Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentlewoman that we have no more speakers, and if the gentlewoman is ready to close, I will close.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work on this bill. She has been a valuable partner in crafting a bill. In trying to address the needs of all Members on both sides of the aisle, obviously you can never address all of them, but I think both the Republican and Democratic members of the committee and of the House ought to be proud of the bill that is before them and our efforts to try to address their desires and their needs. With that, I would encourage all Members to support this legislation. I look forward to the debate on the amendments that are going to be coming up. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment and thank the good lady for offering it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. We will accept the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal restoration. I know it is a high priority for his district, his State, and, in fact, for the country. The committee often hears complaints that projects take too long and cost too much to build, in large part attributed to inefficient funding. If that is true, then the only responsible way to allow for new starts is to finish understanding the impacts of the selected new starts on the Corps' future budget requirements and on the expected costs and timelines of ongoing projects. Unfortunately, we do not have that information, and the administration has shown no willingness to provide it. The fiscal year 2014 act allowed for a limited number of new construction starts, with the requirement that the administration provide information to show that these projects would be affordable at reasonable construction account levels and that these new projects would not unduly delay or increase the cost of ongoing projects. To say that the so-called analysis from the administration was inadequate would be an understatement. And no information at all was provided for the new start proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget request. Additionally, the administration continues to propose budgets with significant cuts to the construction account, including a 32 percent cut for fiscal year 2015. In fact, several individual projects authorized in the recent WRRDA are each estimated to cost more than what the administration requested for the entire nationwide construction program. Clearly, as promising as some new projects may be, it would be fiscally irresponsible to initiate new projects with no information on the impact of doing so. I understand that some Members with authorized projects in their districts are anxious to get construction underway. I also understand, however, that many Members with projects already under construction in their districts want to see those projects completed and to start realizing the benefits of these Federal, State, and local investments. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. First, though, let me assure my colleague that I am sympathetic to the need for increased construction funding. In fact, the underlying bill increases construction funding by almost $50 million above fiscal year 2014 and by almost $600 million, or 52 percent above the budget request. While I understand there is always more that can be done, we could shift the entire expenses account to construction, and there still would be more that needs to be done. Although it may seem like an easy offset here on the floor, Members should recognize that a $50 million cut to the expenses account cannot be sustained in conference. Funding for the expenses account in the underlying bill already reflects a 2 percent reduction from fiscal year 2014 and a 4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2012. For those reasons, I must oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, and I agree with him. It all comes down to funding levels. But I would be more than willing to work with the gentleman to try to see if we could address his concern, which is a concern for all of us, as we move forward into the conference process.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Let me assure my colleague, though, that I agree with him about the importance of making investments in navigation and flood control infrastructure. In fact, a lot of the problem was trying to find an offset for $47 million, and as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult because there are things in this bill that are very important to at least someone within this body. Because of the importance of navigation and flood control, that is why the underlying bill increases funding for MR&T by 6 percent above the President's budget request and focuses funding, such that navigation is increased by 21 percent and flood control by 15 percent above the budget request. While I understand that there is almost always more that can be done, we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and Water bill. The amendment would reduce the EERE account, which is already cut by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million below the President's budget request. So while we did increase funding for the MR&T account above the President's request, the EERE account is already $528 million below the budget's request by the administration. Within the EERE account, the funding the bill preserves is just as important as the funding it cuts. The bill focuses funding for three main priorities: helping American manufacturers remain competitive, supporting weatherization assistance programs, and addressing future high gas prices. This funding supports breakthrough research to reduce what Americans pay at the gas pump and to help our companies compete in the global market, which creates jobs here at home. For these reasons, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do with the amendment and tried to help on crafting an amendment that we can find $47 million for, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition, although I am hopeful that my colleague will withdraw the amendment. First, let me assure the gentleman that I am sympathetic to the issues that he has highlighted in his statement. Adequate water supply, whether it is for agricultural irrigation or municipal or industrial use, is a basic necessity for economic prosperity. In the committee's view, however, navigation and flood control are top priorities for the Corps of Engineers, and the bill before us prioritizes funding accordingly. My colleague from Arkansas has proven to be a strong advocate for his constituents and for the projects that seek to further develop the agricultural irrigation infrastructure important to his constituents. If the gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment, I will agree to work with him, moving forward, to try to address these needs, if additional funding beyond that necessary for navigation and flood control becomes available.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but let me assure my colleagues that I agree with her about the importance of sufficient maintenance of our Nation's water resources infrastructure, including our waterways. It seems like the amendments that Members are offering, I agree with them; however, there are challenges that they face. I also agree that since the harbor maintenance tax is collected for a specific purpose and since the need for dredging is apparent, we should be using these funds for their intended purpose to the greatest extent possible rather than allowing a balance to accumulate in the trust fund. That is an issue we have been dealing with for the last several years, trying to figure out how we can do that without harming all of the other programs within the budget. Unfortunately, that is what they do. Until we change our budget rules or something, and I don't have the answer to it yet, but we have been trying to work with the Budget Committee and with the Appropriations Committee to try to make sure that those taxes collected for the harbor maintenance trust fund are used for what they are intended to do. And if the account is just growing, then we shouldn't be collecting the tax.

Mr. SIMPSON. I know that is what it sounds like. In fact, the bill continues to increase funding for harbor maintenance trust fund activities above the previous year and above the budget request, as the committee has repeatedly done over the past few years. The bill includes more than $1.1 billion for these activities, which equates to more than a 20 percent increase over the amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 2015. While I understand that there is almost always more work that can be done, we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and Water bill. The amendment would reduce the nuclear energy account by $12.8 million, which would bring the account below the fiscal year 2014 level. The underlying bill provides a total of $899 million for nuclear energy programs, only $10 million above last year. That is what seems strange about this, doing what we all think is the right thing to do using the harbor maintenance trust fund to do harbor maintenance. By increasing that, we hurt nuclear energy, which I don't think is the intent of the gentlelady or the gentleman from Louisiana who want to do this. In addition to protecting the Department of Energy's nuclear energy materials, this funding protects a range of national security programs at the NNSA, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies. Furthermore, I oppose the reduced funding for nuclear energy research and development, which is a critical part of this bill's support for a balanced energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently generates 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, and it will continue to play a large role in the future. As I said, I am sympathetic to what the gentlelady is trying to do. In fact, I was cosponsor at one time of a bill by my friend from Louisiana that said you have to use the harbor maintenance trust fund and use it to dredge the harbors. If there is a need out there, we ought to be using that to do it. We need to work together to try to solve this problem. And believe me, it would help us a lot in crafting this bill if somehow we could do that. Otherwise, we shouldn't be collecting the tax if we have a need and the account is growing. But it is because of our budget rules and so forth that it creates this problem. I understand what the gentlelady is doing. Unfortunately, her amendment would hurt the nuclear account and other accounts within the bill which has been the problem in the past. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?