Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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. 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 thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. My colleague's amendment would prohibit the use of funds at the Department of Energy to propose efficiency standards for ceiling fan light kits, residential dishwashers, and vending machines. Mr. Chairman, the law in question allows for executive overreach by prescribing what industry can and cannot sell and what consumers can and cannot buy. Industry has legitimate concerns about the government forcing a wholesale change to a market for something as common as a dishwasher. This amendment reins back this overreaching regulation, and I support this amendment and recommend my colleagues vote ``yes.''

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's arguments. It sounds like we are back at the Constitutional Convention: Should we have the legislative branch of government be represented by the population, or should it be represented by the States? I know. Let's compromise. Let's have two bodies, one that represents the States with an equal number from each State, and one that represents the population. We will call one the House of Representatives, and we will call one the Senate. That is how it works out. We are one Nation, and we try to make sure that funds go to all States. Some of them have a disadvantage just by the sheer size. And if you look at Idaho, we are the 12th largest State, and, I suspect, populationwise, we are down there substantially. Montana is probably even worse off than we are. So it is almost impossible for the universities and so forth to compete with some of the larger States. So we can argue about whether the formulas are correct or absolutely correct or if they shouldn't be modified or anything else like that, and I am more than willing to do that, but to eliminate the program I think is just an entire mistake. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I must insist on my point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this debate has been going on for a while. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. I have been having this debate with the Secretary of Energy for some time. I understand where the people from South Carolina are coming from. We are talking about jobs and we are talking about the economy. I don't have a dog in this fight, but what I do have is responsibility as chairman of this committee. Five years from now, we are not sitting up here talking about the same thing, another chairman and another Secretary of Energy and another President. The Department of Energy is famous for starting programs and getting halfway down and then spending billions of dollars and then walking away from them. Yucca Mountain is the biggest hole in the ground--they spent $14 billion to build--than anything I have ever seen. And it is not the only thing that the Department of Energy has done. But they come to us now and say: Hey, we have a plan and it is going to be cheaper. We think that MOX is going to cost $30 billion. Other people say: Nah, that is a stretch. We are looking more like 20 or something like that. Nobody can get the numbers right, so we ask them to rebaseline it. They haven't done that. But they come to us and say: We have a plan. We think that what we ought to do is just dilute this stuff and then dispose of it. Okay. Great. What is that going to take? Well, first of all, we have a treaty with Russia. Have the Russians agreed to this? Well, no, but we think they will. Well, you know, there are a lot of things I think that my wife will agree to that she doesn't in the long run. So we are going to go out and we are going to stop construction of this on the hope that the Russians are going to agree with us. Of course, we have such a good relationship going on with them right now. But the Department says: Oh, I think they will be okay, and they have indicated they are willing to talk. Okay. We are going to dispose of it. Where are we going to dispose of it? WIPP? WIPP is shut down right now, but we are going to get WIPP reopened. Is that where we are going to put it? Is WIPP large enough to hold this? Are we going to have to do another land withdrawal in New Mexico? Is the State of New Mexico okay with this? Well, we don't know. We haven't talked to them yet. So what you want to do is stop this before you have a plan of what you want to do with it, and that is just crazy. And that is my problem. If the Department would come to us and say that the Russians have agreed to amend the treaty, and New Mexico has agreed that they will take the stuff, then maybe we could have a serious discussion. But right now, it is just all pie in the sky. I will tell you that if you really don't care about the treaty and you really don't care about where they dispose of it--dispose of it in New Mexico--the cheapest thing to do is just store it, but nobody wants to do that. So all we are saying is let's be reasonable on this and let's recognize that you have a facility here that is 67 percent complete. I think we ought to go down the same road. Although there are others, I have to admit, that look at $340 million--and probably it will be $500 million when it gets going as we continue, as construction ramps up-- but look at that as: Oh, that is taking money out of my programs in my town, and I don't want that to happen. So let's stop MOX, and that means my favorite project will get more money. I know there is a lot of that going on, too. So I understand where the gentleman is coming from. There are other people that agree with him. There are people on my side of the aisle that come up and ask why are we spending money on that boondoggle? It is not a boondoggle. The fact is it is supposed to create MOX fuel. While the Department says there are no energy companies that want the MOX fuel, that is not true. There are some who would sign long-term agreements. The problem is they see this debate and are wondering whether we are going to have any or not. But the problem is the Department won't come to us with a solid proposal that we can rely on that is an alternative that we could weigh one against the other. I don't want 5 years or 10 years from now a chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies at that time and a Secretary of Energy to be down on the street corner arguing about: Well, gee, we stopped MOX. We got that big cement pile out there. We stopped construction on that. We have a problem with New Mexico, and the Russians are on our back. They won't do anything about the treaty. What are we going to do? Let's think of something else. So until somebody has a reasonable alternative that they could compare it to and the cost to, we need to continue with this MOX project. And that is why the funding is in there for this bill and that is why we will fight for it in conference, even though the Senate, I know, wants to stop it and do other things. So, anyway, that is why that is there. I appreciate what the gentleman is doing. I understand his concerns. Other people have those concerns, but the right path for us to follow is to continue the project that currently exists. