Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. There you go. The amendment that was reported by the Clerk was the MOX facility that took $125 million out of the MOX facility.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment you are speaking to on the pit production is an end of the bill amendment, and we are not yet at the end of the bill.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his efforts in nonproliferation and his strong advocacy for this program and trying to become the expert. And really, he is what I consider maybe one of the foremost experts in the House on nonproliferation issues. I thank both the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from California for their efforts in this area. It is a challenging issue for us. You know, I was interested to hear the $47 billion because I have heard $31 billion. I have heard $30 billion. There are all sorts of different estimates, and we haven't got the numbers of how they came to these conclusions. And when they look to the alternatives in this report that just came out from the Department, they said, if I remember correctly, the downblend activities had a cost that was much less. But if you look at the downblend alternatives, what they didn't add into it is that you would put that material in WIPP theoretically. First of all, you would have to get WIPP extended. It is supposed to be closed. So you have got a 15-year extension of what you would have to do. There was no cost in there for the operation of WIPP for those 15 years and what it was going to cost. So we are still having a hard time coming to grips with what the actual cost of the different alternatives are. This is one of those things that it is frustrating for our committee, I think, over the years for a lot of different things. Where we head down one path, spend billions of dollars, and then all of a sudden, change directions. And it seems like we are throwing money away. But I am open to looking at what the alternatives are, and I want to look at the numbers behind the report that came out. But this amendment simply adds and reduces the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by the same amount. Therefore, the language of the amendment doesn't change the amounts directed specifically for the MOX project in the House report, which will continue to be funded at $345 million. But I understand both of your concerns. They are concerns I share. And they are concerns we need to address because you are absolutely right. If we are not going to go down this road, we shouldn't be spending $345 million a year. Now we are going to spend a bunch of money at the start. Even if you close it down, it is going to cost some money, or if you stop it. So all of that needs to be taken into consideration. But we need to make a determination of what is going to happen with MOX and what we are going to do with this additional plutonium. Some people have suggested maybe the best thing to do is store it. Of course that violates an agreement that we have with the Russians. So you would have to get their agreement on that. So it is a challenging issue, I will be the first to admit. And we have had a challenge in the committee trying to deal with it.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill fully funds the request of $195 million to initiate a life extension program for the W80 warhead. The life extension program will replace nonnuclear and other components to extend the life of the W80 and to ensure it can be deployed on the Air Force's Long-Range Standoff cruise missile, or the LRSO, should that program move forward. Certainly, the committee will look to realign the work that needs to be done on the W80 if there are changes to the schedule for the LRSO. But as long as that program stays on track, we need to make sure that the work that needs to be done by the NNSA is properly aligned with those efforts. The gentleman's amendment would make it more difficult for the NNSA to meet its schedule requirements, and I urge Members to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. As I said, performing additional work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth while we are finding out about what the red team assessment comes up with. So I think this is important that we defeat this amendment so that we can move forward with modernization of this warhead. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion, let me thank you for your excellent stewardship of this bill through general order, through the amendment debate in the wee hours of the morning. We all appreciate it. It has been fair and helped move it along in an orderly manner. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee's consistency. We have seen a lot of these amendments. The problem is with the debate. You would think that we were not doing anything to reduce this deficit, that we were not cutting spending. The reality is the only committee in Congress that is actually cutting spending is the Appropriations Committee, and we have been cutting spending for the last 4 years. Now, this bill that we have before us today meets with and falls within the budget resolution that was just adopted earlier this day, and, if we had wanted to reduce everything by 1 percent again, then we should have adopted a different budget resolution. It is easy to say let's just take one penny out of every dollar. Who can't do that? We have taken much more than one penny out of every dollar as we have cut spending more and more in the appropriations process by the Appropriations Committee. It is not that we don't want to reduce spending; we are reducing spending, but, of course, we could cut one more cent out of every dollar we spend. Who couldn't do that? Then we will have a new baseline. You know what? Then we ought to cut one penny out of every dollar at that baseline. You know what? Then we will have another baseline, and we can cut one more penny out of that. We are trying to do it smarter. We are trying to look at the needs of the agencies that we fund, reduce spending, and set priorities. While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayers dollars, this is not an approach that I can 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 the current law. While difficult tradeoffs had to be made--and difficult tradeoffs were made--there are accounts in this bill that I think we ought to be spending more money on. There are accounts in this bill that I think we ought to be spending less money on that are a higher priority to some other Members of Congress. That is kind of the nature of how the appropriations process works. Nobody gets everything they want. One thing we have been consistent on for the fifth year in a row is that we have been reducing spending. We prioritize funding for critical infrastructure and our Nation's defense. Most of the increases that are in this budget this year that will be coming out of the overall 302(a)'s went to the national defense, the NNSA, our nuclear weapons programs. We prioritize funding, as I said, for critical infrastructure. The President cut $750 million--around that--out of the harbor maintenance trust fund. In trying to secure our inland waterways and our harbors for the commerce that our economy needs, we replaced that, which means we had to make even more difficult cuts in a lot of these agencies. These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and their responsibility; yet the gentlelady's amendment would propose an across-the-board cut on every one of these programs. This makes no distinction between where we need to be spending or investing our infracture, promote jobs, and meet our national security needs and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Let me say again, I appreciate the gentlewoman's consistent effort in making sure that we keep focused on addressing what is the number one problem in this country, and that is the debt this country faces, and this committee has been doing that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First, let me assure my colleague that I am sympathetic to the intention of what he is trying to do here. The gentleman seeks to show support for additional funding for projects that are important to his district and to his constituents, and I understand that. Unfortunately, although I know it is not the gentleman's intent, the amendment would limit all funding for the construction of flood control projects to no more than $276 million. That is a cut of almost $500 million in flood control projects. I would hope that we would all agree that that is unacceptable. Even as intended, though, I must oppose the amendment. The President's budget request increased funding for environmental projects above the fiscal year 2015 level while slashing funding for flood control projects by almost $300 million. In this bill, on the other hand, we were able to restore the flood control funding, and we did it without slashing the funding for environmental projects. I would, respectfully, ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment even though I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. We would be more than willing to work with him--with both of you--in trying to address this issue as we move this process forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Does the gentleman have time remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, again, I understand what he is trying to do, and I sympathize with what you are trying to do. You are correct in that the funds remain unallocated in the flood control account. That is because, for some reason, the administration is dragging its feet on allocating these funds. It is not because the funds are not needed or cannot be used. In fact, the bill includes language to try to correct this problem. But I can't support increasing funding for environmental projects at the expense of projects that improve public safety and protect our communities. I would offer both of the gentlemen the opportunity to work with the committee, and I will work with you to try to address this issue as we move forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. You reserved your time. So you could yield time to the gentleman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman would like to do and how it would be helpful to his constituents. I would be happy to continue the discussion of this issue to see if there is anything that this subcommittee can do. I will not oppose this amendment, and I will try to help accomplish this goal that the gentleman is trying to achieve. It is amazing to me that, when everybody agrees on something, how hard it can still be to get it done.

Mr. SIMPSON. I object. I am going to be opposed.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.