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. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water bill 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 the appropriation process. I would also like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate her help, and with it, this bill is better because of it. The bill provides $35.4 billion for the activities of the Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $1.2 billion increase from last year's funding level, and $633 million below the request. This is a responsible bill that recognizes the importance of investing in our Nation's infrastructure and national defense. As we do each year, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle. The administration's proposal to cut programs of the Army Corps of Engineers by $750 million would have led to economic disruptions in our ports and waterways as they filled in, and would have left our communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding. Instead, this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and provides $5.6 billion for those activities, $865 million above the request and $142 million more than last year. The bill makes use of all estimated annual revenues from the inland waterways trust fund, for a total of $340 million. The bill takes a strong stand against the administration's regulatory overreach with regards 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 nuclear weapons program run by the Department of Energy is funded at $8.7 billion, which is $526 million more than last year. This increase will support full funding for the stockpile life extension programs, and includes an additional $100 million above the request to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and physical security projects. The recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1.3 billion, an increase of $86 million, and includes full funding for the Ohio class replacement submarine. This bill makes strong, balanced investments in our energy sector to ensure that our constituents continue to have reliable, affordable energy. Fossil energy, which provided more than 67 percent of our electricity production in 2014, received $605 million, a $34 million increase above fiscal year 2015. Nuclear energy is increased by $23 million above last year. The bill also includes $40 million more than last year to ensure an electric grid that is both reliable and resilient now and into the future. This is a strong bill that will advance our national security interests and our economy. I urge everyone to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.004

Mr. SIMPSON. It is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a good friend of mine, for the purpose of colloquy.

Mr. SIMPSON. With that, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have no more requests for time on general debate and look forward to moving forward on the bill. Like my colleague from Ohio, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 H.R. 2028, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a good friend of mine and a member of the Appropriations Committee. He is the chairman of the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations. Before yielding to Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida, I would like to thank the gentleman for all his tireless work on behalf of the Everglades, truly a remarkable spot. He is a true leader on these issues, and he continues to restore the Everglades to their natural state.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for proposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. But I will tell you it is easy to draft amendments and take money out of the department of the administration--who is not going to be in support of that--and put it to other things. I can tell you this committee has worked hard to address the issues. We know about the drought in California and other places, and we have done a good job in trying to fund this. If the gentleman wants to do this in here and take money out of the department of administration and the committee wants to do it, it is kind of meaningless, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for his strong advocacy for these important cleanup activities. I agree they are probably the most important in this country. I look forward to working with him to ensure that activities at Hanford's tank farms and at the waste treatment plant receive the funding required to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is the same debate we used on the other amendment, so I could just say repeat the same debate. The fact is we are investing in what we use: 85 percent of electricity produced in this country is produced by fossil energies. We invest in that to try to make it more clean. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Why would we walk away from that? We can do it cleaner. We can do it more efficiently, and that is what we are investing in. We are still investing in renewable energies. It is not that we are just ignoring those other things. In fact, we are investing $1.66 billion in those things. Fossil energy that we use much more than we do renewable energies, only investing $605 million in it. So our priorities, I believe, in this bill are in the right place. And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I think it would unbalance the bill, and I would urge the rejection of his amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you for bringing this important issue to the subcommittee's attention. I look forward to working with Ranking Member Kaptur and all of you to support the Nation's light source user facilities as we move forward into conference.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California for inviting me to speak on this important matter. I agree that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill should strive to make our Federal agencies work more efficiently with each other and work together. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a new Member of Congress who has been very active and who has been newly appointed to the Rules Committee for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. SIMPSON

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