Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 5055 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my distinct honor to bring this fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act before you today. Before I go into the details, I would like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey on this bill and in the appropriations process in our trying to get back to regular order. I would also like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate her help and her hard work on this bill. This bill is a better bill because of her input on this legislation. The bill provides $37.4 billion for the activities of the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies under our jurisdiction. This is $259 million more than last year's funding level and is $168 million above the budget request. This is a responsible bill that recognizes the importance of investing in this Nation's infrastructure and national defense. As we do each year, we work hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle. The administration's proposal to cut the programs of the Army Corps of Engineers by $1.4 billion would have led to economic disruptions at our ports and waterways silted in and would have left our communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding. Instead, this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and provides $6.1 billion for those activities. This includes $1.8 billion for flood and coastal storm damage reduction projects. These projects prevented damages of $14.8 billion in 2014 alone. Harbor maintenance activities are funded at $1.26 billion, the same as last year, and $122 million more than the fiscal year 2017 target. The bill makes use of all estimated annual revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program is funded at $9.3 billion, which is $438 million more than last year. This increase will support full funding for the stockpile life extension programs. It also includes an additional $106 million above the request to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and $30 million above the request to upgrade the security infrastructure where nuclear weapons material is stored. The recommendation for naval reactors is $1.4 billion, an increase of $45 million, and includes full funding for the Ohio-class replacement submarine. A national energy policy can only be successful if it maintains stability while investing in a secure, independent, and prosperous energy future. This bill makes balanced investments in a true all-of- the-above energy strategy. This bill also takes a strong stand against the regulatory overreach and extreme application of laws that have been the hallmark of this administration. The bill opposes the administration's actions with regard to the Clean Water Act and includes three provisions that prohibit changes to the definition of ``fill material,'' the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and the permit requirement for certain agricultural activities. The bill also includes several provisions to ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation maximizes water deliveries in California to help alleviate the drought while sustaining senior water rights and maintaining environmental protections. This is a strong bill that will advance our national security interests and our economy, and I urge everyone to support it. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH250516.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH250516.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH250516.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH250516.004

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, did the gentleman yield back his time?

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full committee that does a great job with this appropriations process.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member, and our colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce to see if we can find an appropriate path forward on this issue.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say that this is an important bill. It is an important bill for our economy, and it is an important bill for our defense. I did want to say that I appreciate the staff and the hard work that they have put into this legislation, trying to address the requests of many Members. We have had something like--I can't remember the numbers--2300 different requests from Members for this piece of legislation, and we were able to address, in at least one form or another, about 95 percent of those requests. The staff works very hard to make this a bill that all Members can support. It has been a pleasure working with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). She is from Ohio. I am from Idaho. We come from different States and have different perspectives and different points of view and different interests many times, and it is fun to sit in our hearings because oftentimes she brings up issues that I would have never thought of as we have people before us testifying, and I hope I do the same occasionally, too, and all our members do that. That is what really makes this process work. That is why getting back to regular order and debating bills and marking them up and going to conference, as the Speaker and leader and minority leader have tried to do here, is so important. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While there may be instances in which the greater coordination would be helpful to ensure our ocean and coastal resources are available to future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach. As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights. Unfortunately, the way this administration developed its National Ocean Policy increases the opportunities for 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 directly or indirectly on the oceans. The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore, oppose the amendment and suggest that the Committee on Natural Resources is the one that should be taking this up if they want to develop a National Ocean Policy.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, in fact, we were not wrong. Congress did not approve a national ocean plan. Now, we can argue about it whether they should have or whether they shouldn't have or whether Chairman Pombo should have brought it up or shouldn't have brought it up, or whatever, but that is way the process works around here. There are things that aren't brought up that I think ought to be brought up. I have got a wildfire funding bill that hasn't been brought up. I think it ought to be brought up. That doesn't mean the administration can go out and say: Hey, that is the right thing to do. We are going to do it by executive order. That is the problem with this administration, that they have got a phone and they have got a pen if they don't get what they want out of Congress and Congress decides not to act for whatever reason. We didn't act on immigration. I think that was wrong. I think we should have. But guess what. We didn't. That doesn't free the President to say: Well, if you won't do it, I am going to do it. That is kind of what he did with the National Ocean Policy, and that is the problem we have here. That is why I oppose the amendment, even though it might be the right thing for us to do in the long run. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I am concerned that the amendment would limit the activities that may be necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. That is basically it. We need to be modernizing the legacy facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. And these are old facilities, if we are going to have a credible nuclear deterrent. That is what this is all about, is keeping our nuclear deterrent and making sure that we have the facilities to produce those things that are necessary. It is as simple as that. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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, 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.