Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Does the gentleman have time remaining?

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

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. 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. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill that we are currently considering meets the budget resolution that was just adopted. We have been cutting discretionary spending for the last 4 years, $173 billion, as I understand it, over the last 4 years, not in decreases in the increases, but actual decreases in spending. This goes way too far and makes sweeping changes with broad cuts to the reductions. This is an approach I can't support. I am particularly concerned about the impact this amendment would have on our critical infrastructure, as mentioned by the gentlewoman from Ohio, and the basic research needs that are prioritized in this bill. While the gentleman has attempted to exclude national security activities, I have got to tell you, in all honesty, national security is not the only thing the Federal Government does. We do do other things. We maintain our waterways and our ports and other activities. This amendment would still have the detrimental impact on the security of nuclear materials at the Idaho National Laboratory. These accounts are very complex, and reductions to each account must be carefully weighed, and that is what this subcommittee has been doing and holding hearings on for the last 4 months. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would prevent the Department from transforming the National Energy Technology Laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory, or to consolidate or close NETL. NETL does important research in support of a balanced energy portfolio that will increase the efficiency and safe usage of abundant natural resources in this Nation. I appreciate my colleague's passion for this issue, and I have no objection to this amendment being included in the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his interest in this subject. I can assure you that the subcommittee is very concerned also, and we look forward to working with you and your committees as we try to right-size the NRC and all of the budgets that we will be doing in the future. As you said, the NRC is well aware of the fact that they need to right-size themselves as they try to attempt to implement their Project Aim 2020, so I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Ensuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. The bill fully funds the $195 million needed to initiate a life extension program for the W80 warhead, the only nuclear-tipped cruise missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. 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 stand off cruise missile, or LRSO, should that program move forward. The budget request was considered a 2-year acceleration of the LRSO program, compared to last year's stockpile plan, to meet a defense requirement for deployment in 2030. However, it is clear that there is considerable planning that needs to be accomplished by the administration before Congress can have confidence in these long-term stockpile plans. While 2030 may seem like many years away, these warheads are very complex, and there is considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then. Performing additional work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA to reduce technical risk and limit any cost growth. The gentleman's amendment would slash funding for this effort, and that will add additional risk and uncertainty to the schedule. We must do the work that is needed to extend the life of this warhead as long as there is a clear defense requirement for maintaining a nuclear cruise missile capability. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California. And I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, again, for his efforts in this area. I know it is a matter of both urgency to the United States and to the world, actually. But I thank the gentleman for his efforts in this arena, and continue on. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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