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment, basically, is duplicative and ignores the existing responsible contractor award system that is already in place. Contracting officers must already consult the System for Award Management to ensure a contractor can be awarded a contract. Businesses on the Excluded Parties List System have been suspended or debarred through a due process system and may not be eligible to receive or renew contracts for such cited offenses. The best way to ensure the government contracts or provides grants to the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment system. Bad actors who are in violation of basic worker protections should not be awarded Federal contracts. We all agree with that. That is why the Federal Government already has a system in place to deny Federal contracts to bad actors. If a contractor fails to maintain high standards of integrity and business ethics, agencies already have the authority to suspend or debar the employer from government contracting. In 2014, Federal agencies issued more than 1,000 suspensions and nearly 2,000 debarments to employers who bid on Federal contracts. The amendment will delay the procurement process with harmful consequences to our Nation's nuclear safety and security. On numerous occasions, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has highlighted costly litigation stemming from the complex regulatory rules, including from the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment punishes employers who may unknowingly or unwillingly get caught in the Federal Government's maze of bureaucratic rules and reporting requirements. The procurement process is already plagued by delays and inefficiencies. This amendment will make these problems worse for the Department of Energy--the second largest contracting agency outside of the Department of Defense--further delaying critical support for national nuclear security operations. This amendment will work against those who are working hard to protect the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers assets, which is inconceivable given the safety needs of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, 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 suggest that if that is the case, then I suspect that the gentleman, if that is his desire, then I suspect that the gentleman supports the Republican plan to not spend as much money in the EERE as the President wanted because we are spending less in EERE, and in some other programs within the Department of Energy we are spending less than the administration wanted. So I am glad to hear that he would support the Republican position on that because we are spending less. Now, there is one thing we both agree on. I would like to see a balanced budget amendment before us. I think it would be important that we would pass one. That is not what we are debating today. What we are debating today is the Energy and Water Development program. What we do is we have a cap on how much we can spend. That cap is within the bipartisan budget that was agreed to last year. I suspect the gentleman probably voted for it. I don't know that for sure, but I suspect he probably did. This is within that budget. If the gentleman wants to decrease the funding in EERE and all of the other programs that the Republicans have reduced funding in, then, gee, I will go along with him. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. He would cut $285 million out of the fossil energy program. What is interesting about this is that they say that this is an unbalanced bill because we have increased funding for fossil energy. And if you look at the amount of the electricity in this country and the energy that is produced by fossil energy, the research done in fossil energy by those big companies, as the gentleman suggests, is important, and it is proportional to the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels in this country. To suggest that let's make sure that we don't do any fossil fuel research or we cut it substantially suggests that we don't do any subsidies to any of the other fuels in this country. We don't do any wind subsidies. We don't do any solar subsidies or any of the other types of things for these big companies. In fact, we do loan guarantees for a lot of them that go out of business. So I think this is important, and striking the majority of these funds--or at least taking it back to what the President recommended-- the problem is that the bill created a balanced, all-of-the-above energy policy. It is the administration's proposal that was unbalanced, and focused mainly on renewable energies and ignored, to a large degree, the majority of the fuel that we use today, the energy sources we use today, and that is the fuel of fossil fuels. As I said in the last debate on one of the earlier amendments, 81 percent of the fuel we use today, and if you ask most experts, they don't expect that to go down in the near future or even in the long- term future. It is going to remain a major portion of our energy portfolio for years to come. So I would oppose this amendment. What we do in the fossil energy research program is very important to developing the clean source of energy that we all want. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment would cut funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program and increase the EERE program by a similar amount. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide for 81 percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and generates 67 percent of the Nation's electricity. It will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. Let me repeat that. They provide for 81 percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and generate 67 percent of the Nation's electricity. The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions in fossil energy and, instead, funds these programs at $645 million, or $13 million above last year's request. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will research how to capture emissions from our power plants on how water can be more effectively used in power plants and how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel cells. This amendment would reduce the funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation's abundant fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. In fact, just increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel by 1 percent would power millions of households, all without using a pound of additional fuel from the ground. That is the kind of research this program represents. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that that is just kind of a bogus argument. It is not that we are saying to the President: You have to spend this money in this area. We are rebalancing the portfolio. We are not spending any more money than the President recommended in the entire bill--well, we are about $285 million, or $259 million, but most of that is in the weapons activities. But we are rebalancing the portfolio. We are spending less than the President wants to spend in other areas. So to say, oh, we are just trying to spend money is not the case. We have different priorities. We want an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which is what this bill represents. We spend money in solar, we spend money in wind, we spend money in nuclear, and we spend money in fossil energy. Those are all important. So just because the gentleman doesn't like fossil energy doesn't mean that we ought to do away with the research on it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) to the end that the Chair puts the question de novo.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).