after the flood event. In fact, the committee report on this bill makes that very point. Unfortunately, the amendment and the impacts of it are not clear. It is possible that the amendment would actually increase flood risks for other communities within the Mississippi River and tributaries project area. Without understanding the effects of the amendment, I must oppose it.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion with this and his obvious concern and interest. I will tell you that there is a great deal of support for what the gentleman is proposing. Congressman Poe, Congressman Culberson, as well as Members on your side of the aisle, have talked to us repeatedly about the issues that you address here. While this amendment is out of order, I will promise to the gentleman that we will work with him to try to address this problem of one of America's great cities.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her consistency. She always has these amendments to cut 1 percent across the board out of the appropriations bills, and I appreciate her consistent work to protect the taxpayer dollars, but this is an approach that, frankly, I can't 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 current law. You may not agree with current law, but it is the current law, and that is what we had to go with. Since there wasn't a budget resolution passed, what we ended up with is current law; and that is the allocation that we have, and that is what we stayed within. I don't think the Appropriations Committee gets enough credit over the last several years for the work we have been doing in reducing Federal spending. If you look at the total Federal budget and the amount of discretionary spending and mandatory spending, at one time it was about two-thirds discretionary spending and one-third mandatory spending 30 or 40 years ago. Then, about 5 years ago, it was one-third discretionary spending and two-thirds mandatory spending. That is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements. Since we have taken control the last 5 years, that one-third of the budget that is discretionary spending is about 28 percent now. As it continues to go down in relationship to the entire budget, we cut discretionary spending more and more. We have made difficult tradeoffs that had to be made in this bill to balance it with our needs. We prioritize funding for critical infrastructure and for our national defense. These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible. Yet the gentlewoman's amendment imposes an across-the-board cut on every one of these programs, even the national defense programs, which are vitally important. This makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, and meet our national security needs, like meeting the Ohio-class submarine dates so that we can get the Ohio-class submarine done, so that we can do the refurbishment of our nuclear stockpile, so that we can do the other things that are important on the national defense side of this budget. It makes no distinction between those and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.